<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_30_0249252</id>
	<title>US-Australia Tensions Rise Over Net Filter</title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1269937920000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>daria42 writes <i>"Tensions between the US Government and its counterpart in Australia appear to be rising over Australia's proposal to filter the internet for objectionable content. <a href="http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/us-concerns-on-stephen-conroy-isp-filter/">The US government has raised its concerns</a> over what it sees as potential censorship directly with the Australian Government. However, last night, Australia's Communications Minister Stephen Conroy <a href="http://delimiter.com.au/2010/03/29/conroy-not-aware-of-us-filter-complaints/">denied he had had any approach</a> from US State Department officials."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>daria42 writes " Tensions between the US Government and its counterpart in Australia appear to be rising over Australia 's proposal to filter the internet for objectionable content .
The US government has raised its concerns over what it sees as potential censorship directly with the Australian Government .
However , last night , Australia 's Communications Minister Stephen Conroy denied he had had any approach from US State Department officials .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>daria42 writes "Tensions between the US Government and its counterpart in Australia appear to be rising over Australia's proposal to filter the internet for objectionable content.
The US government has raised its concerns over what it sees as potential censorship directly with the Australian Government.
However, last night, Australia's Communications Minister Stephen Conroy denied he had had any approach from US State Department officials.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668376</id>
	<title>Tensions Rise?</title>
	<author>RandomFactor</author>
	<datestamp>1269950580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Makes me think we're gonna go to the mat with Australia next...</p><p>Q Hillary, do we like censorship in China?<br>A No<br>Q ok, what about Australia then? (nyah!)<br>A Don't like it there either</p><p>HEADLINE - RISING TENSIONS WITH AUSTRALIA OVER NET CENSORSHIP!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Makes me think we 're gon na go to the mat with Australia next...Q Hillary , do we like censorship in China ? A NoQ ok , what about Australia then ?
( nyah ! ) A Do n't like it there eitherHEADLINE - RISING TENSIONS WITH AUSTRALIA OVER NET CENSORSHIP !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Makes me think we're gonna go to the mat with Australia next...Q Hillary, do we like censorship in China?A NoQ ok, what about Australia then?
(nyah!)A Don't like it there eitherHEADLINE - RISING TENSIONS WITH AUSTRALIA OVER NET CENSORSHIP!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668680</id>
	<title>creators 'tension' rising over mankinds' failures</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269954000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>we're only here to care for one another. how's that going for us? you call this weather?</p><p>never a better time to consult with/trust in your creators, who can, it is said, lower/raise the 'tension' level in the wink of an eye. one of the creators stated goals is protection of the innocent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>we 're only here to care for one another .
how 's that going for us ?
you call this weather ? never a better time to consult with/trust in your creators , who can , it is said , lower/raise the 'tension ' level in the wink of an eye .
one of the creators stated goals is protection of the innocent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we're only here to care for one another.
how's that going for us?
you call this weather?never a better time to consult with/trust in your creators, who can, it is said, lower/raise the 'tension' level in the wink of an eye.
one of the creators stated goals is protection of the innocent.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668310</id>
	<title>Filter works</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269949560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>However, last night, Australia's Communications Minister Stephen Conroy denied he had had any approach from US State Department Officials."</p></div><p>Filter must already be working then</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>However , last night , Australia 's Communications Minister Stephen Conroy denied he had had any approach from US State Department Officials .
" Filter must already be working then</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However, last night, Australia's Communications Minister Stephen Conroy denied he had had any approach from US State Department Officials.
"Filter must already be working then
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31672148</id>
	<title>I'd put money on the filter never happening</title>
	<author>Cimexus</author>
	<datestamp>1269968160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm all for the US Government bringing the matter up with our government. It sounds like this was done respectfully and informally, which is the right way to go when you have one mature democracy dealing with another. They aren't making demands or threats or anything<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... just voicing some concern. An added pressure on Conroy to drop the idea, hopefully. Anti-Americanism is rampant in Australia these days but I hope people can still see that, for its flaws, the US still acts as a positive force in areas such as this.</p><p>Having said that, I still think that there's no way the filter will every make it to the realm of reality. It's so wildly unpopular that I think Conroy is likely to get a tap on the shoulder from others in the Cabinet and be told to quietly drop it. This is an election year after all. Perhaps it might resurface during Rudd's second term (which it seems inevitable he'll get).</p><p>Unpopularity aside, it's a completely useless system anyway. A basic blacklist of perhaps a few hundred URLs. HTTP only. Since when was HTTP the main method of distributing illegal content? (And even if it was<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... proxies, VPNs, blah blah). Again, I think the government will not be wanting to be seen to be wasting money on expensive, ineffectual programs in an election year.</p><p>And even if it does get formally introduced into Parliament I honestly can't see how the Government will get the numbers to get it through the Senate. The Greens and other minority parties will oppose it. The big unknown is the Liberals' official stance on it, but I reckon they will probably oppose it too, as it could be a bit of a vote-getter for them. Abbott, as a Christian, might ~personally~ support it, but that doesn't mean the whole Liberal Party will take that position<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... the Liberals in general are less unified than Labor and more willing to cross the floor for their ideals (see: Malcolm Turnbull et al.). Conroy clearly wants to push it through while Labor is comfortably ahead in the polls, but even now I think it might be too politically risky.</p><p>So as I have done for the last year since this filtering idea arose, I will bide my time and wait. Every time it's been "just about to happen"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... it hasn't. There's still a lot of obstacles ahead for it. And the US' comments here are another useful addition to those obstacles.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm all for the US Government bringing the matter up with our government .
It sounds like this was done respectfully and informally , which is the right way to go when you have one mature democracy dealing with another .
They are n't making demands or threats or anything ... just voicing some concern .
An added pressure on Conroy to drop the idea , hopefully .
Anti-Americanism is rampant in Australia these days but I hope people can still see that , for its flaws , the US still acts as a positive force in areas such as this.Having said that , I still think that there 's no way the filter will every make it to the realm of reality .
It 's so wildly unpopular that I think Conroy is likely to get a tap on the shoulder from others in the Cabinet and be told to quietly drop it .
This is an election year after all .
Perhaps it might resurface during Rudd 's second term ( which it seems inevitable he 'll get ) .Unpopularity aside , it 's a completely useless system anyway .
A basic blacklist of perhaps a few hundred URLs .
HTTP only .
Since when was HTTP the main method of distributing illegal content ?
( And even if it was ... proxies , VPNs , blah blah ) .
Again , I think the government will not be wanting to be seen to be wasting money on expensive , ineffectual programs in an election year.And even if it does get formally introduced into Parliament I honestly ca n't see how the Government will get the numbers to get it through the Senate .
The Greens and other minority parties will oppose it .
The big unknown is the Liberals ' official stance on it , but I reckon they will probably oppose it too , as it could be a bit of a vote-getter for them .
Abbott , as a Christian , might ~ personally ~ support it , but that does n't mean the whole Liberal Party will take that position ... the Liberals in general are less unified than Labor and more willing to cross the floor for their ideals ( see : Malcolm Turnbull et al. ) .
Conroy clearly wants to push it through while Labor is comfortably ahead in the polls , but even now I think it might be too politically risky.So as I have done for the last year since this filtering idea arose , I will bide my time and wait .
Every time it 's been " just about to happen " ... it has n't .
There 's still a lot of obstacles ahead for it .
And the US ' comments here are another useful addition to those obstacles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm all for the US Government bringing the matter up with our government.
It sounds like this was done respectfully and informally, which is the right way to go when you have one mature democracy dealing with another.
They aren't making demands or threats or anything ... just voicing some concern.
An added pressure on Conroy to drop the idea, hopefully.
Anti-Americanism is rampant in Australia these days but I hope people can still see that, for its flaws, the US still acts as a positive force in areas such as this.Having said that, I still think that there's no way the filter will every make it to the realm of reality.
It's so wildly unpopular that I think Conroy is likely to get a tap on the shoulder from others in the Cabinet and be told to quietly drop it.
This is an election year after all.
Perhaps it might resurface during Rudd's second term (which it seems inevitable he'll get).Unpopularity aside, it's a completely useless system anyway.
A basic blacklist of perhaps a few hundred URLs.
HTTP only.
Since when was HTTP the main method of distributing illegal content?
(And even if it was ... proxies, VPNs, blah blah).
Again, I think the government will not be wanting to be seen to be wasting money on expensive, ineffectual programs in an election year.And even if it does get formally introduced into Parliament I honestly can't see how the Government will get the numbers to get it through the Senate.
The Greens and other minority parties will oppose it.
The big unknown is the Liberals' official stance on it, but I reckon they will probably oppose it too, as it could be a bit of a vote-getter for them.
Abbott, as a Christian, might ~personally~ support it, but that doesn't mean the whole Liberal Party will take that position ... the Liberals in general are less unified than Labor and more willing to cross the floor for their ideals (see: Malcolm Turnbull et al.).
Conroy clearly wants to push it through while Labor is comfortably ahead in the polls, but even now I think it might be too politically risky.So as I have done for the last year since this filtering idea arose, I will bide my time and wait.
Every time it's been "just about to happen" ... it hasn't.
There's still a lot of obstacles ahead for it.
And the US' comments here are another useful addition to those obstacles.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668082</id>
	<title>Hypocrisy without bounds....</title>
	<author>rts008</author>
	<datestamp>1269946440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, well, I wouldn't break out the bubbly just yet.</p><p>We [USA] are just waiting for the world to bend over, then we'll goatse you all with ACTA.</p><p>Nothing personal, as we USA citizens are getting gaped also.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , well , I would n't break out the bubbly just yet.We [ USA ] are just waiting for the world to bend over , then we 'll goatse you all with ACTA.Nothing personal , as we USA citizens are getting gaped also .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, well, I wouldn't break out the bubbly just yet.We [USA] are just waiting for the world to bend over, then we'll goatse you all with ACTA.Nothing personal, as we USA citizens are getting gaped also.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31667774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31670640</id>
	<title>Re:diode effect?</title>
	<author>Shihar</author>
	<datestamp>1269964020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The US doesn't block online Casinos.  It has declared them illegal to use and forbidden US companies to deal with them, but you absolutely can get to them via the Intertubes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The US does n't block online Casinos .
It has declared them illegal to use and forbidden US companies to deal with them , but you absolutely can get to them via the Intertubes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US doesn't block online Casinos.
It has declared them illegal to use and forbidden US companies to deal with them, but you absolutely can get to them via the Intertubes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668110</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668940</id>
	<title>Re:These people...</title>
	<author>FatLittleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1269956100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Okay Stephen here is how it works: every time an Australian hits the black list they post the URL on a wiki somewhere so if anybody needs some porn or the libaral party website or whatever they just follow the link from there and access it through a russian VPN? Simple? Okay.</p></div><p>Won't work. ACMA can ban material which links to banned material. So the linker becomes banned, too.</p><p>When the filter trial list wiki-leaked, the wikileak page was banned; and when someone on a chat-site in Aus talked about it and included a link to wikileaks, that was deemed illegal and they got a take-down order. For posting a link to a page with links to pages, some of which had illegal material or links to it.</p><p>Your filter-wiki would just be banned for hosting illegal material. After which even a link to the wiki would get you banned if you're overseas, or taken down if you're local. They can recurse as far as you can. Plus one.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay Stephen here is how it works : every time an Australian hits the black list they post the URL on a wiki somewhere so if anybody needs some porn or the libaral party website or whatever they just follow the link from there and access it through a russian VPN ?
Simple ? Okay.Wo n't work .
ACMA can ban material which links to banned material .
So the linker becomes banned , too.When the filter trial list wiki-leaked , the wikileak page was banned ; and when someone on a chat-site in Aus talked about it and included a link to wikileaks , that was deemed illegal and they got a take-down order .
For posting a link to a page with links to pages , some of which had illegal material or links to it.Your filter-wiki would just be banned for hosting illegal material .
After which even a link to the wiki would get you banned if you 're overseas , or taken down if you 're local .
They can recurse as far as you can .
Plus one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay Stephen here is how it works: every time an Australian hits the black list they post the URL on a wiki somewhere so if anybody needs some porn or the libaral party website or whatever they just follow the link from there and access it through a russian VPN?
Simple? Okay.Won't work.
ACMA can ban material which links to banned material.
So the linker becomes banned, too.When the filter trial list wiki-leaked, the wikileak page was banned; and when someone on a chat-site in Aus talked about it and included a link to wikileaks, that was deemed illegal and they got a take-down order.
For posting a link to a page with links to pages, some of which had illegal material or links to it.Your filter-wiki would just be banned for hosting illegal material.
After which even a link to the wiki would get you banned if you're overseas, or taken down if you're local.
They can recurse as far as you can.
Plus one.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668130</id>
	<title>FYI almost NO ONE here wants this here</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1269946920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Sydney Morning Herald had an informal web poll today with 3 choices: In Favour of filtering, Against filtering, Indifferent. Last I looked at it 96\% had voted against! That's overwhelming. You usually get lots of indifferent here. How this sad man Stephen Conroy can claim to be a representative of the people is beyond me. He is clearly acting against their interests and against their wishes. He's one of few politicians here that's gotten public death threats (not that I could ever condone something as stupid as a death threat). Since he would seek to push ahead despite this he should be sacked. I have no idea if there's a legal provision for it in the Australian constitution (and I doubt there is) but there ought to be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Sydney Morning Herald had an informal web poll today with 3 choices : In Favour of filtering , Against filtering , Indifferent .
Last I looked at it 96 \ % had voted against !
That 's overwhelming .
You usually get lots of indifferent here .
How this sad man Stephen Conroy can claim to be a representative of the people is beyond me .
He is clearly acting against their interests and against their wishes .
He 's one of few politicians here that 's gotten public death threats ( not that I could ever condone something as stupid as a death threat ) .
Since he would seek to push ahead despite this he should be sacked .
I have no idea if there 's a legal provision for it in the Australian constitution ( and I doubt there is ) but there ought to be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Sydney Morning Herald had an informal web poll today with 3 choices: In Favour of filtering, Against filtering, Indifferent.
Last I looked at it 96\% had voted against!
That's overwhelming.
You usually get lots of indifferent here.
How this sad man Stephen Conroy can claim to be a representative of the people is beyond me.
He is clearly acting against their interests and against their wishes.
He's one of few politicians here that's gotten public death threats (not that I could ever condone something as stupid as a death threat).
Since he would seek to push ahead despite this he should be sacked.
I have no idea if there's a legal provision for it in the Australian constitution (and I doubt there is) but there ought to be.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31670780</id>
	<title>Don't do what we're doing!</title>
	<author>KlausBreuer</author>
	<datestamp>1269964380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...or what else are they babbling this time?</p><p>A new entry in Slashdot (a mere six hours later) shows that "The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 passed a Senate panel giving the president unprecedented power to issue a nation-wide blackout or restriction on websites without congressional approval."</p><p>To fight the eeeeeeeevil terrarists, obviously. Why else?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...or what else are they babbling this time ? A new entry in Slashdot ( a mere six hours later ) shows that " The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 passed a Senate panel giving the president unprecedented power to issue a nation-wide blackout or restriction on websites without congressional approval .
" To fight the eeeeeeeevil terrarists , obviously .
Why else ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...or what else are they babbling this time?A new entry in Slashdot (a mere six hours later) shows that "The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 passed a Senate panel giving the president unprecedented power to issue a nation-wide blackout or restriction on websites without congressional approval.
"To fight the eeeeeeeevil terrarists, obviously.
Why else?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668276</id>
	<title>Technical Debate Wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269949020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To all those people who repeat the comment "censoring the internet is technically impossible" - If you are against censorship then say so, rather than saying censor ship won't work for technical reasons.</p><p>The purpose of the internet censorship in Australia is to mirror the existing censorship we have in other media.  I think that makes sense.  However, the opacity of the blacklist is totally unacceptable.  It must be transparent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To all those people who repeat the comment " censoring the internet is technically impossible " - If you are against censorship then say so , rather than saying censor ship wo n't work for technical reasons.The purpose of the internet censorship in Australia is to mirror the existing censorship we have in other media .
I think that makes sense .
However , the opacity of the blacklist is totally unacceptable .
It must be transparent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To all those people who repeat the comment "censoring the internet is technically impossible" - If you are against censorship then say so, rather than saying censor ship won't work for technical reasons.The purpose of the internet censorship in Australia is to mirror the existing censorship we have in other media.
I think that makes sense.
However, the opacity of the blacklist is totally unacceptable.
It must be transparent.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668630</id>
	<title>Australia IS AUSTRALIA (not the U.S..)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269953580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><div class="quote"><p><b>"One branch is expressing concerns about our lovely Internet filter while the other is trying to ram ACTA down our throats. BOTH will have an effect on free speech... neither of them we want."</b> - by Taliesan999 (305690) on Tuesday March 30, @04:38AM (#31667752)</p></div><p>Personally, I feel that our government should take care of ITS OWN (like spurring job creation as job #1 more than ANYTHING), rather than stick its nose into anyplace it has NO PLACE BEING!</p><p>Once more: Australia, IS AUSTRALIA (&amp; not the United States of America) - Thus, the Australians are free to do AS THEY PLEASE, &amp; not what WE tell them to do (who the hell does our gov't. think they are, especially in THIS CASE?).</p><p>I mean, lol - that'd be like me telling you guys, in your OWN HOMES, "what to do &amp; how to live"... yea, right, that'd "go over like a lead balloon".</p><p>So, per my subject-line above? Agreed, 110\%!</p><p>APK</p><p>P.S.=&gt; Additionally, &amp; ESPECIALLY - Above all else:  <b>If this filter of theirs cuts down on KNOWN BAD SITES &amp;/or SERVERS</b> (that serve up malware and other exploits of a system for illegal thievery &amp; control, via for example, botnets)?? <b>YEA, CUT IT OUT! Block lists??? They work!</b></p><p><b>E.G.-&gt; I have been using custom HOSTS files for this, &amp; for ages</b> (since 1997), <b>as well as giving the same HOSTS files to my family &amp; friends - I've watched them go from</b> (not in ALL cases, but many) <b>200++ malware infestations a MONTH, to 1 maybe every other month, tops</b> (&amp; they know where they got their infestations from, usage of javascript on untrusted websites or downloading<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.exe files from a site they do NOT know well either)...</p><p>Heh - 1 pal of mine, a P.I. no less, tested running Windows 2000 without:</p><p>----</p><p>1.) Service Packs or hotfix patches</p><p>2.) Antispyware</p><p>3.) Antivirus</p><p>4.) Firewall</p><p>----</p><p>He had stayed CLEAN too, for months, just by using my custom made HOSTS file!</p><p>HOWEVER - He has a "tendency" to use javascript on sites he has NO IDEA what they're truly about (&amp; javascript IS what hits you this way, a good 99\% of the time &amp; websites like SECUNIA.COM &amp;/or SECURITYFOCUS.COM can attest to this much by reading their content) - this is his downfall, he even admits it to me!</p><p>Thus... he FINALLY turned up a trojan (for the reasons noted above), for the first time in 4 months, yesterday... it was, of all things, a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.reg file (not an executable) that was flagged by AVG as a bogus file (he never clicked on it or loaded it afaik, it was in his webbrowser cache for FireFox).</p><p>SO - <b>Why'd he run "naked" like that list above?</b></p><p><b>Well -  He actually wanted to see how WELL this HOSTS file of mine</b> (811,000 entries currently) <b>worked, &amp; he found out it did, but his own unrestricted usage of javascript indiscriminately got him "hit"... because there really is NO WAY that I could cover every new bad server or site that pops up </b> (because prior to his usage of my custom HOSTS file, he was the one turning up 200++ viruses a month too, by the by)...</p><p>Folks, and new BAD SITES &amp;/or SERVERS?  You may not believe this, but, they pop up, literally, around 100-500 a day!</p><p>(This is the trend I have been seeing since July 2008 in fact, yes, the new ones pop up, that fast... incredible, isn't it?).</p><p>Thank goodness I have RELIABLE &amp; upkept sources vs. them that spot them for me &amp; then I integrate them into my HOSTS file.</p><p>Thus, I rest my case that internet filtering, when done right &amp; FOR THE RIGHT REASONS AGAINST WHAT OUGHT TO BE BLOCKED (malware laden sites for example)?</p><p>Works quite well!</p><p>Now, on the subject of "net filters" again, also - if the usage of such filtering cuts down on the pr0n content (&amp; other lunacy in like kind) kids could get exposed to? Yea, then CUT IT OUT too!</p><p>(Because one way or another, they'll find out about that type of thing, soon enough, just as we all did @ some point.... but, there's no point in allowing it to occur through something as easily controlled as the internet really is in this capacity)... apk</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" One branch is expressing concerns about our lovely Internet filter while the other is trying to ram ACTA down our throats .
BOTH will have an effect on free speech... neither of them we want .
" - by Taliesan999 ( 305690 ) on Tuesday March 30 , @ 04 : 38AM ( # 31667752 ) Personally , I feel that our government should take care of ITS OWN ( like spurring job creation as job # 1 more than ANYTHING ) , rather than stick its nose into anyplace it has NO PLACE BEING ! Once more : Australia , IS AUSTRALIA ( &amp; not the United States of America ) - Thus , the Australians are free to do AS THEY PLEASE , &amp; not what WE tell them to do ( who the hell does our gov't .
think they are , especially in THIS CASE ?
) .I mean , lol - that 'd be like me telling you guys , in your OWN HOMES , " what to do &amp; how to live " ... yea , right , that 'd " go over like a lead balloon " .So , per my subject-line above ?
Agreed , 110 \ % ! APKP.S. = &gt; Additionally , &amp; ESPECIALLY - Above all else : If this filter of theirs cuts down on KNOWN BAD SITES &amp;/or SERVERS ( that serve up malware and other exploits of a system for illegal thievery &amp; control , via for example , botnets ) ? ?
YEA , CUT IT OUT !
Block lists ? ? ?
They work ! E.G.- &gt; I have been using custom HOSTS files for this , &amp; for ages ( since 1997 ) , as well as giving the same HOSTS files to my family &amp; friends - I 've watched them go from ( not in ALL cases , but many ) 200 + + malware infestations a MONTH , to 1 maybe every other month , tops ( &amp; they know where they got their infestations from , usage of javascript on untrusted websites or downloading .exe files from a site they do NOT know well either ) ...Heh - 1 pal of mine , a P.I .
no less , tested running Windows 2000 without : ----1 .
) Service Packs or hotfix patches2 .
) Antispyware3 .
) Antivirus4 .
) Firewall----He had stayed CLEAN too , for months , just by using my custom made HOSTS file ! HOWEVER - He has a " tendency " to use javascript on sites he has NO IDEA what they 're truly about ( &amp; javascript IS what hits you this way , a good 99 \ % of the time &amp; websites like SECUNIA.COM &amp;/or SECURITYFOCUS.COM can attest to this much by reading their content ) - this is his downfall , he even admits it to me ! Thus... he FINALLY turned up a trojan ( for the reasons noted above ) , for the first time in 4 months , yesterday... it was , of all things , a .reg file ( not an executable ) that was flagged by AVG as a bogus file ( he never clicked on it or loaded it afaik , it was in his webbrowser cache for FireFox ) .SO - Why 'd he run " naked " like that list above ? Well - He actually wanted to see how WELL this HOSTS file of mine ( 811,000 entries currently ) worked , &amp; he found out it did , but his own unrestricted usage of javascript indiscriminately got him " hit " ... because there really is NO WAY that I could cover every new bad server or site that pops up ( because prior to his usage of my custom HOSTS file , he was the one turning up 200 + + viruses a month too , by the by ) ...Folks , and new BAD SITES &amp;/or SERVERS ?
You may not believe this , but , they pop up , literally , around 100-500 a day !
( This is the trend I have been seeing since July 2008 in fact , yes , the new ones pop up , that fast... incredible , is n't it ?
) .Thank goodness I have RELIABLE &amp; upkept sources vs. them that spot them for me &amp; then I integrate them into my HOSTS file.Thus , I rest my case that internet filtering , when done right &amp; FOR THE RIGHT REASONS AGAINST WHAT OUGHT TO BE BLOCKED ( malware laden sites for example ) ? Works quite well ! Now , on the subject of " net filters " again , also - if the usage of such filtering cuts down on the pr0n content ( &amp; other lunacy in like kind ) kids could get exposed to ?
Yea , then CUT IT OUT too !
( Because one way or another , they 'll find out about that type of thing , soon enough , just as we all did @ some point.... but , there 's no point in allowing it to occur through something as easily controlled as the internet really is in this capacity ) ... apk</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"One branch is expressing concerns about our lovely Internet filter while the other is trying to ram ACTA down our throats.
BOTH will have an effect on free speech... neither of them we want.
" - by Taliesan999 (305690) on Tuesday March 30, @04:38AM (#31667752)Personally, I feel that our government should take care of ITS OWN (like spurring job creation as job #1 more than ANYTHING), rather than stick its nose into anyplace it has NO PLACE BEING!Once more: Australia, IS AUSTRALIA (&amp; not the United States of America) - Thus, the Australians are free to do AS THEY PLEASE, &amp; not what WE tell them to do (who the hell does our gov't.
think they are, especially in THIS CASE?
).I mean, lol - that'd be like me telling you guys, in your OWN HOMES, "what to do &amp; how to live"... yea, right, that'd "go over like a lead balloon".So, per my subject-line above?
Agreed, 110\%!APKP.S.=&gt; Additionally, &amp; ESPECIALLY - Above all else:  If this filter of theirs cuts down on KNOWN BAD SITES &amp;/or SERVERS (that serve up malware and other exploits of a system for illegal thievery &amp; control, via for example, botnets)??
YEA, CUT IT OUT!
Block lists???
They work!E.G.-&gt; I have been using custom HOSTS files for this, &amp; for ages (since 1997), as well as giving the same HOSTS files to my family &amp; friends - I've watched them go from (not in ALL cases, but many) 200++ malware infestations a MONTH, to 1 maybe every other month, tops (&amp; they know where they got their infestations from, usage of javascript on untrusted websites or downloading .exe files from a site they do NOT know well either)...Heh - 1 pal of mine, a P.I.
no less, tested running Windows 2000 without:----1.
) Service Packs or hotfix patches2.
) Antispyware3.
) Antivirus4.
) Firewall----He had stayed CLEAN too, for months, just by using my custom made HOSTS file!HOWEVER - He has a "tendency" to use javascript on sites he has NO IDEA what they're truly about (&amp; javascript IS what hits you this way, a good 99\% of the time &amp; websites like SECUNIA.COM &amp;/or SECURITYFOCUS.COM can attest to this much by reading their content) - this is his downfall, he even admits it to me!Thus... he FINALLY turned up a trojan (for the reasons noted above), for the first time in 4 months, yesterday... it was, of all things, a .reg file (not an executable) that was flagged by AVG as a bogus file (he never clicked on it or loaded it afaik, it was in his webbrowser cache for FireFox).SO - Why'd he run "naked" like that list above?Well -  He actually wanted to see how WELL this HOSTS file of mine (811,000 entries currently) worked, &amp; he found out it did, but his own unrestricted usage of javascript indiscriminately got him "hit"... because there really is NO WAY that I could cover every new bad server or site that pops up  (because prior to his usage of my custom HOSTS file, he was the one turning up 200++ viruses a month too, by the by)...Folks, and new BAD SITES &amp;/or SERVERS?
You may not believe this, but, they pop up, literally, around 100-500 a day!
(This is the trend I have been seeing since July 2008 in fact, yes, the new ones pop up, that fast... incredible, isn't it?
).Thank goodness I have RELIABLE &amp; upkept sources vs. them that spot them for me &amp; then I integrate them into my HOSTS file.Thus, I rest my case that internet filtering, when done right &amp; FOR THE RIGHT REASONS AGAINST WHAT OUGHT TO BE BLOCKED (malware laden sites for example)?Works quite well!Now, on the subject of "net filters" again, also - if the usage of such filtering cuts down on the pr0n content (&amp; other lunacy in like kind) kids could get exposed to?
Yea, then CUT IT OUT too!
(Because one way or another, they'll find out about that type of thing, soon enough, just as we all did @ some point.... but, there's no point in allowing it to occur through something as easily controlled as the internet really is in this capacity)... apk
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31667752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31670442</id>
	<title>Re:Both of them are missing the point entirely</title>
	<author>chrb</author>
	<datestamp>1269963360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Successfully filtering the net is impossible</p></div><p>That depends on what your definition of "success" is. Successfully filtering the net completely - so that no single person is ever able to access some forbidden information even once - may well be impossible. However, filtering the net enough to be effective in manipulating the views of an entire population is entirely possible. I have met Chinese students who have been raised behind the "Great Firewall" and who had never heard of the Tiananmen Square protests until they relocated to the West. People who were convinced that the Chinese model of government was the best because (quote) "you vote and sometimes pick the wrong people. We select so we always get the best people." People who did not know that China had invaded Tibet (quote) "of course Tibet is part of China! (laughs) Tibet has always been part of China!"</p><p>These were intelligent, well-read students - why had they never heard of Tianamen Square? I imagine that making it illegal to publish information about the event, and imposing a firewall between the population and countries where it is legal to talk about the event, had a huge part to play in this. Censorship isn't an all or nothing thing - here in the West we censor certain types of pornography, and yet people who really want to find that content still find a way. Does that mean that this censorship is pointless? Not at all - because the behaviour of a population is not a binary event. Instead, consider what proportion of the population would view some content were it legal and unrestricted, versus what proportion would if it were illegal and banned completely. Clearly, if a law is actually enforced, then the legal consequences of accessing that content are going to dissuade at least a few people - possibly more than a few. And we know that this is the reality, because some well educated Chinese people have not heard of Tianamen Square, and the ones that have often don't believe it happened. Propaganda doesn't have to convince everybody in order to be deemed successful - just enough people.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Successfully filtering the net is impossibleThat depends on what your definition of " success " is .
Successfully filtering the net completely - so that no single person is ever able to access some forbidden information even once - may well be impossible .
However , filtering the net enough to be effective in manipulating the views of an entire population is entirely possible .
I have met Chinese students who have been raised behind the " Great Firewall " and who had never heard of the Tiananmen Square protests until they relocated to the West .
People who were convinced that the Chinese model of government was the best because ( quote ) " you vote and sometimes pick the wrong people .
We select so we always get the best people .
" People who did not know that China had invaded Tibet ( quote ) " of course Tibet is part of China !
( laughs ) Tibet has always been part of China !
" These were intelligent , well-read students - why had they never heard of Tianamen Square ?
I imagine that making it illegal to publish information about the event , and imposing a firewall between the population and countries where it is legal to talk about the event , had a huge part to play in this .
Censorship is n't an all or nothing thing - here in the West we censor certain types of pornography , and yet people who really want to find that content still find a way .
Does that mean that this censorship is pointless ?
Not at all - because the behaviour of a population is not a binary event .
Instead , consider what proportion of the population would view some content were it legal and unrestricted , versus what proportion would if it were illegal and banned completely .
Clearly , if a law is actually enforced , then the legal consequences of accessing that content are going to dissuade at least a few people - possibly more than a few .
And we know that this is the reality , because some well educated Chinese people have not heard of Tianamen Square , and the ones that have often do n't believe it happened .
Propaganda does n't have to convince everybody in order to be deemed successful - just enough people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Successfully filtering the net is impossibleThat depends on what your definition of "success" is.
Successfully filtering the net completely - so that no single person is ever able to access some forbidden information even once - may well be impossible.
However, filtering the net enough to be effective in manipulating the views of an entire population is entirely possible.
I have met Chinese students who have been raised behind the "Great Firewall" and who had never heard of the Tiananmen Square protests until they relocated to the West.
People who were convinced that the Chinese model of government was the best because (quote) "you vote and sometimes pick the wrong people.
We select so we always get the best people.
" People who did not know that China had invaded Tibet (quote) "of course Tibet is part of China!
(laughs) Tibet has always been part of China!
"These were intelligent, well-read students - why had they never heard of Tianamen Square?
I imagine that making it illegal to publish information about the event, and imposing a firewall between the population and countries where it is legal to talk about the event, had a huge part to play in this.
Censorship isn't an all or nothing thing - here in the West we censor certain types of pornography, and yet people who really want to find that content still find a way.
Does that mean that this censorship is pointless?
Not at all - because the behaviour of a population is not a binary event.
Instead, consider what proportion of the population would view some content were it legal and unrestricted, versus what proportion would if it were illegal and banned completely.
Clearly, if a law is actually enforced, then the legal consequences of accessing that content are going to dissuade at least a few people - possibly more than a few.
And we know that this is the reality, because some well educated Chinese people have not heard of Tianamen Square, and the ones that have often don't believe it happened.
Propaganda doesn't have to convince everybody in order to be deemed successful - just enough people.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31667770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668056</id>
	<title>The Cultural Exception: Preventing US Toxic Waste</title>
	<author>hughbar</author>
	<datestamp>1269945960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Certain countries, including Australia support the <a href="http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&amp;sl=fr&amp;u=http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception\_culturelle&amp;ei=OcKxS4HWBZe80gTml62uBA&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=translate&amp;ct=result&amp;resnum=1&amp;ved=0CA4Q7gEwAA&amp;prev=/search\%3Fq\%3Dexception\%2Bculturelle\%26hl\%3Den" title="google.co.uk" rel="nofollow">Cultural Exception</a> [google.co.uk]
<br> <br>
I lived in France for 20 years, also a supporter of this, I wish we did in UK. In France, it meant that the continuous diet of brainless, braindead violent programmes and 'rich people behaving nauseously' (Beverly Hills xxxxxx) were present, but in limited quantity, There were and are a lot of local cops shows, Julie Lescaut, for example, more connected with the indigenous culture.
<br> <br>
Finally, I have family in the West Indies and when the island switched from BBC to US channels (anecdotally, but many people said it) violence increased.
<br> <br>
I know I'll get a lot of hate for posting this, but there is a category of cultural toxic waste and it does modify behaviour, however much we wish it didn't.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Certain countries , including Australia support the Cultural Exception [ google.co.uk ] I lived in France for 20 years , also a supporter of this , I wish we did in UK .
In France , it meant that the continuous diet of brainless , braindead violent programmes and 'rich people behaving nauseously ' ( Beverly Hills xxxxxx ) were present , but in limited quantity , There were and are a lot of local cops shows , Julie Lescaut , for example , more connected with the indigenous culture .
Finally , I have family in the West Indies and when the island switched from BBC to US channels ( anecdotally , but many people said it ) violence increased .
I know I 'll get a lot of hate for posting this , but there is a category of cultural toxic waste and it does modify behaviour , however much we wish it did n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Certain countries, including Australia support the Cultural Exception [google.co.uk]
 
I lived in France for 20 years, also a supporter of this, I wish we did in UK.
In France, it meant that the continuous diet of brainless, braindead violent programmes and 'rich people behaving nauseously' (Beverly Hills xxxxxx) were present, but in limited quantity, There were and are a lot of local cops shows, Julie Lescaut, for example, more connected with the indigenous culture.
Finally, I have family in the West Indies and when the island switched from BBC to US channels (anecdotally, but many people said it) violence increased.
I know I'll get a lot of hate for posting this, but there is a category of cultural toxic waste and it does modify behaviour, however much we wish it didn't.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668290</id>
	<title>Re:Both of them are missing the point entirely</title>
	<author>srjh</author>
	<datestamp>1269949200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it's extremely unlikely that Stephen Conroy isn't aware of this simple truth.</p><p>It's being pushed through for the same reason most policies are pushed through by governments -- because they think there is political capital to be gained in doing so. While I'm unsure whether their assumption is accurate, there is no way it would have come to this point without extensive focus group testing and behind-the-scenes calculations of exactly what they have to gain.</p><p>On the other hand, I'm struggling to see how it's a vote winner. It's not so much the level of support it has that counts, but how many votes are likely to be changed on this issue alone. Many of the strongest opponents of the filter are young, educated, tech-literate Labor voters and I have no doubt the policy is going to cost them dearly in that demographic. The strongest supporters of the filter are right-wing religious fundamentalists who are unlikely to vote Labor anyway, particularly with "Mad Monk" Abbott leading the Liberals (the Liberals are the conservative party for our foreign readers... go figure).</p><p>Which leaves lukewarm support amongst parents and others who aren't strongly involved, but two minutes conversing with them makes it clear that the policy they support isn't the one the government is proposing. Every time this comes up for discussion on talkback radio, blogs, letters to the editor and other forms of public commentary, it's the same arguments over and over. "I want the internet to be safe for my ten-year-old when I'm not around", "the government needs to do something about all this porn on YouTube", "I caught my son looking at hard core pornography", "there's too much porn on the internet". These people are going to be extremely disappointed when they realise that R-rated and X-rated material (i.e. up to and including hard core pornography) falls outside the scope of the filter, and that out of the trillion or so urls on the intertubes, only about a thousand will be blocked (i.e. about  0.0000001 \% of the internet, and as most are probably aware, slightly more than that figure is currently porn). It doesn't even attempt to remove porn from the internet, let alone entertain the delusion that it is even remotely possible.</p><p>To those people, I keep saying it's like mandating the hiring of a babysitter who lets the kids drink, smoke, play with knives and have sex, but who is required to hang around and baby-sit Mum and Dad in their bedroom when the kids are asleep. Thankfully this is finally starting to gain some attention, and those pushing for the porn filter will realise this is nothing of the sort. Whether the U.S. Government's involvement in that helps or hinders our cause, I'm not too sure, but if it was important enough to the U.S., I'm sure a behind-the-scenes phone call or two would have it dropped in no time.</p><p>I really hope the minor parties (e.g. Pirate Party, Democrats, Greens and the Sex Party) clean up next election over this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's extremely unlikely that Stephen Conroy is n't aware of this simple truth.It 's being pushed through for the same reason most policies are pushed through by governments -- because they think there is political capital to be gained in doing so .
While I 'm unsure whether their assumption is accurate , there is no way it would have come to this point without extensive focus group testing and behind-the-scenes calculations of exactly what they have to gain.On the other hand , I 'm struggling to see how it 's a vote winner .
It 's not so much the level of support it has that counts , but how many votes are likely to be changed on this issue alone .
Many of the strongest opponents of the filter are young , educated , tech-literate Labor voters and I have no doubt the policy is going to cost them dearly in that demographic .
The strongest supporters of the filter are right-wing religious fundamentalists who are unlikely to vote Labor anyway , particularly with " Mad Monk " Abbott leading the Liberals ( the Liberals are the conservative party for our foreign readers... go figure ) .Which leaves lukewarm support amongst parents and others who are n't strongly involved , but two minutes conversing with them makes it clear that the policy they support is n't the one the government is proposing .
Every time this comes up for discussion on talkback radio , blogs , letters to the editor and other forms of public commentary , it 's the same arguments over and over .
" I want the internet to be safe for my ten-year-old when I 'm not around " , " the government needs to do something about all this porn on YouTube " , " I caught my son looking at hard core pornography " , " there 's too much porn on the internet " .
These people are going to be extremely disappointed when they realise that R-rated and X-rated material ( i.e .
up to and including hard core pornography ) falls outside the scope of the filter , and that out of the trillion or so urls on the intertubes , only about a thousand will be blocked ( i.e .
about 0.0000001 \ % of the internet , and as most are probably aware , slightly more than that figure is currently porn ) .
It does n't even attempt to remove porn from the internet , let alone entertain the delusion that it is even remotely possible.To those people , I keep saying it 's like mandating the hiring of a babysitter who lets the kids drink , smoke , play with knives and have sex , but who is required to hang around and baby-sit Mum and Dad in their bedroom when the kids are asleep .
Thankfully this is finally starting to gain some attention , and those pushing for the porn filter will realise this is nothing of the sort .
Whether the U.S. Government 's involvement in that helps or hinders our cause , I 'm not too sure , but if it was important enough to the U.S. , I 'm sure a behind-the-scenes phone call or two would have it dropped in no time.I really hope the minor parties ( e.g .
Pirate Party , Democrats , Greens and the Sex Party ) clean up next election over this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's extremely unlikely that Stephen Conroy isn't aware of this simple truth.It's being pushed through for the same reason most policies are pushed through by governments -- because they think there is political capital to be gained in doing so.
While I'm unsure whether their assumption is accurate, there is no way it would have come to this point without extensive focus group testing and behind-the-scenes calculations of exactly what they have to gain.On the other hand, I'm struggling to see how it's a vote winner.
It's not so much the level of support it has that counts, but how many votes are likely to be changed on this issue alone.
Many of the strongest opponents of the filter are young, educated, tech-literate Labor voters and I have no doubt the policy is going to cost them dearly in that demographic.
The strongest supporters of the filter are right-wing religious fundamentalists who are unlikely to vote Labor anyway, particularly with "Mad Monk" Abbott leading the Liberals (the Liberals are the conservative party for our foreign readers... go figure).Which leaves lukewarm support amongst parents and others who aren't strongly involved, but two minutes conversing with them makes it clear that the policy they support isn't the one the government is proposing.
Every time this comes up for discussion on talkback radio, blogs, letters to the editor and other forms of public commentary, it's the same arguments over and over.
"I want the internet to be safe for my ten-year-old when I'm not around", "the government needs to do something about all this porn on YouTube", "I caught my son looking at hard core pornography", "there's too much porn on the internet".
These people are going to be extremely disappointed when they realise that R-rated and X-rated material (i.e.
up to and including hard core pornography) falls outside the scope of the filter, and that out of the trillion or so urls on the intertubes, only about a thousand will be blocked (i.e.
about  0.0000001 \% of the internet, and as most are probably aware, slightly more than that figure is currently porn).
It doesn't even attempt to remove porn from the internet, let alone entertain the delusion that it is even remotely possible.To those people, I keep saying it's like mandating the hiring of a babysitter who lets the kids drink, smoke, play with knives and have sex, but who is required to hang around and baby-sit Mum and Dad in their bedroom when the kids are asleep.
Thankfully this is finally starting to gain some attention, and those pushing for the porn filter will realise this is nothing of the sort.
Whether the U.S. Government's involvement in that helps or hinders our cause, I'm not too sure, but if it was important enough to the U.S., I'm sure a behind-the-scenes phone call or two would have it dropped in no time.I really hope the minor parties (e.g.
Pirate Party, Democrats, Greens and the Sex Party) clean up next election over this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31667770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31671764</id>
	<title>Re:Since every other story is Australian...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269967140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, whirlpool.net.au fits the bill quite well already, although its scope is not as wide as Slashdot. I read and post on both. The point of the internet is to create global discussion, not partition everyone off into their own country.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , whirlpool.net.au fits the bill quite well already , although its scope is not as wide as Slashdot .
I read and post on both .
The point of the internet is to create global discussion , not partition everyone off into their own country .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, whirlpool.net.au fits the bill quite well already, although its scope is not as wide as Slashdot.
I read and post on both.
The point of the internet is to create global discussion, not partition everyone off into their own country.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31671112</id>
	<title>Re:FYI almost NO ONE here wants this here</title>
	<author>zuperduperman</author>
	<datestamp>1269965400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem is that web site polls are massively biased towards tech savvy people who understand what a load of rubbish this idea is.   When they do more general polls they come up with 70\% in favor.  I really hope that it starts to change as people understand more of the details of the filter policy and just how bad it is (it's not just generically bad - it's bad even amongst censorship policies.  Even people in favor of internet censorship should oppose this particular version of it).</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that web site polls are massively biased towards tech savvy people who understand what a load of rubbish this idea is .
When they do more general polls they come up with 70 \ % in favor .
I really hope that it starts to change as people understand more of the details of the filter policy and just how bad it is ( it 's not just generically bad - it 's bad even amongst censorship policies .
Even people in favor of internet censorship should oppose this particular version of it ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that web site polls are massively biased towards tech savvy people who understand what a load of rubbish this idea is.
When they do more general polls they come up with 70\% in favor.
I really hope that it starts to change as people understand more of the details of the filter policy and just how bad it is (it's not just generically bad - it's bad even amongst censorship policies.
Even people in favor of internet censorship should oppose this particular version of it).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668560</id>
	<title>Re:Since every other story is Australian...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269952680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is pretty insane. I'm australian and nothing happens in this country (especially perth, the city I am from) so I am<br>pretty sensitive to Aus-in-the-news. It just doesn't happen that often. Full stop, so where the hell you are getting this<br>aus-in-the-news hate from, I have no idea. And if you are american, that is pretty. fucking. rich. We get more american<br>culture here than anywhere else. We used to be half-british on that front, but it's getting more and more american in aus<br>than ever, so forgive me if you get a smidge of our news back. You can shove the attitude up your ass, why ever the hell<br>you hate it - i can not figure out. Did an australian kill your dog?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is pretty insane .
I 'm australian and nothing happens in this country ( especially perth , the city I am from ) so I ampretty sensitive to Aus-in-the-news .
It just does n't happen that often .
Full stop , so where the hell you are getting thisaus-in-the-news hate from , I have no idea .
And if you are american , that is pretty .
fucking. rich .
We get more americanculture here than anywhere else .
We used to be half-british on that front , but it 's getting more and more american in austhan ever , so forgive me if you get a smidge of our news back .
You can shove the attitude up your ass , why ever the hellyou hate it - i can not figure out .
Did an australian kill your dog ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is pretty insane.
I'm australian and nothing happens in this country (especially perth, the city I am from) so I ampretty sensitive to Aus-in-the-news.
It just doesn't happen that often.
Full stop, so where the hell you are getting thisaus-in-the-news hate from, I have no idea.
And if you are american, that is pretty.
fucking. rich.
We get more americanculture here than anywhere else.
We used to be half-british on that front, but it's getting more and more american in austhan ever, so forgive me if you get a smidge of our news back.
You can shove the attitude up your ass, why ever the hellyou hate it - i can not figure out.
Did an australian kill your dog?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668070</id>
	<title>These people...</title>
	<author>MichaelSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1269946140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Today in The Age: <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/government-goes-to-war-with-google-over-net-censorship-20100330-r9bp.html" title="theage.com.au">Government goes to war with Google over net censorship</a> [theage.com.au] </p><p><div class="quote"><p>Senator Conroy has conceded that greater transparency is needed in terms of how content ends up on the blacklist, but last night he again refused to make the blacklist itself public, saying it would provide people instant access to the banned material.</p></div><p>Okay Stephen here is how it works: every time an Australian hits the black list they post the URL on a wiki somewhere so if anybody needs some porn or the libaral party website or whatever they just follow the link from there and access it through a russian VPN? Simple? Okay.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Today in The Age : Government goes to war with Google over net censorship [ theage.com.au ] Senator Conroy has conceded that greater transparency is needed in terms of how content ends up on the blacklist , but last night he again refused to make the blacklist itself public , saying it would provide people instant access to the banned material.Okay Stephen here is how it works : every time an Australian hits the black list they post the URL on a wiki somewhere so if anybody needs some porn or the libaral party website or whatever they just follow the link from there and access it through a russian VPN ?
Simple ? Okay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Today in The Age: Government goes to war with Google over net censorship [theage.com.au] Senator Conroy has conceded that greater transparency is needed in terms of how content ends up on the blacklist, but last night he again refused to make the blacklist itself public, saying it would provide people instant access to the banned material.Okay Stephen here is how it works: every time an Australian hits the black list they post the URL on a wiki somewhere so if anybody needs some porn or the libaral party website or whatever they just follow the link from there and access it through a russian VPN?
Simple? Okay.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31670032</id>
	<title>Current ACMA Internet Filtering Rules</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269962040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>As recommended by the Computer Science department of the University of Walamaloo:<br>
<br>
1. No pooftah sites.<br>
2. No sites advocating the maltreat of the "abbos" in any way whatsoever, especially if there's video - unless the site is password protected.<br>
3. No pooftah sites.<br>
4. No sites that do *not* advocate late-night drinking.<br>
5. No pooftah sites.<br>
6. There is *no* rule six.<br>
7. No pooftah sites.<br> <br>
Australia, Australia, Australia, Australia, we love you! Amen!</htmltext>
<tokenext>As recommended by the Computer Science department of the University of Walamaloo : 1 .
No pooftah sites .
2. No sites advocating the maltreat of the " abbos " in any way whatsoever , especially if there 's video - unless the site is password protected .
3. No pooftah sites .
4. No sites that do * not * advocate late-night drinking .
5. No pooftah sites .
6. There is * no * rule six .
7. No pooftah sites .
Australia , Australia , Australia , Australia , we love you !
Amen !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As recommended by the Computer Science department of the University of Walamaloo:

1.
No pooftah sites.
2. No sites advocating the maltreat of the "abbos" in any way whatsoever, especially if there's video - unless the site is password protected.
3. No pooftah sites.
4. No sites that do *not* advocate late-night drinking.
5. No pooftah sites.
6. There is *no* rule six.
7. No pooftah sites.
Australia, Australia, Australia, Australia, we love you!
Amen!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668774</id>
	<title>Potential censorship?</title>
	<author>scdeimos</author>
	<datestamp>1269954780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't want censorship at all. But I think it's hilarious that America, which is so censored that it can't even show boobies on television (nipples, specifically), is telling Australia that it shouldn't be censoring things.</p><p>There was an article posted only a couple of days ago that essentially said <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/03/26/1824239" title="slashdot.org">censorship is harmful to democracy</a> [slashdot.org]. Maybe both the US and Australian governments should get out of censorship altogether, lest they wind up like China.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't want censorship at all .
But I think it 's hilarious that America , which is so censored that it ca n't even show boobies on television ( nipples , specifically ) , is telling Australia that it should n't be censoring things.There was an article posted only a couple of days ago that essentially said censorship is harmful to democracy [ slashdot.org ] .
Maybe both the US and Australian governments should get out of censorship altogether , lest they wind up like China .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't want censorship at all.
But I think it's hilarious that America, which is so censored that it can't even show boobies on television (nipples, specifically), is telling Australia that it shouldn't be censoring things.There was an article posted only a couple of days ago that essentially said censorship is harmful to democracy [slashdot.org].
Maybe both the US and Australian governments should get out of censorship altogether, lest they wind up like China.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31672084</id>
	<title>Re:Remarkable...</title>
	<author>Bigjeff5</author>
	<datestamp>1269968040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The US has no nationwide government filtering of any kind, period.  There is nothing available on the internet that I can't get to.</p><p>All government sponsored internet filtering there is exists at the state and local level, and only within schools and libraries (it's always "for the children").  Even some of that is getting pushed back, libraries in particular.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The US has no nationwide government filtering of any kind , period .
There is nothing available on the internet that I ca n't get to.All government sponsored internet filtering there is exists at the state and local level , and only within schools and libraries ( it 's always " for the children " ) .
Even some of that is getting pushed back , libraries in particular .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US has no nationwide government filtering of any kind, period.
There is nothing available on the internet that I can't get to.All government sponsored internet filtering there is exists at the state and local level, and only within schools and libraries (it's always "for the children").
Even some of that is getting pushed back, libraries in particular.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31667910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31682728</id>
	<title>Re:FYI almost NO ONE here wants this here</title>
	<author>rdnetto</author>
	<datestamp>1269969060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I have no idea if there's a legal provision for it in the Australian constitution (and I doubt there is) but there ought to be.</p></div><p>There won't be. The Australian constitution doesn't have a bill of rights like the US does. There are some acts (e.g. the Victorian Charter of Human Rights) but they're more like guidelines then rules.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have no idea if there 's a legal provision for it in the Australian constitution ( and I doubt there is ) but there ought to be.There wo n't be .
The Australian constitution does n't have a bill of rights like the US does .
There are some acts ( e.g .
the Victorian Charter of Human Rights ) but they 're more like guidelines then rules .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have no idea if there's a legal provision for it in the Australian constitution (and I doubt there is) but there ought to be.There won't be.
The Australian constitution doesn't have a bill of rights like the US does.
There are some acts (e.g.
the Victorian Charter of Human Rights) but they're more like guidelines then rules.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31671160</id>
	<title>Re:Potential censorship?</title>
	<author>zuperduperman</author>
	<datestamp>1269965520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You have no idea what you are talking about.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You have no idea what you are talking about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have no idea what you are talking about.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668728</id>
	<title>Perhaps the yanks should tone down their 'concerns</title>
	<author>WinstonWolfIT</author>
	<datestamp>1269954420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Apparently the minister didn't receive the objection via e-mail because the obscenity-laced rant didn't get through the Aussie filter.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apparently the minister did n't receive the objection via e-mail because the obscenity-laced rant did n't get through the Aussie filter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apparently the minister didn't receive the objection via e-mail because the obscenity-laced rant didn't get through the Aussie filter.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31669016</id>
	<title>Re:Remarkable...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269956640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've read this before here... what filtering/censoring takes place in the USA? Obviously some people think that there is some sort of government filtering being done but I've never read a slashdot article about it... was it filtered?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've read this before here... what filtering/censoring takes place in the USA ?
Obviously some people think that there is some sort of government filtering being done but I 've never read a slashdot article about it... was it filtered ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've read this before here... what filtering/censoring takes place in the USA?
Obviously some people think that there is some sort of government filtering being done but I've never read a slashdot article about it... was it filtered?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31667910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668026</id>
	<title>Really hope they kick up as much fuss as China</title>
	<author>rubenerd</author>
	<datestamp>1269945540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This news isn't on the scale of Google redirecting mainland Chinese search results to Google.cn but has more in common than Senator Conroy here in Australia would like people to think. Wait, no, that isn't even right, he's <a href="http://rubenerd.com/conroy-aussie-firewall-china/" title="rubenerd.com" rel="nofollow">openly compared</a> [rubenerd.com] the proposed Great Firewall of Australia to the filters in China.</p><p>When Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and Federal Labor won the last election and Barack Obama and the Democrats won the elections in the US, Australian newspapers reported their first meetings as being one with kindred spirits, in much of the same way as George Bush and John Howard. This filter is perhaps the first large(ish) crack in this relationship, and I'm really hoping the Americans kick up as much of a fuss about Australia's laws as China's if the filter in Australia goes through.</p><p>The problem for the voting public here is in our version of the two party system, the opposition are considered the more conservative party, and its new Christian far-right leader Tony Abbott has been fairly silent on the whole issue. One can imagine he supports it in spirit but doesn't want to seem as though he's agreeing with Labor. Either way, we're royally stuffed.</p><p>In the meantime if you're an Aussie, don't forget the Electronic Frontiers Australia is <a href="http://www.efa.org.au/support2010/" title="efa.org.au" rel="nofollow">accepting donations</a> [efa.org.au] for their Open Internet campaign.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This news is n't on the scale of Google redirecting mainland Chinese search results to Google.cn but has more in common than Senator Conroy here in Australia would like people to think .
Wait , no , that is n't even right , he 's openly compared [ rubenerd.com ] the proposed Great Firewall of Australia to the filters in China.When Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and Federal Labor won the last election and Barack Obama and the Democrats won the elections in the US , Australian newspapers reported their first meetings as being one with kindred spirits , in much of the same way as George Bush and John Howard .
This filter is perhaps the first large ( ish ) crack in this relationship , and I 'm really hoping the Americans kick up as much of a fuss about Australia 's laws as China 's if the filter in Australia goes through.The problem for the voting public here is in our version of the two party system , the opposition are considered the more conservative party , and its new Christian far-right leader Tony Abbott has been fairly silent on the whole issue .
One can imagine he supports it in spirit but does n't want to seem as though he 's agreeing with Labor .
Either way , we 're royally stuffed.In the meantime if you 're an Aussie , do n't forget the Electronic Frontiers Australia is accepting donations [ efa.org.au ] for their Open Internet campaign .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This news isn't on the scale of Google redirecting mainland Chinese search results to Google.cn but has more in common than Senator Conroy here in Australia would like people to think.
Wait, no, that isn't even right, he's openly compared [rubenerd.com] the proposed Great Firewall of Australia to the filters in China.When Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and Federal Labor won the last election and Barack Obama and the Democrats won the elections in the US, Australian newspapers reported their first meetings as being one with kindred spirits, in much of the same way as George Bush and John Howard.
This filter is perhaps the first large(ish) crack in this relationship, and I'm really hoping the Americans kick up as much of a fuss about Australia's laws as China's if the filter in Australia goes through.The problem for the voting public here is in our version of the two party system, the opposition are considered the more conservative party, and its new Christian far-right leader Tony Abbott has been fairly silent on the whole issue.
One can imagine he supports it in spirit but doesn't want to seem as though he's agreeing with Labor.
Either way, we're royally stuffed.In the meantime if you're an Aussie, don't forget the Electronic Frontiers Australia is accepting donations [efa.org.au] for their Open Internet campaign.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31667752</id>
	<title>Filters... What About ACTA</title>
	<author>Taliesan999</author>
	<datestamp>1269941880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One branch is expressing concerns about our lovely Internet filter while the other is trying to ram ACTA down our throats.</p><p>BOTH will have an effect on free speech... neither of them we want.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One branch is expressing concerns about our lovely Internet filter while the other is trying to ram ACTA down our throats.BOTH will have an effect on free speech... neither of them we want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One branch is expressing concerns about our lovely Internet filter while the other is trying to ram ACTA down our throats.BOTH will have an effect on free speech... neither of them we want.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31670482</id>
	<title>Re:Both of them are missing the point entirely</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269963540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Successfully filtering the net is impossible"</p><p>The Chinese say otherwise</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Successfully filtering the net is impossible " The Chinese say otherwise</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Successfully filtering the net is impossible"The Chinese say otherwise</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31667770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31667910</id>
	<title>Remarkable...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269943980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>...how both so-called "free" countries will crack down upon China for filtering the internet on what they claim to be important free-speech-issues, but in the same time will not hesitate to implement rather identical measures at home.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...how both so-called " free " countries will crack down upon China for filtering the internet on what they claim to be important free-speech-issues , but in the same time will not hesitate to implement rather identical measures at home .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...how both so-called "free" countries will crack down upon China for filtering the internet on what they claim to be important free-speech-issues, but in the same time will not hesitate to implement rather identical measures at home.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31682928</id>
	<title>Re:Potential censorship?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269970980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>cuz what you want is your kids flipping through<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/broadcast/ channels finding tits flying everywhere.  past certain hours on certain channels, typically based on local "community standards", softcore porn is allowed to be shown, as are all the titties that howard stern can handle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>cuz what you want is your kids flipping through /broadcast/ channels finding tits flying everywhere .
past certain hours on certain channels , typically based on local " community standards " , softcore porn is allowed to be shown , as are all the titties that howard stern can handle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>cuz what you want is your kids flipping through /broadcast/ channels finding tits flying everywhere.
past certain hours on certain channels, typically based on local "community standards", softcore porn is allowed to be shown, as are all the titties that howard stern can handle.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31667774</id>
	<title>Thank You USA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269942120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Normally I disagree with USA foreign policy, but in this case I welcome US government sticking its nose in where it's not welcome.

On behalf of all (thinking) Australians, thank you USA for standing up to our government and this facist policy.

<a href="http://stephenconroy.com.au/" title="stephenconroy.com.au" rel="nofollow">http://stephenconroy.com.au/</a> [stephenconroy.com.au]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Normally I disagree with USA foreign policy , but in this case I welcome US government sticking its nose in where it 's not welcome .
On behalf of all ( thinking ) Australians , thank you USA for standing up to our government and this facist policy .
http : //stephenconroy.com.au/ [ stephenconroy.com.au ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Normally I disagree with USA foreign policy, but in this case I welcome US government sticking its nose in where it's not welcome.
On behalf of all (thinking) Australians, thank you USA for standing up to our government and this facist policy.
http://stephenconroy.com.au/ [stephenconroy.com.au]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668114</id>
	<title>Australia needs your support on this</title>
	<author>EoN604</author>
	<datestamp>1269946800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I really hope that the US put a lot of pressure on our Australian government to try and prevent this draconian Mandatory Internet Censorship.  If it goes ahead in Australia, it will pave the way for many more developed Western countries.  This is a serious attack on our freedom.

There's not much left we can do at the moment - the internet community is kicking up a fuss, most polls &amp; votes are &gt;94\% AGAINST the censorship, the US gov, google, local telcos, ISP's and all the technical experts are advising AGAINST it, but ignorant Senator Conroy and the government keep pushing ahead to censor the internet.  If it goes ahead it will be bad news for everyone.  The more people that support us on this VERY important issue, the better.  Slashdot + its community probably have the potential to help make a difference.

Please USA, and the entire international online community, show your support on this in any way you can!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I really hope that the US put a lot of pressure on our Australian government to try and prevent this draconian Mandatory Internet Censorship .
If it goes ahead in Australia , it will pave the way for many more developed Western countries .
This is a serious attack on our freedom .
There 's not much left we can do at the moment - the internet community is kicking up a fuss , most polls &amp; votes are &gt; 94 \ % AGAINST the censorship , the US gov , google , local telcos , ISP 's and all the technical experts are advising AGAINST it , but ignorant Senator Conroy and the government keep pushing ahead to censor the internet .
If it goes ahead it will be bad news for everyone .
The more people that support us on this VERY important issue , the better .
Slashdot + its community probably have the potential to help make a difference .
Please USA , and the entire international online community , show your support on this in any way you can !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really hope that the US put a lot of pressure on our Australian government to try and prevent this draconian Mandatory Internet Censorship.
If it goes ahead in Australia, it will pave the way for many more developed Western countries.
This is a serious attack on our freedom.
There's not much left we can do at the moment - the internet community is kicking up a fuss, most polls &amp; votes are &gt;94\% AGAINST the censorship, the US gov, google, local telcos, ISP's and all the technical experts are advising AGAINST it, but ignorant Senator Conroy and the government keep pushing ahead to censor the internet.
If it goes ahead it will be bad news for everyone.
The more people that support us on this VERY important issue, the better.
Slashdot + its community probably have the potential to help make a difference.
Please USA, and the entire international online community, show your support on this in any way you can!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31670240</id>
	<title>Re:Since every other story is Australian...</title>
	<author>deniable</author>
	<datestamp>1269962700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nothing happens in Perth, where were you last Monday night?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nothing happens in Perth , where were you last Monday night ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nothing happens in Perth, where were you last Monday night?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668614</id>
	<title>Do you really believe that the US Govt cares?</title>
	<author>moxley</author>
	<datestamp>1269953400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Despite any posturing,  It's their fucking wet dream to be able to do it here too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Despite any posturing , It 's their fucking wet dream to be able to do it here too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Despite any posturing,  It's their fucking wet dream to be able to do it here too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31674972</id>
	<title>Re:diode effect?</title>
	<author>ultranova</author>
	<datestamp>1269977700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Never mind hypocrisy, this is cultural imperialism.</p></div> </blockquote><p>Some cultural values are better than others, and should dominate over them. For example, free access to information is better than censorship, and should dominate over it. This can be easily demonstrated by thinking whether <em>you</em> would want some entity preventing you from accessing information that entity has deemed contrary to its goals.</p><p>But hey, keep on lying to yourself that all cultures are equal, and specifically that ours isn't superior to any other; ours gives you that right. Plenty of others wouldn't.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Never mind hypocrisy , this is cultural imperialism .
Some cultural values are better than others , and should dominate over them .
For example , free access to information is better than censorship , and should dominate over it .
This can be easily demonstrated by thinking whether you would want some entity preventing you from accessing information that entity has deemed contrary to its goals.But hey , keep on lying to yourself that all cultures are equal , and specifically that ours is n't superior to any other ; ours gives you that right .
Plenty of others would n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Never mind hypocrisy, this is cultural imperialism.
Some cultural values are better than others, and should dominate over them.
For example, free access to information is better than censorship, and should dominate over it.
This can be easily demonstrated by thinking whether you would want some entity preventing you from accessing information that entity has deemed contrary to its goals.But hey, keep on lying to yourself that all cultures are equal, and specifically that ours isn't superior to any other; ours gives you that right.
Plenty of others wouldn't.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31670520</id>
	<title>Re:The ABC Radio interview link, and opinions</title>
	<author>Riplakish</author>
	<datestamp>1269963600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>but what about all the other porn &amp; violence our kids should not be looking at on the 'net?</p></div><p>
First of all, as a parent, it is my responsibility to make the decisions about what my kids should and shouldn't have access to. It's not their responsibility to decide what is best for my family, and it certainly not yours. If I want to censor my kids' internet experience, I can buy net nanny software and select the categories and sites that I decide are important. Also, the more you tell someone that they can't have something the more they want it, especially with kids. If you try and block access to <i>porn &amp; violence</i> they will make it their life's mission to get access to it. Its usually better to talk to them and let them know why certain things are not good for them so that when they do access it they will put your words together with what they observe and realize that what you are telling them makes sense.
</p><p>
Second, I could be mistaken but I don't believe there are any countries where child pornography or bestiality is legal. I think we can all agree that both acts are so disgusting that they shouldn't be tolerated, so it should be relatively simple thing to set up a system where such sites can be reported so that they can be verified and shut down. I know it's not that simple, but it's easier than setting up and maintaining a nationwide web filter using these things as a pretense to strip away my rights.
</p><p>
Third, I am not a kid. I am an adult and can make my own decisions about whether I want to watch porn or violent shows. How does a nationwide web filter know how old I am? It doesn't and it's just a pretense for someone in power to impose their narrow values on me.
</p><p>
Your whole argument is that this nationwide web filter is a waste of time &amp; money because it doesn't do enough to suit your narrow paradigm of right and wrong. Why do you think that you get to decide that <i>kinky, watersports, scat and BDSM porn</i> should be blocked? Just because you don't like these things doesn't mean that you have the right to prevent others who do from watching them. I don't understand why you lump these things in with child pornography and beastiality. If a kid sees a plain-vanilla sex scene on the net that involves a man and a woman, is it any different? What if its features anal sex? How about 2 women? Group sex? Do you consider some professional sports too violent and need to be blocked? Mixed martial arts, boxing, hockey and American football all can be very violent. Or is it OK because they don't involve guns?
</p><p>
If I don't like something then I don't watch it. Its lazy, narrow-minded, non-thinking people like you how have bought into the "think of the children" BS that are making it easy for the government to slowly strip away people's rights.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>but what about all the other porn &amp; violence our kids should not be looking at on the 'net ?
First of all , as a parent , it is my responsibility to make the decisions about what my kids should and should n't have access to .
It 's not their responsibility to decide what is best for my family , and it certainly not yours .
If I want to censor my kids ' internet experience , I can buy net nanny software and select the categories and sites that I decide are important .
Also , the more you tell someone that they ca n't have something the more they want it , especially with kids .
If you try and block access to porn &amp; violence they will make it their life 's mission to get access to it .
Its usually better to talk to them and let them know why certain things are not good for them so that when they do access it they will put your words together with what they observe and realize that what you are telling them makes sense .
Second , I could be mistaken but I do n't believe there are any countries where child pornography or bestiality is legal .
I think we can all agree that both acts are so disgusting that they should n't be tolerated , so it should be relatively simple thing to set up a system where such sites can be reported so that they can be verified and shut down .
I know it 's not that simple , but it 's easier than setting up and maintaining a nationwide web filter using these things as a pretense to strip away my rights .
Third , I am not a kid .
I am an adult and can make my own decisions about whether I want to watch porn or violent shows .
How does a nationwide web filter know how old I am ?
It does n't and it 's just a pretense for someone in power to impose their narrow values on me .
Your whole argument is that this nationwide web filter is a waste of time &amp; money because it does n't do enough to suit your narrow paradigm of right and wrong .
Why do you think that you get to decide that kinky , watersports , scat and BDSM porn should be blocked ?
Just because you do n't like these things does n't mean that you have the right to prevent others who do from watching them .
I do n't understand why you lump these things in with child pornography and beastiality .
If a kid sees a plain-vanilla sex scene on the net that involves a man and a woman , is it any different ?
What if its features anal sex ?
How about 2 women ?
Group sex ?
Do you consider some professional sports too violent and need to be blocked ?
Mixed martial arts , boxing , hockey and American football all can be very violent .
Or is it OK because they do n't involve guns ?
If I do n't like something then I do n't watch it .
Its lazy , narrow-minded , non-thinking people like you how have bought into the " think of the children " BS that are making it easy for the government to slowly strip away people 's rights .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but what about all the other porn &amp; violence our kids should not be looking at on the 'net?
First of all, as a parent, it is my responsibility to make the decisions about what my kids should and shouldn't have access to.
It's not their responsibility to decide what is best for my family, and it certainly not yours.
If I want to censor my kids' internet experience, I can buy net nanny software and select the categories and sites that I decide are important.
Also, the more you tell someone that they can't have something the more they want it, especially with kids.
If you try and block access to porn &amp; violence they will make it their life's mission to get access to it.
Its usually better to talk to them and let them know why certain things are not good for them so that when they do access it they will put your words together with what they observe and realize that what you are telling them makes sense.
Second, I could be mistaken but I don't believe there are any countries where child pornography or bestiality is legal.
I think we can all agree that both acts are so disgusting that they shouldn't be tolerated, so it should be relatively simple thing to set up a system where such sites can be reported so that they can be verified and shut down.
I know it's not that simple, but it's easier than setting up and maintaining a nationwide web filter using these things as a pretense to strip away my rights.
Third, I am not a kid.
I am an adult and can make my own decisions about whether I want to watch porn or violent shows.
How does a nationwide web filter know how old I am?
It doesn't and it's just a pretense for someone in power to impose their narrow values on me.
Your whole argument is that this nationwide web filter is a waste of time &amp; money because it doesn't do enough to suit your narrow paradigm of right and wrong.
Why do you think that you get to decide that kinky, watersports, scat and BDSM porn should be blocked?
Just because you don't like these things doesn't mean that you have the right to prevent others who do from watching them.
I don't understand why you lump these things in with child pornography and beastiality.
If a kid sees a plain-vanilla sex scene on the net that involves a man and a woman, is it any different?
What if its features anal sex?
How about 2 women?
Group sex?
Do you consider some professional sports too violent and need to be blocked?
Mixed martial arts, boxing, hockey and American football all can be very violent.
Or is it OK because they don't involve guns?
If I don't like something then I don't watch it.
Its lazy, narrow-minded, non-thinking people like you how have bought into the "think of the children" BS that are making it easy for the government to slowly strip away people's rights.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668662</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31667748</id>
	<title>diode effect?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269941820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"We can censor you but you can not censor us, we can hide info to you but you can not hide info to us." --United States of America</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" We can censor you but you can not censor us , we can hide info to you but you can not hide info to us .
" --United States of America</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"We can censor you but you can not censor us, we can hide info to you but you can not hide info to us.
" --United States of America</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668384</id>
	<title>Re:diode effect?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269950640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's the US government for you. What did you expect?</p><p>It's the same with the EU and flight passenger information, banking data and laws and regulations that hamper immoral practices of US corporations. Orders go strictly one-way from the US to the EU and data only flows back one-way from the EU to the US.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's the US government for you .
What did you expect ? It 's the same with the EU and flight passenger information , banking data and laws and regulations that hamper immoral practices of US corporations .
Orders go strictly one-way from the US to the EU and data only flows back one-way from the EU to the US .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's the US government for you.
What did you expect?It's the same with the EU and flight passenger information, banking data and laws and regulations that hamper immoral practices of US corporations.
Orders go strictly one-way from the US to the EU and data only flows back one-way from the EU to the US.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31667748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31677546</id>
	<title>Looking forward to the next election</title>
	<author>Crypto Gnome</author>
	<datestamp>1269943380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Stephen Conroy (the current communications minister) is the most incompetent politician Australia has had the shame to put up with in dozens of years.<br> <br>He has shown, if nothing else, a complete and absolute lack on integrity in his pursuit of this filtering scheme.<br> <br>Between one interview and the next, between one statement in parliament and the next, his excuse for the filter has changed, his reasoning has changed. <br> <br>He has been dismissive, arrogant and accusatory of anyone who says *anything* against his policies.<br> <br>He has *completely* ignored all the advice of anyone and everyone who has any involvement in child-protection in australia, *AND* overseas.<br> <br>While *claiming* this is all about "protecting the children" his governments budget for the federal Police Anti Child Pornography team has been *LESS* than in the previous government.<b> <br> <br>In Short, Stephen Conroy is a classic example of someone who will be *instantly* turfed out on his arse at the next election, and is *personally* and *directly* responsible for the impending massive voter backlash against his entire party.</b></htmltext>
<tokenext>Stephen Conroy ( the current communications minister ) is the most incompetent politician Australia has had the shame to put up with in dozens of years .
He has shown , if nothing else , a complete and absolute lack on integrity in his pursuit of this filtering scheme .
Between one interview and the next , between one statement in parliament and the next , his excuse for the filter has changed , his reasoning has changed .
He has been dismissive , arrogant and accusatory of anyone who says * anything * against his policies .
He has * completely * ignored all the advice of anyone and everyone who has any involvement in child-protection in australia , * AND * overseas .
While * claiming * this is all about " protecting the children " his governments budget for the federal Police Anti Child Pornography team has been * LESS * than in the previous government .
In Short , Stephen Conroy is a classic example of someone who will be * instantly * turfed out on his arse at the next election , and is * personally * and * directly * responsible for the impending massive voter backlash against his entire party .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stephen Conroy (the current communications minister) is the most incompetent politician Australia has had the shame to put up with in dozens of years.
He has shown, if nothing else, a complete and absolute lack on integrity in his pursuit of this filtering scheme.
Between one interview and the next, between one statement in parliament and the next, his excuse for the filter has changed, his reasoning has changed.
He has been dismissive, arrogant and accusatory of anyone who says *anything* against his policies.
He has *completely* ignored all the advice of anyone and everyone who has any involvement in child-protection in australia, *AND* overseas.
While *claiming* this is all about "protecting the children" his governments budget for the federal Police Anti Child Pornography team has been *LESS* than in the previous government.
In Short, Stephen Conroy is a classic example of someone who will be *instantly* turfed out on his arse at the next election, and is *personally* and *directly* responsible for the impending massive voter backlash against his entire party.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31671586</id>
	<title>Re:The Cultural Exception: Preventing US Toxic Was</title>
	<author>icebraining</author>
	<datestamp>1269966720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The road to hell^W censorship is paved with good intentions. If people, even a minority, want to see US shows, who the hell are you to decide if they should or not?<br>Give people access to all shows, and let them decide.</p><blockquote><div><p>there is a category of cultural toxic waste and it does modify behaviour, however much we wish it didn't.</p></div></blockquote><p>Yes, it turns people into being less chauvinistic, perhaps.</p><p>Not that I care personally: I get all my content from the interwebs. But I oppose your "benevolent censorship" as a principle. WIth current technology, we should be able to access almost all major TV channels worldwide.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The road to hell ^ W censorship is paved with good intentions .
If people , even a minority , want to see US shows , who the hell are you to decide if they should or not ? Give people access to all shows , and let them decide.there is a category of cultural toxic waste and it does modify behaviour , however much we wish it did n't.Yes , it turns people into being less chauvinistic , perhaps.Not that I care personally : I get all my content from the interwebs .
But I oppose your " benevolent censorship " as a principle .
WIth current technology , we should be able to access almost all major TV channels worldwide .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The road to hell^W censorship is paved with good intentions.
If people, even a minority, want to see US shows, who the hell are you to decide if they should or not?Give people access to all shows, and let them decide.there is a category of cultural toxic waste and it does modify behaviour, however much we wish it didn't.Yes, it turns people into being less chauvinistic, perhaps.Not that I care personally: I get all my content from the interwebs.
But I oppose your "benevolent censorship" as a principle.
WIth current technology, we should be able to access almost all major TV channels worldwide.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31667738</id>
	<title>I come from the land down under</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269941760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where women don't shave and men chunder...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where women do n't shave and men chunder.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where women don't shave and men chunder...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668250</id>
	<title>Freedom can require regulation of selfish actions</title>
	<author>doug20r</author>
	<datestamp>1269948780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>within a community, so Australian's would be right to be very disappointed to see our friends in the US campaigning against our right to regulate.  The bottom line is that the greatest threat to freedom on the Internet at present is the dominance of selfish US corporations.  So unless the US government is prepared to tackle the dominance of these large companies in a significant manner such as splitting them to have no more than a 5\% market share then please do not lecture Australia on freedom.</htmltext>
<tokenext>within a community , so Australian 's would be right to be very disappointed to see our friends in the US campaigning against our right to regulate .
The bottom line is that the greatest threat to freedom on the Internet at present is the dominance of selfish US corporations .
So unless the US government is prepared to tackle the dominance of these large companies in a significant manner such as splitting them to have no more than a 5 \ % market share then please do not lecture Australia on freedom .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>within a community, so Australian's would be right to be very disappointed to see our friends in the US campaigning against our right to regulate.
The bottom line is that the greatest threat to freedom on the Internet at present is the dominance of selfish US corporations.
So unless the US government is prepared to tackle the dominance of these large companies in a significant manner such as splitting them to have no more than a 5\% market share then please do not lecture Australia on freedom.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31675208</id>
	<title>Re:diode effect?</title>
	<author>GasparGMSwordsman</author>
	<datestamp>1269978840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sorry mate but in no way are those casinos blocked.  The US Federal Government closed loopholes in transfer of funds that were used to launder money that is all.<br> <br>

I myself continue to legally play poker online (for money).  I pay taxes on the income from that online poker.  A friend of mine gambles online as his sole income.  Under IRS guidelines he is running a sole proprietorship (company) and has to keep extensive records for tax purposes.  He provides thousands of documents listing what he played, what site, when and how much he won/lost on each session to the Government every year.  He was even audited last year.<br> <br>

The change in Federal law basically makes how you get money to and from online casinos different than it was before (with more transparency in regards to the financial records).  Other than that it is pretty much exactly the same as before.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry mate but in no way are those casinos blocked .
The US Federal Government closed loopholes in transfer of funds that were used to launder money that is all .
I myself continue to legally play poker online ( for money ) .
I pay taxes on the income from that online poker .
A friend of mine gambles online as his sole income .
Under IRS guidelines he is running a sole proprietorship ( company ) and has to keep extensive records for tax purposes .
He provides thousands of documents listing what he played , what site , when and how much he won/lost on each session to the Government every year .
He was even audited last year .
The change in Federal law basically makes how you get money to and from online casinos different than it was before ( with more transparency in regards to the financial records ) .
Other than that it is pretty much exactly the same as before .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry mate but in no way are those casinos blocked.
The US Federal Government closed loopholes in transfer of funds that were used to launder money that is all.
I myself continue to legally play poker online (for money).
I pay taxes on the income from that online poker.
A friend of mine gambles online as his sole income.
Under IRS guidelines he is running a sole proprietorship (company) and has to keep extensive records for tax purposes.
He provides thousands of documents listing what he played, what site, when and how much he won/lost on each session to the Government every year.
He was even audited last year.
The change in Federal law basically makes how you get money to and from online casinos different than it was before (with more transparency in regards to the financial records).
Other than that it is pretty much exactly the same as before.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668110</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668188</id>
	<title>Fir57</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269947820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Out of businees charnel 4ouse.  The</htmltext>
<tokenext>Out of businees charnel 4ouse .
The</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Out of businees charnel 4ouse.
The</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668000</id>
	<title>Re:Thank You USA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269945180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Phase 2 of the Australian Internet Filter is to intercept and substitute ads and suggested search links to favor domestic companies, or other countries Australia has signed a trade treaty with. Pharmaceutical advertising and online chemists are in their sights. If the blacklist is secret, the substitute and redirect list is even more so.</p><p>Bottom Line: US Businesses will miss out, its a sneaky underhanded way of getting around the Australian<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/USA free Trade agreement - now that Australia has found out it negotiated badly - negative 6 billion a year.</p><p>Some don't mind filtering - but to tamper with Google search engine and Google pushed ads is almost exactly what the Chinese are doing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Phase 2 of the Australian Internet Filter is to intercept and substitute ads and suggested search links to favor domestic companies , or other countries Australia has signed a trade treaty with .
Pharmaceutical advertising and online chemists are in their sights .
If the blacklist is secret , the substitute and redirect list is even more so.Bottom Line : US Businesses will miss out , its a sneaky underhanded way of getting around the Australian /USA free Trade agreement - now that Australia has found out it negotiated badly - negative 6 billion a year.Some do n't mind filtering - but to tamper with Google search engine and Google pushed ads is almost exactly what the Chinese are doing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Phase 2 of the Australian Internet Filter is to intercept and substitute ads and suggested search links to favor domestic companies, or other countries Australia has signed a trade treaty with.
Pharmaceutical advertising and online chemists are in their sights.
If the blacklist is secret, the substitute and redirect list is even more so.Bottom Line: US Businesses will miss out, its a sneaky underhanded way of getting around the Australian /USA free Trade agreement - now that Australia has found out it negotiated badly - negative 6 billion a year.Some don't mind filtering - but to tamper with Google search engine and Google pushed ads is almost exactly what the Chinese are doing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31667774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31667750</id>
	<title>Of course he denies it..........</title>
	<author>allaunjsilverfox2</author>
	<datestamp>1269941820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>He's CENSORING the output of his speech!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:p</htmltext>
<tokenext>He 's CENSORING the output of his speech !
: p</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He's CENSORING the output of his speech!
:p</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668558</id>
	<title>For UK citizens only...</title>
	<author>Benson Arizona</author>
	<datestamp>1269952680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't you hate to see the children fighting?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't you hate to see the children fighting ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't you hate to see the children fighting?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31667772</id>
	<title>Doesn't make sense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269942120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Both governments and many others would love to filter the net. Now, Google and Yahoo might not be so interested. It could cut into ad revenues.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Both governments and many others would love to filter the net .
Now , Google and Yahoo might not be so interested .
It could cut into ad revenues .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Both governments and many others would love to filter the net.
Now, Google and Yahoo might not be so interested.
It could cut into ad revenues.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668212</id>
	<title>Re:diode effect?</title>
	<author>TheVelvetFlamebait</author>
	<datestamp>1269948240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was thinking the message was more along the lines of:</p><p>"We hate censorship, and you should too. Ask me how."</p><p>Never mind hypocrisy, this is cultural imperialism.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was thinking the message was more along the lines of : " We hate censorship , and you should too .
Ask me how .
" Never mind hypocrisy , this is cultural imperialism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was thinking the message was more along the lines of:"We hate censorship, and you should too.
Ask me how.
"Never mind hypocrisy, this is cultural imperialism.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31667748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31676706</id>
	<title>Re:Since every other story is Australian...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269940860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the OP's post is a result of certain "editors" crap-flooding<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. with so-called stories from Australia.</p><p>Nobody has a problem with seeing genuinely interesting 'News for Nerds' from downunder, but the fact is that these "editors" are posting <em>anything</em> that mentions Australia.</p><p>Take a look at this list: http://yro.slashdot.org/tag/australia</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the OP 's post is a result of certain " editors " crap-flooding / .
with so-called stories from Australia.Nobody has a problem with seeing genuinely interesting 'News for Nerds ' from downunder , but the fact is that these " editors " are posting anything that mentions Australia.Take a look at this list : http : //yro.slashdot.org/tag/australia</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the OP's post is a result of certain "editors" crap-flooding /.
with so-called stories from Australia.Nobody has a problem with seeing genuinely interesting 'News for Nerds' from downunder, but the fact is that these "editors" are posting anything that mentions Australia.Take a look at this list: http://yro.slashdot.org/tag/australia</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31669498</id>
	<title>Re:Filter works</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269959340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course the US State Department would not have contacted Senator Conroy or his office directly. They would have gone through "diplomatic channels" and thus through the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course the US State Department would not have contacted Senator Conroy or his office directly .
They would have gone through " diplomatic channels " and thus through the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course the US State Department would not have contacted Senator Conroy or his office directly.
They would have gone through "diplomatic channels" and thus through the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668196</id>
	<title>Since every other story is Australian...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269948000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...Maybe it's time to give the Aussies (including kdawson) what they want, which is a Slashdot of their very own. You know, Slashdot.org.au, or something.</p><p>But then I suppose Aussies would fear losing the American audience they crave so desperately.</p><p>It's like Slashdot editors think the world now consists of the USA, Australia, and some shadowy half-forgotten realm known as "Someplace Else".</p><p>Seriously, shove these Aussie stories up your ass. We're fucking sick of the sight of them. Go beg for attention elsewhere.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...Maybe it 's time to give the Aussies ( including kdawson ) what they want , which is a Slashdot of their very own .
You know , Slashdot.org.au , or something.But then I suppose Aussies would fear losing the American audience they crave so desperately.It 's like Slashdot editors think the world now consists of the USA , Australia , and some shadowy half-forgotten realm known as " Someplace Else " .Seriously , shove these Aussie stories up your ass .
We 're fucking sick of the sight of them .
Go beg for attention elsewhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...Maybe it's time to give the Aussies (including kdawson) what they want, which is a Slashdot of their very own.
You know, Slashdot.org.au, or something.But then I suppose Aussies would fear losing the American audience they crave so desperately.It's like Slashdot editors think the world now consists of the USA, Australia, and some shadowy half-forgotten realm known as "Someplace Else".Seriously, shove these Aussie stories up your ass.
We're fucking sick of the sight of them.
Go beg for attention elsewhere.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31669530</id>
	<title>Whats really happening</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269959460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>on a friends computer and drunk, but i'm anarche. for our outerworldly friendly, whats really happening here is....</p><p>1) if the Government puts this into place they secure the Senate vote of Steven Fielding, so they can pass other laws and look as if they are doing something.</p><p>2) should most Australian find any of the things specifically listed on the blacklist accidently, they'll report it. no-one wants kiddie porn on the net. if you do <i>i'll</i> report you. we are signatories to a shiteload of foreign treaties allowing us to request the foreign government ot investigate kiddie porn...</p><p>3) this filter will not work. the company contacted to implement the filter claims it wont work, the ISPs who tested it claimed it wont work. why do the Government claim it will? (see point 1)</p><p>4) Obama threatening to bar the JSF from being delivered - while painful to Boeing will be far more incentive to Captain Kevin to drop this stupid law than the threat of election. welcome to the two-party system in an apathetic country flourishing....</p><p>5) this filter will significantly degrade the Australian internet speeds, while the Government can't be bothered buying a speed upgrade.</p><p>So please, our US friends, petition Obama to stop this shit. Australia's (tiny) internet community doesn't stand a chance....</p><p>Meanwhile Aussies, who feels like presenting a petition to Obama in his visit requesting a delay of the JSF until this filter is dropped?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>on a friends computer and drunk , but i 'm anarche .
for our outerworldly friendly , whats really happening here is....1 ) if the Government puts this into place they secure the Senate vote of Steven Fielding , so they can pass other laws and look as if they are doing something.2 ) should most Australian find any of the things specifically listed on the blacklist accidently , they 'll report it .
no-one wants kiddie porn on the net .
if you do i 'll report you .
we are signatories to a shiteload of foreign treaties allowing us to request the foreign government ot investigate kiddie porn...3 ) this filter will not work .
the company contacted to implement the filter claims it wont work , the ISPs who tested it claimed it wont work .
why do the Government claim it will ?
( see point 1 ) 4 ) Obama threatening to bar the JSF from being delivered - while painful to Boeing will be far more incentive to Captain Kevin to drop this stupid law than the threat of election .
welcome to the two-party system in an apathetic country flourishing....5 ) this filter will significantly degrade the Australian internet speeds , while the Government ca n't be bothered buying a speed upgrade.So please , our US friends , petition Obama to stop this shit .
Australia 's ( tiny ) internet community does n't stand a chance....Meanwhile Aussies , who feels like presenting a petition to Obama in his visit requesting a delay of the JSF until this filter is dropped ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>on a friends computer and drunk, but i'm anarche.
for our outerworldly friendly, whats really happening here is....1) if the Government puts this into place they secure the Senate vote of Steven Fielding, so they can pass other laws and look as if they are doing something.2) should most Australian find any of the things specifically listed on the blacklist accidently, they'll report it.
no-one wants kiddie porn on the net.
if you do i'll report you.
we are signatories to a shiteload of foreign treaties allowing us to request the foreign government ot investigate kiddie porn...3) this filter will not work.
the company contacted to implement the filter claims it wont work, the ISPs who tested it claimed it wont work.
why do the Government claim it will?
(see point 1)4) Obama threatening to bar the JSF from being delivered - while painful to Boeing will be far more incentive to Captain Kevin to drop this stupid law than the threat of election.
welcome to the two-party system in an apathetic country flourishing....5) this filter will significantly degrade the Australian internet speeds, while the Government can't be bothered buying a speed upgrade.So please, our US friends, petition Obama to stop this shit.
Australia's (tiny) internet community doesn't stand a chance....Meanwhile Aussies, who feels like presenting a petition to Obama in his visit requesting a delay of the JSF until this filter is dropped?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31669198</id>
	<title>Re:The Cultural Exception: Preventing US Toxic Was</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269957660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you believe in freedom of speech, you should oppose muzzling entertainment as much as muzzling political speech. If your political views are less convincing than mine, working on your policies is better than banning my speech. Likewise, if your country is unable to compete with the culture of the United States, perhaps understanding what makes American culture so powerful and pervasive and trying to emulate it is the better move rather than muzzling it because you're unable to compete.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you believe in freedom of speech , you should oppose muzzling entertainment as much as muzzling political speech .
If your political views are less convincing than mine , working on your policies is better than banning my speech .
Likewise , if your country is unable to compete with the culture of the United States , perhaps understanding what makes American culture so powerful and pervasive and trying to emulate it is the better move rather than muzzling it because you 're unable to compete .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you believe in freedom of speech, you should oppose muzzling entertainment as much as muzzling political speech.
If your political views are less convincing than mine, working on your policies is better than banning my speech.
Likewise, if your country is unable to compete with the culture of the United States, perhaps understanding what makes American culture so powerful and pervasive and trying to emulate it is the better move rather than muzzling it because you're unable to compete.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668266</id>
	<title>Re:FYI almost NO ONE here wants this here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269948900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How this sad man Stephen Conroy can claim to be a representative of the people is beyond me. He is clearly acting against their interests and against their wishes.</p></div><p> <a href="http://hungrybeast.abc.net.au/stories/internet-filter-survey-results" title="abc.net.au" rel="nofollow">Here</a> [abc.net.au] is a more in-depth survey telephone survey commissioned by the <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/" title="abc.net.au" rel="nofollow">ABC</a> [abc.net.au]. According to it, 92\% are <b>in favour</b> of some form of ISP-based filtering, which lends at least some credence to Conroy's claim. But that's about where the consensus ends, 70\% have concerns that the filter will be used to block free speech and 90\% are against a secret blacklist.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How this sad man Stephen Conroy can claim to be a representative of the people is beyond me .
He is clearly acting against their interests and against their wishes .
Here [ abc.net.au ] is a more in-depth survey telephone survey commissioned by the ABC [ abc.net.au ] .
According to it , 92 \ % are in favour of some form of ISP-based filtering , which lends at least some credence to Conroy 's claim .
But that 's about where the consensus ends , 70 \ % have concerns that the filter will be used to block free speech and 90 \ % are against a secret blacklist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How this sad man Stephen Conroy can claim to be a representative of the people is beyond me.
He is clearly acting against their interests and against their wishes.
Here [abc.net.au] is a more in-depth survey telephone survey commissioned by the ABC [abc.net.au].
According to it, 92\% are in favour of some form of ISP-based filtering, which lends at least some credence to Conroy's claim.
But that's about where the consensus ends, 70\% have concerns that the filter will be used to block free speech and 90\% are against a secret blacklist.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31667770</id>
	<title>Both of them are missing the point entirely</title>
	<author>Whuffo</author>
	<datestamp>1269942120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Successfully filtering the net is impossible - that's been proven time and time again. If either one of them realized this simple truth then they'd know that their statements are somewhat nonsensical.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Successfully filtering the net is impossible - that 's been proven time and time again .
If either one of them realized this simple truth then they 'd know that their statements are somewhat nonsensical .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Successfully filtering the net is impossible - that's been proven time and time again.
If either one of them realized this simple truth then they'd know that their statements are somewhat nonsensical.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668110</id>
	<title>Re:diode effect?</title>
	<author>Chrisq</author>
	<datestamp>1269946740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"We can censor you but you can not censor us, we can hide info to you but you can not hide info to us." --United States of America</p></div><p>Exactly. We can block <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online\_gambling#United\_States" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">online Casinos</a> [wikipedia.org] and anything elee we don't like, but how dare you block our porn sites.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" We can censor you but you can not censor us , we can hide info to you but you can not hide info to us .
" --United States of AmericaExactly .
We can block online Casinos [ wikipedia.org ] and anything elee we do n't like , but how dare you block our porn sites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"We can censor you but you can not censor us, we can hide info to you but you can not hide info to us.
" --United States of AmericaExactly.
We can block online Casinos [wikipedia.org] and anything elee we don't like, but how dare you block our porn sites.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31667748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31672398</id>
	<title>Re:Potential censorship?</title>
	<author>dajalas</author>
	<datestamp>1269969000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I largely agree except that censorship on American broadcast TV doesn't equate to censorship on the Internet. Broadcast TV is regulated speech. Many hope that won't happen to the Internet.</p><p>Top down censorship helps nobody. People are bright enough to protect themselves from "harsh words" and the like. Government has no business even trying to be part of that. Further, commercial and open source solutions exist to protect Internet users from security threats such as viruses and trojans.</p><p>Beyond basic network security considerations, government' involvements in the Internet and censorship is nothing but a power grab. If governments' want to be part of taking down botnets, I'm all for it. But if they want to keep us from seeing pron or their political foes' websites, they've gone much too far.</p><p>The most disturbing part is that we even have to worry about government bureaucrats overreaching like this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I largely agree except that censorship on American broadcast TV does n't equate to censorship on the Internet .
Broadcast TV is regulated speech .
Many hope that wo n't happen to the Internet.Top down censorship helps nobody .
People are bright enough to protect themselves from " harsh words " and the like .
Government has no business even trying to be part of that .
Further , commercial and open source solutions exist to protect Internet users from security threats such as viruses and trojans.Beyond basic network security considerations , government ' involvements in the Internet and censorship is nothing but a power grab .
If governments ' want to be part of taking down botnets , I 'm all for it .
But if they want to keep us from seeing pron or their political foes ' websites , they 've gone much too far.The most disturbing part is that we even have to worry about government bureaucrats overreaching like this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I largely agree except that censorship on American broadcast TV doesn't equate to censorship on the Internet.
Broadcast TV is regulated speech.
Many hope that won't happen to the Internet.Top down censorship helps nobody.
People are bright enough to protect themselves from "harsh words" and the like.
Government has no business even trying to be part of that.
Further, commercial and open source solutions exist to protect Internet users from security threats such as viruses and trojans.Beyond basic network security considerations, government' involvements in the Internet and censorship is nothing but a power grab.
If governments' want to be part of taking down botnets, I'm all for it.
But if they want to keep us from seeing pron or their political foes' websites, they've gone much too far.The most disturbing part is that we even have to worry about government bureaucrats overreaching like this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668192</id>
	<title>Re:Both of them are missing the point entirely</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269947940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The irony is that Conroy insists that any blacklist must remain secret... on the basis that if it's released people will visit the sites contained therein.  i.e. he *knows* that the filter won't work, and yet still insists on pushing for it!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The irony is that Conroy insists that any blacklist must remain secret... on the basis that if it 's released people will visit the sites contained therein .
i.e. he * knows * that the filter wo n't work , and yet still insists on pushing for it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The irony is that Conroy insists that any blacklist must remain secret... on the basis that if it's released people will visit the sites contained therein.
i.e. he *knows* that the filter won't work, and yet still insists on pushing for it!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31667770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31682746</id>
	<title>Re:Since every other story is Australian...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269969180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The point of Slashdot - or at least Slashdot editors - seems to be promoting certain countries.</p><p>There's no denying that Australia is grotesquely over-represented here. Very few of the many stories about that country which make it to Slashdot would ever be considered worthy if they were not about Australia and were submitted by someone from somewhere else. The bias is ridiculous.</p><p>There are many nations on planet Earth, but most go ignored by Slashdot, even though stuff is happening there which is at least as interesting as anything we're seeing in all of these news items from Australia, and usually far more interesting....Yet we never read about it here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The point of Slashdot - or at least Slashdot editors - seems to be promoting certain countries.There 's no denying that Australia is grotesquely over-represented here .
Very few of the many stories about that country which make it to Slashdot would ever be considered worthy if they were not about Australia and were submitted by someone from somewhere else .
The bias is ridiculous.There are many nations on planet Earth , but most go ignored by Slashdot , even though stuff is happening there which is at least as interesting as anything we 're seeing in all of these news items from Australia , and usually far more interesting....Yet we never read about it here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The point of Slashdot - or at least Slashdot editors - seems to be promoting certain countries.There's no denying that Australia is grotesquely over-represented here.
Very few of the many stories about that country which make it to Slashdot would ever be considered worthy if they were not about Australia and were submitted by someone from somewhere else.
The bias is ridiculous.There are many nations on planet Earth, but most go ignored by Slashdot, even though stuff is happening there which is at least as interesting as anything we're seeing in all of these news items from Australia, and usually far more interesting....Yet we never read about it here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668662</id>
	<title>The ABC Radio interview link, and opinions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269953880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.abc.net.au/rn/australiatalks/stories/2010/2835549.htm" title="abc.net.au" rel="nofollow">Last nights ABC Radio Interview download/stream</a> [abc.net.au] <br>
<br>
I dont get it...<br>
Its meant to block *very* objectional material (ie, kiddie porn &amp; beastiality), but what about all the other porn &amp; violence our kids should not be looking at on the 'net?<br>
Im sure plenty of parents will get the idea this filter will protect their kids from all non-kiddie-safe material. Thats very far from the truth.<br>
Sure, let kids view thousands of hours of kinky, watersports, scat and BDSM porn, but dont let them see one of those 400 beastiality sites, itll corrupt them forever!!<br>
<br>
So they want to put in place a system that will cost tens of millions of $AUD, complicate ISP filters, reduce reliability, increase latency, to just block those ~400 specific URLs.<br>
Sure, more URLs will be added, but how many out there that should be on the list will be missed?<br>
<br>
Fucking stupid.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Last nights ABC Radio Interview download/stream [ abc.net.au ] I dont get it.. . Its meant to block * very * objectional material ( ie , kiddie porn &amp; beastiality ) , but what about all the other porn &amp; violence our kids should not be looking at on the 'net ?
Im sure plenty of parents will get the idea this filter will protect their kids from all non-kiddie-safe material .
Thats very far from the truth .
Sure , let kids view thousands of hours of kinky , watersports , scat and BDSM porn , but dont let them see one of those 400 beastiality sites , itll corrupt them forever ! !
So they want to put in place a system that will cost tens of millions of $ AUD , complicate ISP filters , reduce reliability , increase latency , to just block those ~ 400 specific URLs .
Sure , more URLs will be added , but how many out there that should be on the list will be missed ?
Fucking stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Last nights ABC Radio Interview download/stream [abc.net.au] 

I dont get it...
Its meant to block *very* objectional material (ie, kiddie porn &amp; beastiality), but what about all the other porn &amp; violence our kids should not be looking at on the 'net?
Im sure plenty of parents will get the idea this filter will protect their kids from all non-kiddie-safe material.
Thats very far from the truth.
Sure, let kids view thousands of hours of kinky, watersports, scat and BDSM porn, but dont let them see one of those 400 beastiality sites, itll corrupt them forever!!
So they want to put in place a system that will cost tens of millions of $AUD, complicate ISP filters, reduce reliability, increase latency, to just block those ~400 specific URLs.
Sure, more URLs will be added, but how many out there that should be on the list will be missed?
Fucking stupid.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668264</id>
	<title>Re:Doesn't make sense</title>
	<author>Joakal</author>
	<datestamp>1269948900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Many others? Possibly, but not all federal parties in Australia are supporting it: <a href="http://shockseat.com/communications/internet-filtering-scheme" title="shockseat.com" rel="nofollow">http://shockseat.com/communications/internet-filtering-scheme</a> [shockseat.com] </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Many others ?
Possibly , but not all federal parties in Australia are supporting it : http : //shockseat.com/communications/internet-filtering-scheme [ shockseat.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many others?
Possibly, but not all federal parties in Australia are supporting it: http://shockseat.com/communications/internet-filtering-scheme [shockseat.com] </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31667772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31670782</id>
	<title>Re:Potential censorship?</title>
	<author>Shihar</author>
	<datestamp>1269964380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We might not be able to watch nips on broadcast TV, but at least we can watch small breasted Asian midget pr0n on the Intertubes while playing a nice and gory round and Aliens vs Predators.  Not that I want either, but I would take the US governments regulating three crappy broadcast channels from showing nips over a universal internet filter and a fucking censor board on video games.  Wait until someone realizes that books have violence in Australia.  OMFGTHECHILDREN!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We might not be able to watch nips on broadcast TV , but at least we can watch small breasted Asian midget pr0n on the Intertubes while playing a nice and gory round and Aliens vs Predators .
Not that I want either , but I would take the US governments regulating three crappy broadcast channels from showing nips over a universal internet filter and a fucking censor board on video games .
Wait until someone realizes that books have violence in Australia .
OMFGTHECHILDREN !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We might not be able to watch nips on broadcast TV, but at least we can watch small breasted Asian midget pr0n on the Intertubes while playing a nice and gory round and Aliens vs Predators.
Not that I want either, but I would take the US governments regulating three crappy broadcast channels from showing nips over a universal internet filter and a fucking censor board on video games.
Wait until someone realizes that books have violence in Australia.
OMFGTHECHILDREN!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668774</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_0249252_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31667772
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_0249252_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31670482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31667770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_0249252_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31667770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_0249252_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31667770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_0249252_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31670442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31667770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_0249252_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31670520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_0249252_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31670240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_0249252_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31670640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31667748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_0249252_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31672084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31667910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_0249252_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31667752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_0249252_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31669498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668310
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_0249252_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31682728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_0249252_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31669016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31667910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_0249252_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31675208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31667748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_0249252_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31669198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_0249252_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31676706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_0249252_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31672398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_0249252_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31682928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_0249252_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31667774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_0249252_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31671112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_0249252_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31670782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_0249252_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_0249252_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668940
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_0249252_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31671160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_0249252_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31667774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_0249252_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31674972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31667748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_0249252_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31671586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_0249252_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31682746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_0249252_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31667748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_0249252_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31671764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_0249252.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668662
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31670520
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_0249252.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31667752
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668630
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_0249252.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668310
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31669498
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_0249252.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31667770
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31670482
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668192
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31670442
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668290
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_0249252.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668130
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668266
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31671112
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31682728
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_0249252.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668728
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_0249252.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31667738
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_0249252.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668056
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31669198
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31671586
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_0249252.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668774
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31671160
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31682928
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31672398
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31670782
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_0249252.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668114
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_0249252.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31667774
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668082
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668000
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_0249252.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31667748
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668110
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31675208
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31670640
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668212
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31674972
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668384
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_0249252.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31667750
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_0249252.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668026
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_0249252.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668276
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_0249252.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31667772
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668264
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_0249252.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31677546
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_0249252.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31667910
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31672084
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31669016
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_0249252.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668070
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668940
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_0249252.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668196
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31671764
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668560
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31682746
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31676706
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31670240
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_0249252.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0249252.31668614
</commentlist>
</conversation>
