<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_07_2019246</id>
	<title>Hackers Claim To Hit T-Mobile Hard</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1244364060000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.channelinsider.com/" rel="nofollow">dasButcher</a> writes <i>"Hackers are
<a href="http://blogs.channelinsider.com/secure\_channel/content/data\_security/early\_reports\_of\_massive\_t-mobile\_breach.html">claiming to own T-Mobile USA's servers</a> and to have access to the cellular phone carrier's operations, finance and subscriber data." (Here's <a href="http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2009/Jun/0062.html">the seclists.org post of the claimed breach</a>.)</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>dasButcher writes " Hackers are claiming to own T-Mobile USA 's servers and to have access to the cellular phone carrier 's operations , finance and subscriber data .
" ( Here 's the seclists.org post of the claimed breach .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>dasButcher writes "Hackers are
claiming to own T-Mobile USA's servers and to have access to the cellular phone carrier's operations, finance and subscriber data.
" (Here's the seclists.org post of the claimed breach.
)</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244629</id>
	<title>Re:Why....</title>
	<author>plover</author>
	<datestamp>1244373180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What stuff?  You mean the raw database?  Theoretically, there are various layers of security here: firewalls to the outside, authentication to particular views on the inside where only data you Need To Know is available to you, and proper firewalls on each database server to limit access to the database port(s) and probably ssh.</p></div><p>
It seems your theory is kind of flawed, because if their protection was indeed that good the thieves probably wouldn't have gotten the data they did.
</p><p>
I think the reality is they have a firewall, and probably overly simplistic authentication on the databases, and virtually nothing else.  Consider an inept DBA running SQL Server 2005 who ties the SQL Server's SA account to the machine's administrator account.  And add another inept system administrator who has a shared admin account across all the database servers, as well as some IIS servers and maybe some FTP servers as well.  So the hacker worms his way to an admin account on ftp\_serve\_01.tmobile.com and ta-da! He's suddenly got admin rights to their data!
</p><p>
Never ascribe to ingenuity that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What stuff ?
You mean the raw database ?
Theoretically , there are various layers of security here : firewalls to the outside , authentication to particular views on the inside where only data you Need To Know is available to you , and proper firewalls on each database server to limit access to the database port ( s ) and probably ssh .
It seems your theory is kind of flawed , because if their protection was indeed that good the thieves probably would n't have gotten the data they did .
I think the reality is they have a firewall , and probably overly simplistic authentication on the databases , and virtually nothing else .
Consider an inept DBA running SQL Server 2005 who ties the SQL Server 's SA account to the machine 's administrator account .
And add another inept system administrator who has a shared admin account across all the database servers , as well as some IIS servers and maybe some FTP servers as well .
So the hacker worms his way to an admin account on ftp \ _serve \ _01.tmobile.com and ta-da !
He 's suddenly got admin rights to their data !
Never ascribe to ingenuity that which can be adequately explained by stupidity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What stuff?
You mean the raw database?
Theoretically, there are various layers of security here: firewalls to the outside, authentication to particular views on the inside where only data you Need To Know is available to you, and proper firewalls on each database server to limit access to the database port(s) and probably ssh.
It seems your theory is kind of flawed, because if their protection was indeed that good the thieves probably wouldn't have gotten the data they did.
I think the reality is they have a firewall, and probably overly simplistic authentication on the databases, and virtually nothing else.
Consider an inept DBA running SQL Server 2005 who ties the SQL Server's SA account to the machine's administrator account.
And add another inept system administrator who has a shared admin account across all the database servers, as well as some IIS servers and maybe some FTP servers as well.
So the hacker worms his way to an admin account on ftp\_serve\_01.tmobile.com and ta-da!
He's suddenly got admin rights to their data!
Never ascribe to ingenuity that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243931</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244073</id>
	<title>Millions of credit cards, unprecedented access</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244369520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And the best thing they can think of doing with it all is to offer it to T-Mobiles competitors? Seriously? I can think of tons of ways to profit off of all that information.</p><p>However not one of those ways involves attempting to sell the information to companies that are legally required to report it. Or when that fails, announcing it to the public and getting every police agency in the world on my trail.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And the best thing they can think of doing with it all is to offer it to T-Mobiles competitors ?
Seriously ? I can think of tons of ways to profit off of all that information.However not one of those ways involves attempting to sell the information to companies that are legally required to report it .
Or when that fails , announcing it to the public and getting every police agency in the world on my trail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And the best thing they can think of doing with it all is to offer it to T-Mobiles competitors?
Seriously? I can think of tons of ways to profit off of all that information.However not one of those ways involves attempting to sell the information to companies that are legally required to report it.
Or when that fails, announcing it to the public and getting every police agency in the world on my trail.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28246431</id>
	<title>Re:Why....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244388900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sorry Plover, I think his theory is "right on."</p><p>If you're an SA, how hard would it be to get a list of DNS names/box-purposes/OSes on your network?  Isn't there someone around your building with a spreadsheet like that sitting on their hard drive?  Would that person even care to encrypt such a list?  Why go to great lengths to hide something you can nmap?</p><p>What are they going to sell to Verizon:  "We have documents that prove T-Mobile is going to continue hyping the Google O/S, and have several Android phones available for Christmas!"  or  "We have internal documents that show T-Mobile is sorry they didn't get the iPhone"  How about their entire engineering focus for the next half year:  "Confidential documents prove that the 4 billion dollars T-Mobile invested mostly in the new 1700Mhz spectrum will require them to upgrade the radios at every one of their cell sites to use it...."  Duh, duh, and duh.</p><p>This is not KFC, if you wan't T-mobile's 11 herbs and spices, go read the GSM and UMTS specifications.  That's how they're going to do it.  If you want to see their new handsets before 95\% of their employees do, keep hitting refresh on engadget.com</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sorry Plover , I think his theory is " right on .
" If you 're an SA , how hard would it be to get a list of DNS names/box-purposes/OSes on your network ?
Is n't there someone around your building with a spreadsheet like that sitting on their hard drive ?
Would that person even care to encrypt such a list ?
Why go to great lengths to hide something you can nmap ? What are they going to sell to Verizon : " We have documents that prove T-Mobile is going to continue hyping the Google O/S , and have several Android phones available for Christmas !
" or " We have internal documents that show T-Mobile is sorry they did n't get the iPhone " How about their entire engineering focus for the next half year : " Confidential documents prove that the 4 billion dollars T-Mobile invested mostly in the new 1700Mhz spectrum will require them to upgrade the radios at every one of their cell sites to use it.... " Duh , duh , and duh.This is not KFC , if you wa n't T-mobile 's 11 herbs and spices , go read the GSM and UMTS specifications .
That 's how they 're going to do it .
If you want to see their new handsets before 95 \ % of their employees do , keep hitting refresh on engadget.com</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sorry Plover, I think his theory is "right on.
"If you're an SA, how hard would it be to get a list of DNS names/box-purposes/OSes on your network?
Isn't there someone around your building with a spreadsheet like that sitting on their hard drive?
Would that person even care to encrypt such a list?
Why go to great lengths to hide something you can nmap?What are they going to sell to Verizon:  "We have documents that prove T-Mobile is going to continue hyping the Google O/S, and have several Android phones available for Christmas!
"  or  "We have internal documents that show T-Mobile is sorry they didn't get the iPhone"  How about their entire engineering focus for the next half year:  "Confidential documents prove that the 4 billion dollars T-Mobile invested mostly in the new 1700Mhz spectrum will require them to upgrade the radios at every one of their cell sites to use it...."  Duh, duh, and duh.This is not KFC, if you wan't T-mobile's 11 herbs and spices, go read the GSM and UMTS specifications.
That's how they're going to do it.
If you want to see their new handsets before 95\% of their employees do, keep hitting refresh on engadget.com</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244629</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244679</id>
	<title>Re:Millions of credit cards, unprecedented access</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244373660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they're smart enough to take over T-Mobile, I'm sure they thought of something you missed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they 're smart enough to take over T-Mobile , I 'm sure they thought of something you missed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they're smart enough to take over T-Mobile, I'm sure they thought of something you missed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244073</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28248947</id>
	<title>people cant change plans</title>
	<author>cheekyboy</author>
	<datestamp>1244460900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People cannot choose different rates, because of arcane stupid plan systems.</p><p>They should ban all plans except the paying of phone rate.</p><p>Plans have wierd rates of nnn free per month for y plan, then xx free for same network, then others at b prices.</p><p>People have no freedom to 'keep plan' but move to different price schemes.</p><p>Two year plans should be banned, since most phones die within 18 months instead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People can not choose different rates , because of arcane stupid plan systems.They should ban all plans except the paying of phone rate.Plans have wierd rates of nnn free per month for y plan , then xx free for same network , then others at b prices.People have no freedom to 'keep plan ' but move to different price schemes.Two year plans should be banned , since most phones die within 18 months instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People cannot choose different rates, because of arcane stupid plan systems.They should ban all plans except the paying of phone rate.Plans have wierd rates of nnn free per month for y plan, then xx free for same network, then others at b prices.People have no freedom to 'keep plan' but move to different price schemes.Two year plans should be banned, since most phones die within 18 months instead.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244833</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244331</id>
	<title>Re:All UNIX/UNIX-likes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244371200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Ever heard of a high-profile Windows shop being compromised during the last five years? No? Didn't think so.</p></div><p>Of course we don't hear about it anymore. It's not news!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ever heard of a high-profile Windows shop being compromised during the last five years ?
No ? Did n't think so.Of course we do n't hear about it anymore .
It 's not news !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ever heard of a high-profile Windows shop being compromised during the last five years?
No? Didn't think so.Of course we don't hear about it anymore.
It's not news!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243965</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28246241</id>
	<title>Yeah...right</title>
	<author>TechnoGrl</author>
	<datestamp>1244387220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone who does not have the wherewithal and sense to not make public their extortion demand, very likely does not have the sense and wherewithal to actually harvest information.  I see a text depiction of a list of alleged connections to T-Mo servers.</p><p>I do not see actual data - show me a 500 data item sample if you have anything at all.</p><p>My best guess:  Some 15 year old in an Eastern European country will shortly have some 'splainin to do.<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone who does not have the wherewithal and sense to not make public their extortion demand , very likely does not have the sense and wherewithal to actually harvest information .
I see a text depiction of a list of alleged connections to T-Mo servers.I do not see actual data - show me a 500 data item sample if you have anything at all.My best guess : Some 15 year old in an Eastern European country will shortly have some 'splainin to do .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone who does not have the wherewithal and sense to not make public their extortion demand, very likely does not have the sense and wherewithal to actually harvest information.
I see a text depiction of a list of alleged connections to T-Mo servers.I do not see actual data - show me a 500 data item sample if you have anything at all.My best guess:  Some 15 year old in an Eastern European country will shortly have some 'splainin to do.
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28269059</id>
	<title>Re:Using the data for good purposes</title>
	<author>BrookHarty</author>
	<datestamp>1244574960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>They don't have to cost so much. In fact, the cost of providing SMS service is next to nothing - it's an afterthought that runs in the cell phone control channel.</i></p></div><p>I love armchair engineers. Always the same mantra about SMS doesnt cost carriers, it free, its air! Wrong. The hardware, network and support for each carrier runs into the millions.  Yes, they make a profit, but its not free for the telcos.  These misconceptions get pushed around as common sense.  Look at the mods for insightful on these types of comments.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They do n't have to cost so much .
In fact , the cost of providing SMS service is next to nothing - it 's an afterthought that runs in the cell phone control channel.I love armchair engineers .
Always the same mantra about SMS doesnt cost carriers , it free , its air !
Wrong. The hardware , network and support for each carrier runs into the millions .
Yes , they make a profit , but its not free for the telcos .
These misconceptions get pushed around as common sense .
Look at the mods for insightful on these types of comments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> They don't have to cost so much.
In fact, the cost of providing SMS service is next to nothing - it's an afterthought that runs in the cell phone control channel.I love armchair engineers.
Always the same mantra about SMS doesnt cost carriers, it free, its air!
Wrong. The hardware, network and support for each carrier runs into the millions.
Yes, they make a profit, but its not free for the telcos.
These misconceptions get pushed around as common sense.
Look at the mods for insightful on these types of comments.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244051</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28252653</id>
	<title>Re:Confirmation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244483700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>As of 12:50 EDT here is the company response:<br> <br>XXXXXXXX, we thank you so much for this information. At this time we are uncertain of the website's accusations. However, we are getting on this right away and getting the information over to the proper department so that we can take care of this matter as soon as possible. <br>XXXXXXXX, we will start an investigation for this claim immediately.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As of 12 : 50 EDT here is the company response : XXXXXXXX , we thank you so much for this information .
At this time we are uncertain of the website 's accusations .
However , we are getting on this right away and getting the information over to the proper department so that we can take care of this matter as soon as possible .
XXXXXXXX , we will start an investigation for this claim immediately .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As of 12:50 EDT here is the company response: XXXXXXXX, we thank you so much for this information.
At this time we are uncertain of the website's accusations.
However, we are getting on this right away and getting the information over to the proper department so that we can take care of this matter as soon as possible.
XXXXXXXX, we will start an investigation for this claim immediately.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28245393</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28245875</id>
	<title>Hmmmmm....</title>
	<author>IonOtter</author>
	<datestamp>1244383500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now's my chance to call all those phone-sex lines I've always been curious about!</p><p><i>Sir, you owe $15,239 and 33 cents.</i></p><p>"But I never made those calls!?!  You people got hacked last month, didn't you?  They must have stolen my info!"</p><p><i>Oh, that's right.  Alright sir, we'll take care of it.  Uhmmm...by the way, sir?  I can barely hear you.  Why do you sound so far away?</i></p><p>"Oh, I can't hold my phone.  I uhhh...I sprained my wrists."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now 's my chance to call all those phone-sex lines I 've always been curious about ! Sir , you owe $ 15,239 and 33 cents .
" But I never made those calls ! ? !
You people got hacked last month , did n't you ?
They must have stolen my info !
" Oh , that 's right .
Alright sir , we 'll take care of it .
Uhmmm...by the way , sir ?
I can barely hear you .
Why do you sound so far away ?
" Oh , I ca n't hold my phone .
I uhhh...I sprained my wrists .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now's my chance to call all those phone-sex lines I've always been curious about!Sir, you owe $15,239 and 33 cents.
"But I never made those calls!?!
You people got hacked last month, didn't you?
They must have stolen my info!
"Oh, that's right.
Alright sir, we'll take care of it.
Uhmmm...by the way, sir?
I can barely hear you.
Why do you sound so far away?
"Oh, I can't hold my phone.
I uhhh...I sprained my wrists.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244111</id>
	<title>Re:All UNIX/UNIX-likes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244369700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>W0T!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>W0T !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>W0T!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243965</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28246439</id>
	<title>Re:nice!</title>
	<author>Brad1138</author>
	<datestamp>1244389020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>nice!</p></div><p>

We all joke, and to some extent say, "good job" to the hackers. We forget these guys are no different than the robbers and thugs you see on "cops" or the evening news, they are just more covert. No one cheers on the armed gunman, robbing a convenience store. It bothers me these guys aren't viewed in the same light.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>nice !
We all joke , and to some extent say , " good job " to the hackers .
We forget these guys are no different than the robbers and thugs you see on " cops " or the evening news , they are just more covert .
No one cheers on the armed gunman , robbing a convenience store .
It bothers me these guys are n't viewed in the same light .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>nice!
We all joke, and to some extent say, "good job" to the hackers.
We forget these guys are no different than the robbers and thugs you see on "cops" or the evening news, they are just more covert.
No one cheers on the armed gunman, robbing a convenience store.
It bothers me these guys aren't viewed in the same light.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243867</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243917</id>
	<title>They're in luck!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244368200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I happen to know a Nigerian Prince who would be *very* interested in their offer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I happen to know a Nigerian Prince who would be * very * interested in their offer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I happen to know a Nigerian Prince who would be *very* interested in their offer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244125</id>
	<title>Re:Using the data for good purposes</title>
	<author>DaveV1.0</author>
	<datestamp>1244369880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> Time after time, the data has shown that SMSes *should* be giant cash cows for these monopolistic entities</p></div></blockquote><p>Please do so now, in detail, with references containing verifiable data on the costs.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Time after time , the data has shown that SMSes * should * be giant cash cows for these monopolistic entitiesPlease do so now , in detail , with references containing verifiable data on the costs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Time after time, the data has shown that SMSes *should* be giant cash cows for these monopolistic entitiesPlease do so now, in detail, with references containing verifiable data on the costs.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243897</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244097</id>
	<title>Re:Like competitors would ever pay for this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244369640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I suppose there are ways to hide the transaction, but if somebody wanted to catch these thieves, couldn't they just follow the money?

I do hope they are caught. I have a Tmo account.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I suppose there are ways to hide the transaction , but if somebody wanted to catch these thieves , could n't they just follow the money ?
I do hope they are caught .
I have a Tmo account .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suppose there are ways to hide the transaction, but if somebody wanted to catch these thieves, couldn't they just follow the money?
I do hope they are caught.
I have a Tmo account.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243909</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28249931</id>
	<title>Re:nice!</title>
	<author>cerberusss</author>
	<datestamp>1244470080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>No one cheers on the armed gunman, robbing a convenience store. It bothers me these guys aren't viewed in the same light.</p></div><p>Actually in The Netherlands, there were a number of robber gangs that targeted strongboxes of companies and municipalities. These were seen as modern Robin Hood-types, stealing from the rich (as opposed to regular burglars that stole from the common people). They drove around in fancy cars and even flaunted with the gas cylinders (of cutting torches) sticking out of the back windows of their cars.</p><p>I can't really imagine admiring a robber, but I do remember that some ten years ago, hackers were seen in much the same light. Grandparent poster is probably stick in that era.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No one cheers on the armed gunman , robbing a convenience store .
It bothers me these guys are n't viewed in the same light.Actually in The Netherlands , there were a number of robber gangs that targeted strongboxes of companies and municipalities .
These were seen as modern Robin Hood-types , stealing from the rich ( as opposed to regular burglars that stole from the common people ) .
They drove around in fancy cars and even flaunted with the gas cylinders ( of cutting torches ) sticking out of the back windows of their cars.I ca n't really imagine admiring a robber , but I do remember that some ten years ago , hackers were seen in much the same light .
Grandparent poster is probably stick in that era .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No one cheers on the armed gunman, robbing a convenience store.
It bothers me these guys aren't viewed in the same light.Actually in The Netherlands, there were a number of robber gangs that targeted strongboxes of companies and municipalities.
These were seen as modern Robin Hood-types, stealing from the rich (as opposed to regular burglars that stole from the common people).
They drove around in fancy cars and even flaunted with the gas cylinders (of cutting torches) sticking out of the back windows of their cars.I can't really imagine admiring a robber, but I do remember that some ten years ago, hackers were seen in much the same light.
Grandparent poster is probably stick in that era.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28246439</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28245865</id>
	<title>Worked there a few years ago...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244383320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This doesn't surprise me at all.  I used to work there a few years ago.  Security was not something they were concerned with in the least.  RSH was used everywhere and they refused even use telnet let alone ssh.  The root passwords on all the Unix servers that controlled the switch was the name of the switch manufacturer.  So Nokia was nokia and Nortel was nortel.  Frankly this wasn't the worst thing there, don't try to do anything that might improve service or change the way things are done because that would upset the norm.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This does n't surprise me at all .
I used to work there a few years ago .
Security was not something they were concerned with in the least .
RSH was used everywhere and they refused even use telnet let alone ssh .
The root passwords on all the Unix servers that controlled the switch was the name of the switch manufacturer .
So Nokia was nokia and Nortel was nortel .
Frankly this was n't the worst thing there , do n't try to do anything that might improve service or change the way things are done because that would upset the norm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This doesn't surprise me at all.
I used to work there a few years ago.
Security was not something they were concerned with in the least.
RSH was used everywhere and they refused even use telnet let alone ssh.
The root passwords on all the Unix servers that controlled the switch was the name of the switch manufacturer.
So Nokia was nokia and Nortel was nortel.
Frankly this wasn't the worst thing there, don't try to do anything that might improve service or change the way things are done because that would upset the norm.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243873</id>
	<title>worthless data!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244367840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"We already contacted with their competitors and they didn't show interest in buying their data"


LOL... seems like its worthless!</htmltext>
<tokenext>" We already contacted with their competitors and they did n't show interest in buying their data " LOL... seems like its worthless !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"We already contacted with their competitors and they didn't show interest in buying their data"


LOL... seems like its worthless!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28245841</id>
	<title>1030(a)(4) and possibly 1030(a)(7)</title>
	<author>rt66traffic</author>
	<datestamp>1244383080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>looks like some serious jail time to me... <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1030.html" title="cornell.edu" rel="nofollow">http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1030.html</a> [cornell.edu]</htmltext>
<tokenext>looks like some serious jail time to me... http : //www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1030.html [ cornell.edu ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>looks like some serious jail time to me... http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1030.html [cornell.edu]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244373</id>
	<title>Re:Is that the list of compromised servers?</title>
	<author>codepunk</author>
	<datestamp>1244371620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Interesting, how do you think they got through the firewall in the first place?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting , how do you think they got through the firewall in the first place ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting, how do you think they got through the firewall in the first place?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244041</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243945</id>
	<title>If you were smart, you used a prepaid phone</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244368440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you were a T-Mobile user and smart, you didn't trust T-Mobile in the first place and used a prepaid phone and so there isn't a whole lot of data on you in the first place.</p><p>If you choose to trust a company with an enormous amount of your data, it's not a question of whether that will be abused.  It's just a question of which will happen first: whether crackers will acquire it or whether the company will get into financial trouble and sell that data (or use it itself to try and make a return somehow).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you were a T-Mobile user and smart , you did n't trust T-Mobile in the first place and used a prepaid phone and so there is n't a whole lot of data on you in the first place.If you choose to trust a company with an enormous amount of your data , it 's not a question of whether that will be abused .
It 's just a question of which will happen first : whether crackers will acquire it or whether the company will get into financial trouble and sell that data ( or use it itself to try and make a return somehow ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you were a T-Mobile user and smart, you didn't trust T-Mobile in the first place and used a prepaid phone and so there isn't a whole lot of data on you in the first place.If you choose to trust a company with an enormous amount of your data, it's not a question of whether that will be abused.
It's just a question of which will happen first: whether crackers will acquire it or whether the company will get into financial trouble and sell that data (or use it itself to try and make a return somehow).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28245439</id>
	<title>This could be a "shill" event. *NEW* Cyber Czar!</title>
	<author>WolphFang</author>
	<datestamp>1244379600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This could be a "shill" event. *NEW* Cyber Czar!

Think about it. A manufactured cyber emergency to justify new cyber regulations and lockdown in the best of interest of "everyone".</htmltext>
<tokenext>This could be a " shill " event .
* NEW * Cyber Czar !
Think about it .
A manufactured cyber emergency to justify new cyber regulations and lockdown in the best of interest of " everyone " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This could be a "shill" event.
*NEW* Cyber Czar!
Think about it.
A manufactured cyber emergency to justify new cyber regulations and lockdown in the best of interest of "everyone".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244849</id>
	<title>Re:Using the data for good purposes</title>
	<author>fgelias</author>
	<datestamp>1244374920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, under perfect competition, the price *does* equal the marginal cost in equilibrium.  The complaint that SMS prices are too high is legitimate in a situation where there is a high cost to entry preventing competition from driving the price down, as in the telecommunications industry.  In these situations governments have a potentially important role to play (think about how other major utilities, like power companies, are run).  So, yes, many folks may be willing to pay $X for SMS messages, but this may not be the socially efficient price due to the uncompetitiveness of the industry.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , under perfect competition , the price * does * equal the marginal cost in equilibrium .
The complaint that SMS prices are too high is legitimate in a situation where there is a high cost to entry preventing competition from driving the price down , as in the telecommunications industry .
In these situations governments have a potentially important role to play ( think about how other major utilities , like power companies , are run ) .
So , yes , many folks may be willing to pay $ X for SMS messages , but this may not be the socially efficient price due to the uncompetitiveness of the industry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, under perfect competition, the price *does* equal the marginal cost in equilibrium.
The complaint that SMS prices are too high is legitimate in a situation where there is a high cost to entry preventing competition from driving the price down, as in the telecommunications industry.
In these situations governments have a potentially important role to play (think about how other major utilities, like power companies, are run).
So, yes, many folks may be willing to pay $X for SMS messages, but this may not be the socially efficient price due to the uncompetitiveness of the industry.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244071</id>
	<title>Re:Using the data for good purposes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244369520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd like to see the press try to publish analyses of the data. Admitting you have a copy of it is probably about as good as burning down your server farm because you'll never see any of your computers again.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd like to see the press try to publish analyses of the data .
Admitting you have a copy of it is probably about as good as burning down your server farm because you 'll never see any of your computers again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd like to see the press try to publish analyses of the data.
Admitting you have a copy of it is probably about as good as burning down your server farm because you'll never see any of your computers again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243897</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243959</id>
	<title>Re:Like competitors would ever pay for this</title>
	<author>jack2000</author>
	<datestamp>1244368560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>You think they offered it legally to the competitors?</htmltext>
<tokenext>You think they offered it legally to the competitors ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You think they offered it legally to the competitors?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243909</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28245995</id>
	<title>Proud hacker,</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244384580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is anyone else getting tired of the media's and even Slashdot's own misuse of the word 'hacker'?</p><p>Crackers Claim To Hit T-Mobile Hard</p><p>Fixed it for you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is anyone else getting tired of the media 's and even Slashdot 's own misuse of the word 'hacker ' ? Crackers Claim To Hit T-Mobile HardFixed it for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is anyone else getting tired of the media's and even Slashdot's own misuse of the word 'hacker'?Crackers Claim To Hit T-Mobile HardFixed it for you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244825</id>
	<title>Other Telecoms Hacked Too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244374800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've worked at other telecoms.</p><p>One was hacked with the servers actually being used to provide VoIP services about 4 years ago.  It guess financial data hacks matter but internal server hacks don't?</p><p>The other was not hacked to my knowledge, but did get spyware and viruses internally occasionally, just like every other company does. An employee setup a porn website on company servers, but was caught, fired and prosecuted.</p><p>I am a current customer of T-Mobile, but only with a pay-as-you-go cell phone.  I am not a customer of either of the telecoms that I worked and will avoid being a customer to them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've worked at other telecoms.One was hacked with the servers actually being used to provide VoIP services about 4 years ago .
It guess financial data hacks matter but internal server hacks do n't ? The other was not hacked to my knowledge , but did get spyware and viruses internally occasionally , just like every other company does .
An employee setup a porn website on company servers , but was caught , fired and prosecuted.I am a current customer of T-Mobile , but only with a pay-as-you-go cell phone .
I am not a customer of either of the telecoms that I worked and will avoid being a customer to them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've worked at other telecoms.One was hacked with the servers actually being used to provide VoIP services about 4 years ago.
It guess financial data hacks matter but internal server hacks don't?The other was not hacked to my knowledge, but did get spyware and viruses internally occasionally, just like every other company does.
An employee setup a porn website on company servers, but was caught, fired and prosecuted.I am a current customer of T-Mobile, but only with a pay-as-you-go cell phone.
I am not a customer of either of the telecoms that I worked and will avoid being a customer to them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28246287</id>
	<title>Re:All UNIX/UNIX-likes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244387580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was having a pretty crummy day.  Thanks for making me laugh out loud.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was having a pretty crummy day .
Thanks for making me laugh out loud .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was having a pretty crummy day.
Thanks for making me laugh out loud.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244165</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28246525</id>
	<title>Re:All UNIX/UNIX-likes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244389920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, this is Bill, Steve is busy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , this is Bill , Steve is busy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, this is Bill, Steve is busy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244165</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28245771</id>
	<title>Re:T-Mobile Customer?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244382180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All the service providers have been hacked. Most of them many times.</p><p>Why the parent is modded to +5 is beyond me. I had thought most<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. would be aware how often big companies servers are compromised.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All the service providers have been hacked .
Most of them many times.Why the parent is modded to + 5 is beyond me .
I had thought most / .
would be aware how often big companies servers are compromised .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All the service providers have been hacked.
Most of them many times.Why the parent is modded to +5 is beyond me.
I had thought most /.
would be aware how often big companies servers are compromised.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244083</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28259641</id>
	<title>Re:All UNIX/UNIX-likes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244470440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>All of their production servers are running UNIX- or UNIX-like operating systems. Had they been running a Windows-only setup, this would not have happened.</p><p>Ever heard of a high-profile Windows shop being compromised during the last five years? No? Didn't think so.</p></div><p>It's no big secret that T-Mobile's intranet runs on Windows servers, hosted at a data center in Bothell Washington.</p><p>The data that the hackers are offering for sale appears to be lifted right off those Windows servers.</p><p>If I'm not mistaken, any one of their thousands of employees could download this, as long as they had an account on the exchange servers, and they knew the right URL.</p><p>In other words:</p><p>They got nothin'</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>All of their production servers are running UNIX- or UNIX-like operating systems .
Had they been running a Windows-only setup , this would not have happened.Ever heard of a high-profile Windows shop being compromised during the last five years ?
No ? Did n't think so.It 's no big secret that T-Mobile 's intranet runs on Windows servers , hosted at a data center in Bothell Washington.The data that the hackers are offering for sale appears to be lifted right off those Windows servers.If I 'm not mistaken , any one of their thousands of employees could download this , as long as they had an account on the exchange servers , and they knew the right URL.In other words : They got nothin '</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All of their production servers are running UNIX- or UNIX-like operating systems.
Had they been running a Windows-only setup, this would not have happened.Ever heard of a high-profile Windows shop being compromised during the last five years?
No? Didn't think so.It's no big secret that T-Mobile's intranet runs on Windows servers, hosted at a data center in Bothell Washington.The data that the hackers are offering for sale appears to be lifted right off those Windows servers.If I'm not mistaken, any one of their thousands of employees could download this, as long as they had an account on the exchange servers, and they knew the right URL.In other words:They got nothin'
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243965</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243939</id>
	<title>typo in summary</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244368380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>claiming to <b>own</b> T-Mobile USA's servers</p></div><p>Don't you mean <b>pwn</b>?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>claiming to own T-Mobile USA 's serversDo n't you mean pwn ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>claiming to own T-Mobile USA's serversDon't you mean pwn?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244165</id>
	<title>Re:All UNIX/UNIX-likes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244370120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You do realize you can register for free Steve, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do realize you can register for free Steve , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You do realize you can register for free Steve, right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243965</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28251327</id>
	<title>Re:Millions of credit cards, unprecedented access</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244477520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>We would like discuss your ideas with you.  Please turn on your telephone and say "Ikky ekky bozwop spillfer", and we'll answer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We would like discuss your ideas with you .
Please turn on your telephone and say " Ikky ekky bozwop spillfer " , and we 'll answer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We would like discuss your ideas with you.
Please turn on your telephone and say "Ikky ekky bozwop spillfer", and we'll answer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244073</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28258653</id>
	<title>Re:All UNIX/UNIX-likes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244464080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"It's not news!"</p><p>-----  Exactly, MS fails happen every day and all day.  The sun rises everyday, I don't see that broadcast on the news.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" It 's not news !
" ----- Exactly , MS fails happen every day and all day .
The sun rises everyday , I do n't see that broadcast on the news .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"It's not news!
"-----  Exactly, MS fails happen every day and all day.
The sun rises everyday, I don't see that broadcast on the news.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244331</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243915</id>
	<title>Re:Why....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244368200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>My guess is the conversations go like this:<br>
<br>
Front-line Manager: We need to encrypt our dataz.<br>
Middle Manager: How much will this cost?<br>
Front-line Manager: (insert any number)<br>
Middle Manager: No.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My guess is the conversations go like this : Front-line Manager : We need to encrypt our dataz .
Middle Manager : How much will this cost ?
Front-line Manager : ( insert any number ) Middle Manager : No .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My guess is the conversations go like this:

Front-line Manager: We need to encrypt our dataz.
Middle Manager: How much will this cost?
Front-line Manager: (insert any number)
Middle Manager: No.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243877</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244863</id>
	<title>Re:Using the data for good purposes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244374980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Errr, it would seem that you have missed the definition of "price fixing".  Anyone who sells something at below cost is guilty of of SOMETHING.  It's an unfair trade practice, one used by WalMart among others, to drive competition out of business.  Just google the terms WalMart and price fixing. You will be especially interested in the pharmacy cases.  They HAVE BEEN convicted.</p><p>Collusion between companies to fix prices is a more serious crime than what WalMart has practiced.  I'm not quite sure why, but it is.  It probably has to do with the fact that ANY crime in which conspiracy is part of the crime becomes more serious.</p><p>There is no upper limit on the profits that a company can make - it doesn't matter to the government whether the ROI is 1\% or 1,000,000\%.  They are cool with extravagent profits - IF the market is an open market.  Since the providers are monopolies, then it's not truly an open market, and the government WILL take an interest.  The government disapproves of both theft and parasitism - unless it is the government itself which is at fault.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Errr , it would seem that you have missed the definition of " price fixing " .
Anyone who sells something at below cost is guilty of of SOMETHING .
It 's an unfair trade practice , one used by WalMart among others , to drive competition out of business .
Just google the terms WalMart and price fixing .
You will be especially interested in the pharmacy cases .
They HAVE BEEN convicted.Collusion between companies to fix prices is a more serious crime than what WalMart has practiced .
I 'm not quite sure why , but it is .
It probably has to do with the fact that ANY crime in which conspiracy is part of the crime becomes more serious.There is no upper limit on the profits that a company can make - it does n't matter to the government whether the ROI is 1 \ % or 1,000,000 \ % .
They are cool with extravagent profits - IF the market is an open market .
Since the providers are monopolies , then it 's not truly an open market , and the government WILL take an interest .
The government disapproves of both theft and parasitism - unless it is the government itself which is at fault .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Errr, it would seem that you have missed the definition of "price fixing".
Anyone who sells something at below cost is guilty of of SOMETHING.
It's an unfair trade practice, one used by WalMart among others, to drive competition out of business.
Just google the terms WalMart and price fixing.
You will be especially interested in the pharmacy cases.
They HAVE BEEN convicted.Collusion between companies to fix prices is a more serious crime than what WalMart has practiced.
I'm not quite sure why, but it is.
It probably has to do with the fact that ANY crime in which conspiracy is part of the crime becomes more serious.There is no upper limit on the profits that a company can make - it doesn't matter to the government whether the ROI is 1\% or 1,000,000\%.
They are cool with extravagent profits - IF the market is an open market.
Since the providers are monopolies, then it's not truly an open market, and the government WILL take an interest.
The government disapproves of both theft and parasitism - unless it is the government itself which is at fault.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244441</id>
	<title>Re:Using the data for good purposes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244371920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>breech  (brch)<br>n.<br>1. The lower rear portion of the human trunk; the buttocks.<br>2.a. A breech presentation or delivery. b. A fetus in breech presentation.<br>3. breeches - a. Knee breeches. b. Informal Trousers.<br>4. The part of a firearm behind the barrel.<br>5. The lower part of a pulley block.</p><p>Which of these definitions fit?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>breech ( brch ) n.1 .
The lower rear portion of the human trunk ; the buttocks.2.a .
A breech presentation or delivery .
b. A fetus in breech presentation.3 .
breeches - a. Knee breeches .
b. Informal Trousers.4 .
The part of a firearm behind the barrel.5 .
The lower part of a pulley block.Which of these definitions fit ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>breech  (brch)n.1.
The lower rear portion of the human trunk; the buttocks.2.a.
A breech presentation or delivery.
b. A fetus in breech presentation.3.
breeches - a. Knee breeches.
b. Informal Trousers.4.
The part of a firearm behind the barrel.5.
The lower part of a pulley block.Which of these definitions fit?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243897</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28252361</id>
	<title>Re:If you were smart, you used a prepaid phone</title>
	<author>PitaBred</author>
	<datestamp>1244482800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Silly poster. Don't you know that the United States is the only country that matters, and that since T-Mobile is #4 or 5 here, they've gotta be a small fry altogether?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Silly poster .
Do n't you know that the United States is the only country that matters , and that since T-Mobile is # 4 or 5 here , they 've got ta be a small fry altogether ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Silly poster.
Don't you know that the United States is the only country that matters, and that since T-Mobile is #4 or 5 here, they've gotta be a small fry altogether?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28245045</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28249669</id>
	<title>Re:If you were smart, you used a prepaid phone</title>
	<author>nedlohs</author>
	<datestamp>1244468280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They have a large european presence. the big names in the USA (e.g. AT&amp;T, Sprint) are US only which makes them significantly smaller.</p><p>As a wild stab I'd almost guarantee the largest cell phone company will be either Vonage (since they are almost everywhere) or whichever Chinese company you've never heard of has the most market share in China. And if Vonage isn't in China, it's going to be that Chinese company in first place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They have a large european presence .
the big names in the USA ( e.g .
AT&amp;T , Sprint ) are US only which makes them significantly smaller.As a wild stab I 'd almost guarantee the largest cell phone company will be either Vonage ( since they are almost everywhere ) or whichever Chinese company you 've never heard of has the most market share in China .
And if Vonage is n't in China , it 's going to be that Chinese company in first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They have a large european presence.
the big names in the USA (e.g.
AT&amp;T, Sprint) are US only which makes them significantly smaller.As a wild stab I'd almost guarantee the largest cell phone company will be either Vonage (since they are almost everywhere) or whichever Chinese company you've never heard of has the most market share in China.
And if Vonage isn't in China, it's going to be that Chinese company in first place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28245799</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28247647</id>
	<title>Re:Using the data for good purposes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244403000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The SMS function is really a matter of the upstream provider, and how many SMSC (Short Message Service Control) Servers you have in your network. The boxes do cost money, and it is pretty pricey to buy the licensing from Ericsson or whomever you chose.</p><p>The national clearing houses for SMS routing charge a lot of cash to route messages, but the size of the message is nill.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The SMS function is really a matter of the upstream provider , and how many SMSC ( Short Message Service Control ) Servers you have in your network .
The boxes do cost money , and it is pretty pricey to buy the licensing from Ericsson or whomever you chose.The national clearing houses for SMS routing charge a lot of cash to route messages , but the size of the message is nill .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The SMS function is really a matter of the upstream provider, and how many SMSC (Short Message Service Control) Servers you have in your network.
The boxes do cost money, and it is pretty pricey to buy the licensing from Ericsson or whomever you chose.The national clearing houses for SMS routing charge a lot of cash to route messages, but the size of the message is nill.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244051</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244509</id>
	<title>Why is this a story?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244372220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I posted to some well-respected security mailing list that "i hacked slashdot!" and posted a bunch of gibberish....would slashdot post a story about it?</p><p>Seriously, unless there is some \_real\_ information (like T-mobile acknowledgment), this story doesn't belong here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I posted to some well-respected security mailing list that " i hacked slashdot !
" and posted a bunch of gibberish....would slashdot post a story about it ? Seriously , unless there is some \ _real \ _ information ( like T-mobile acknowledgment ) , this story does n't belong here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I posted to some well-respected security mailing list that "i hacked slashdot!
" and posted a bunch of gibberish....would slashdot post a story about it?Seriously, unless there is some \_real\_ information (like T-mobile acknowledgment), this story doesn't belong here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28246719</id>
	<title>Re:Using the data for good purposes</title>
	<author>dgcaste</author>
	<datestamp>1244391720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The cell companies are not monopolies, they are an oligopoly. They DO compete, but their prices are sticky and their demand is relatively inelastic. What Congress needs to do is outlaw anything that's more than 6 months or a year of a contract. It's not about subsidy since most cell phones are worth pennies, but this would really force them to compete amongst themselves.

<br> <br>The truth is that cell networks are incredibly expensive to expand and maintain, and even though cell companies are gobbling up profits, something that has become pretty much a necessity is not that expensive. We enjoy a great deal of consumer surplus since people would pay more than what we pay now for cell service. In fact, if it cost the average citizen $300 a month to have a cell phone, many people (including myself) would still have it. Then again, land lines wouldn't be extinct.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The cell companies are not monopolies , they are an oligopoly .
They DO compete , but their prices are sticky and their demand is relatively inelastic .
What Congress needs to do is outlaw anything that 's more than 6 months or a year of a contract .
It 's not about subsidy since most cell phones are worth pennies , but this would really force them to compete amongst themselves .
The truth is that cell networks are incredibly expensive to expand and maintain , and even though cell companies are gobbling up profits , something that has become pretty much a necessity is not that expensive .
We enjoy a great deal of consumer surplus since people would pay more than what we pay now for cell service .
In fact , if it cost the average citizen $ 300 a month to have a cell phone , many people ( including myself ) would still have it .
Then again , land lines would n't be extinct .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The cell companies are not monopolies, they are an oligopoly.
They DO compete, but their prices are sticky and their demand is relatively inelastic.
What Congress needs to do is outlaw anything that's more than 6 months or a year of a contract.
It's not about subsidy since most cell phones are worth pennies, but this would really force them to compete amongst themselves.
The truth is that cell networks are incredibly expensive to expand and maintain, and even though cell companies are gobbling up profits, something that has become pretty much a necessity is not that expensive.
We enjoy a great deal of consumer surplus since people would pay more than what we pay now for cell service.
In fact, if it cost the average citizen $300 a month to have a cell phone, many people (including myself) would still have it.
Then again, land lines wouldn't be extinct.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244185</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28247147</id>
	<title>Redhat &amp; Ubuntu (canonical) were hacked... apk</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244396400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><div class="quote"><p><b>"Ever heard of a high-profile Windows shop being compromised during the last five years? No? Didn't think so."</b> - by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 07, @04:58PM (#28243965)</p></div><p>It happens to Linux, &amp; right from the horses' mouths (in UBUNTU (Canonical) &amp;/or REDHAT being hacked):</p><p><b>Is This The Biggest Linux Security Breach? REDHAT SERVERS HACKED:</b></p><p><a href="http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&amp;id=827351" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&amp;id=827351</a> [slashdot.org] [slashdot.org]</p><p>-----</p><p><b>UBUNTU SERVERS HACKED:</b></p><p><a href="http://it.slashdot.org/it/07/08/15/1341224.shtml" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://it.slashdot.org/it/07/08/15/1341224.shtml</a> [slashdot.org] [slashdot.org]</p><p>-----</p><p>APK</p><p>P.S.=&gt; Pretty "high-profile" I'd say - the oem's of Linux distros were hacked... so much for the mod you received, because vs. what I just put up? That IS about all it is, humor (&amp; poor @ that)... apk</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Ever heard of a high-profile Windows shop being compromised during the last five years ?
No ? Did n't think so .
" - by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 07 , @ 04 : 58PM ( # 28243965 ) It happens to Linux , &amp; right from the horses ' mouths ( in UBUNTU ( Canonical ) &amp;/or REDHAT being hacked ) : Is This The Biggest Linux Security Breach ?
REDHAT SERVERS HACKED : http : //slashdot.org/firehose.pl ? op = view&amp;id = 827351 [ slashdot.org ] [ slashdot.org ] -----UBUNTU SERVERS HACKED : http : //it.slashdot.org/it/07/08/15/1341224.shtml [ slashdot.org ] [ slashdot.org ] -----APKP.S. = &gt; Pretty " high-profile " I 'd say - the oem 's of Linux distros were hacked... so much for the mod you received , because vs. what I just put up ?
That IS about all it is , humor ( &amp; poor @ that ) ... apk</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Ever heard of a high-profile Windows shop being compromised during the last five years?
No? Didn't think so.
" - by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 07, @04:58PM (#28243965)It happens to Linux, &amp; right from the horses' mouths (in UBUNTU (Canonical) &amp;/or REDHAT being hacked):Is This The Biggest Linux Security Breach?
REDHAT SERVERS HACKED:http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&amp;id=827351 [slashdot.org] [slashdot.org]-----UBUNTU SERVERS HACKED:http://it.slashdot.org/it/07/08/15/1341224.shtml [slashdot.org] [slashdot.org]-----APKP.S.=&gt; Pretty "high-profile" I'd say - the oem's of Linux distros were hacked... so much for the mod you received, because vs. what I just put up?
That IS about all it is, humor (&amp; poor @ that)... apk
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243965</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28247115</id>
	<title>Rotten customer service, rotten company</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244395920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I do not applaud law-breaking, but nobody deserves it more than you do.  Worst company I've ever had the displeasure of doing business with.</p><p>Where do I sign up for the class action suit?  I long-ago canceled my account, but I couldn't delete my private information out of your system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do not applaud law-breaking , but nobody deserves it more than you do .
Worst company I 've ever had the displeasure of doing business with.Where do I sign up for the class action suit ?
I long-ago canceled my account , but I could n't delete my private information out of your system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do not applaud law-breaking, but nobody deserves it more than you do.
Worst company I've ever had the displeasure of doing business with.Where do I sign up for the class action suit?
I long-ago canceled my account, but I couldn't delete my private information out of your system.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28246329</id>
	<title>Re:T-Mobile Customer?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244388060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;Their service is now wide open.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Oh, please.  The servers listed are a tiny fraction of Tmo's network.  You think they provide billing and data services to 30,000,000+ customers with 511 systems?</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Did you notice how many of those systems had their regions attached?  Do all your systems in say Kansas, have the word Kansas in their<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc/ directory somewhere?  This looks more like a "server deployment database dump" than an actual hacker's list of compromised systems.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Did you notice the variety of systems they claim to have compromised HPUX, Sun and AIX, and Linux, but not one single Windows server?  What are the odds, even if they were all equally secure (cough).  The enterprise still uses plenty of Windows software, and it's obvious when dealing with tmo Customer Care that their desktops are Windows.  20k systems in the hands of low-wage employees and not one of them on this list?</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; And what did you think the big companies do to keep your phone records safe?  With the major carriers all having 20k+ customer care reps, did you expect "DOD Secret Level Clearance" was required to work there?  Your phone records at any company are available for a price.  ("pssst, no one cares who you're callling.").</p><p>&gt;Their inability to keep hackers out equals no reason to be in business.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Maybe in BizarroLand.   All the proof we have is a list of suspiciously Unix-centric systems that are likely on the T-Mobile network.  Compromising a single DNS server in the DMZ might have given them access to some engineer's home directory where a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.csv was sitting ready for a perl script to translate it to DNS entries as part of some routine maintenance task.  And if they have a friendly customer care rep that will risk their job to provide 3 months worth of phone records for $100....  Well, that hasn't been news in 5 years.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; I think your tinfoil hat needs another layer.  Have you tried Copper foil for better Chi alignment?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Their service is now wide open .
        Oh , please .
The servers listed are a tiny fraction of Tmo 's network .
You think they provide billing and data services to 30,000,000 + customers with 511 systems ?
        Did you notice how many of those systems had their regions attached ?
Do all your systems in say Kansas , have the word Kansas in their /etc/ directory somewhere ?
This looks more like a " server deployment database dump " than an actual hacker 's list of compromised systems .
        Did you notice the variety of systems they claim to have compromised HPUX , Sun and AIX , and Linux , but not one single Windows server ?
What are the odds , even if they were all equally secure ( cough ) .
The enterprise still uses plenty of Windows software , and it 's obvious when dealing with tmo Customer Care that their desktops are Windows .
20k systems in the hands of low-wage employees and not one of them on this list ?
        And what did you think the big companies do to keep your phone records safe ?
With the major carriers all having 20k + customer care reps , did you expect " DOD Secret Level Clearance " was required to work there ?
Your phone records at any company are available for a price .
( " pssst , no one cares who you 're callling .
" ) . &gt; Their inability to keep hackers out equals no reason to be in business .
        Maybe in BizarroLand .
All the proof we have is a list of suspiciously Unix-centric systems that are likely on the T-Mobile network .
Compromising a single DNS server in the DMZ might have given them access to some engineer 's home directory where a .csv was sitting ready for a perl script to translate it to DNS entries as part of some routine maintenance task .
And if they have a friendly customer care rep that will risk their job to provide 3 months worth of phone records for $ 100.... Well , that has n't been news in 5 years .
        I think your tinfoil hat needs another layer .
Have you tried Copper foil for better Chi alignment ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;Their service is now wide open.
        Oh, please.
The servers listed are a tiny fraction of Tmo's network.
You think they provide billing and data services to 30,000,000+ customers with 511 systems?
        Did you notice how many of those systems had their regions attached?
Do all your systems in say Kansas, have the word Kansas in their /etc/ directory somewhere?
This looks more like a "server deployment database dump" than an actual hacker's list of compromised systems.
        Did you notice the variety of systems they claim to have compromised HPUX, Sun and AIX, and Linux, but not one single Windows server?
What are the odds, even if they were all equally secure (cough).
The enterprise still uses plenty of Windows software, and it's obvious when dealing with tmo Customer Care that their desktops are Windows.
20k systems in the hands of low-wage employees and not one of them on this list?
        And what did you think the big companies do to keep your phone records safe?
With the major carriers all having 20k+ customer care reps, did you expect "DOD Secret Level Clearance" was required to work there?
Your phone records at any company are available for a price.
("pssst, no one cares who you're callling.
").&gt;Their inability to keep hackers out equals no reason to be in business.
        Maybe in BizarroLand.
All the proof we have is a list of suspiciously Unix-centric systems that are likely on the T-Mobile network.
Compromising a single DNS server in the DMZ might have given them access to some engineer's home directory where a .csv was sitting ready for a perl script to translate it to DNS entries as part of some routine maintenance task.
And if they have a friendly customer care rep that will risk their job to provide 3 months worth of phone records for $100....  Well, that hasn't been news in 5 years.
        I think your tinfoil hat needs another layer.
Have you tried Copper foil for better Chi alignment?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244083</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28248645</id>
	<title>Re:nice!</title>
	<author>kv9</author>
	<datestamp>1244457120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We forget these guys are no different than the robbers and thugs you see on "cops"</p></div><p>I do. I cheered for the handstanding midget that was climbing that pole.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We forget these guys are no different than the robbers and thugs you see on " cops " I do .
I cheered for the handstanding midget that was climbing that pole .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We forget these guys are no different than the robbers and thugs you see on "cops"I do.
I cheered for the handstanding midget that was climbing that pole.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28246439</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244033</id>
	<title>Re:Using the data for good purposes</title>
	<author>repvik</author>
	<datestamp>1244369220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Time after time, the data has shown that SMSes *should* be giant cash cows for these monopolistic entities, but lacking internal financial data it has always been difficult to make an issue out of this at Congress.</p></div></blockquote><p>Why should Congress bother with SMS pricing? Isn't that what competition is for?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Time after time , the data has shown that SMSes * should * be giant cash cows for these monopolistic entities , but lacking internal financial data it has always been difficult to make an issue out of this at Congress.Why should Congress bother with SMS pricing ?
Is n't that what competition is for ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Time after time, the data has shown that SMSes *should* be giant cash cows for these monopolistic entities, but lacking internal financial data it has always been difficult to make an issue out of this at Congress.Why should Congress bother with SMS pricing?
Isn't that what competition is for?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243897</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244047</id>
	<title>Re:All UNIX/UNIX-likes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244369340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, Unix is like 40 now. They should try something new like Android.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , Unix is like 40 now .
They should try something new like Android .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, Unix is like 40 now.
They should try something new like Android.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243965</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244229</id>
	<title>Scam?</title>
	<author>O'Nazareth</author>
	<datestamp>1244370480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <em>We already contacted with their competitors and they didn't show interest in buying their data -probably because the mails got to the wrong people- so now we are offering them for the highest bidder. </em> </p><p>Does not it sound just like a scam? What about sending them one of these 419eater funny guys?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We already contacted with their competitors and they did n't show interest in buying their data -probably because the mails got to the wrong people- so now we are offering them for the highest bidder .
Does not it sound just like a scam ?
What about sending them one of these 419eater funny guys ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> We already contacted with their competitors and they didn't show interest in buying their data -probably because the mails got to the wrong people- so now we are offering them for the highest bidder.
Does not it sound just like a scam?
What about sending them one of these 419eater funny guys?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244263</id>
	<title>Re:Using the data for good purposes</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1244370720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It takes one or two packets to send a short message and it takes thousands of packets per minute to do voice. They are sent on and routed by the same network as the voice communications. YOU do the math.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It takes one or two packets to send a short message and it takes thousands of packets per minute to do voice .
They are sent on and routed by the same network as the voice communications .
YOU do the math .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It takes one or two packets to send a short message and it takes thousands of packets per minute to do voice.
They are sent on and routed by the same network as the voice communications.
YOU do the math.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244125</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244959</id>
	<title>Market value of short-selling T-mobile stock?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244375700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh this is hilarious. When T-mobile's stock tanks Monday morning, someone is going to have made a killing on short-selling the stock.</p><p>Follow the money. Who stands to gain a lot by a supposed breach of all of T-Mobile's systems? Is there some proof the system is really hacked? I doubt anyone on ATT or Verizon's payroll would be dumb enough to pull this. But there are lots of hedge fund traders looking for new 'angles' to make a buck, and after having destroyed the banking system, I suspect someone has gotten wise to what could be pulled off with a little hacking. (Or suggestions of hacking)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh this is hilarious .
When T-mobile 's stock tanks Monday morning , someone is going to have made a killing on short-selling the stock.Follow the money .
Who stands to gain a lot by a supposed breach of all of T-Mobile 's systems ?
Is there some proof the system is really hacked ?
I doubt anyone on ATT or Verizon 's payroll would be dumb enough to pull this .
But there are lots of hedge fund traders looking for new 'angles ' to make a buck , and after having destroyed the banking system , I suspect someone has gotten wise to what could be pulled off with a little hacking .
( Or suggestions of hacking )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh this is hilarious.
When T-mobile's stock tanks Monday morning, someone is going to have made a killing on short-selling the stock.Follow the money.
Who stands to gain a lot by a supposed breach of all of T-Mobile's systems?
Is there some proof the system is really hacked?
I doubt anyone on ATT or Verizon's payroll would be dumb enough to pull this.
But there are lots of hedge fund traders looking for new 'angles' to make a buck, and after having destroyed the banking system, I suspect someone has gotten wise to what could be pulled off with a little hacking.
(Or suggestions of hacking)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28247217</id>
	<title>Re:Like competitors would ever pay for this</title>
	<author>SL Baur</author>
	<datestamp>1244397360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Seriously, how do they think T-Mobile's competitors are going to legally pay and use such information?</p></div><p>Yeah, that struck me as funny too.  I guess the crackers are just as mentally challenged as T-Mobile.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , how do they think T-Mobile 's competitors are going to legally pay and use such information ? Yeah , that struck me as funny too .
I guess the crackers are just as mentally challenged as T-Mobile .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, how do they think T-Mobile's competitors are going to legally pay and use such information?Yeah, that struck me as funny too.
I guess the crackers are just as mentally challenged as T-Mobile.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243909</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28247285</id>
	<title>Re:If you were smart, you used a prepaid phone</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244398080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>--&gt; Of all these companies, why should I not have trust in T-Mobile ?</p><p>You mean until now, right? I'd at least be suspicious of using their network personally, until more details become available.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>-- &gt; Of all these companies , why should I not have trust in T-Mobile ? You mean until now , right ?
I 'd at least be suspicious of using their network personally , until more details become available .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>--&gt; Of all these companies, why should I not have trust in T-Mobile ?You mean until now, right?
I'd at least be suspicious of using their network personally, until more details become available.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28245045</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244687</id>
	<title>Re:Look on the bright side..</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1244373720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Given the practices of the telecomms these days, even privacy wouldn't be affected. It MAY improve under the hackers since there's not much money in plain old call records and they won't be all that interested in cooperating with the feds.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Given the practices of the telecomms these days , even privacy would n't be affected .
It MAY improve under the hackers since there 's not much money in plain old call records and they wo n't be all that interested in cooperating with the feds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given the practices of the telecomms these days, even privacy wouldn't be affected.
It MAY improve under the hackers since there's not much money in plain old call records and they won't be all that interested in cooperating with the feds.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243899</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244405</id>
	<title>Before I hit the panic button</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244371800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll wait for some validation. Cuz, you know;</p><p>prodsrv1|192.168.1.200|root@cia.gov sekret files|for realz|RHEL4</p><p>isn't especially convincing.</p><p>Even if it's a real list, it could be something as simple as a pilfered company document off a laptop, a script-kiddie wannabe hacker employee showing off to his friends on IRC, or any of a hundred scenarios.</p><p>Do I doubt it's difficult to own a bunch of HP-UX boxes? Nah.</p><p>Have I learned to not spastically freak out every time some random people claim they hacked something? Yah.</p><p>Trouble is, T-Mobile wouldn't exactly be forthcoming with any confirmations.</p><p>At the end of the day, you just have to plan around being hacked. You have to ensure your payment method associated with external services can handle being owned. You have to be ready for people getting your SSN and private info, since it's moronically being used for frivolous purposes everywhere.</p><p>Which is not to say you shouldn't do your best to keep your data protected and secure - I just try to plan around any data I give out to various companies being owned.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll wait for some validation .
Cuz , you know ; prodsrv1 | 192.168.1.200 | root @ cia.gov sekret files | for realz | RHEL4is n't especially convincing.Even if it 's a real list , it could be something as simple as a pilfered company document off a laptop , a script-kiddie wannabe hacker employee showing off to his friends on IRC , or any of a hundred scenarios.Do I doubt it 's difficult to own a bunch of HP-UX boxes ?
Nah.Have I learned to not spastically freak out every time some random people claim they hacked something ?
Yah.Trouble is , T-Mobile would n't exactly be forthcoming with any confirmations.At the end of the day , you just have to plan around being hacked .
You have to ensure your payment method associated with external services can handle being owned .
You have to be ready for people getting your SSN and private info , since it 's moronically being used for frivolous purposes everywhere.Which is not to say you should n't do your best to keep your data protected and secure - I just try to plan around any data I give out to various companies being owned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll wait for some validation.
Cuz, you know;prodsrv1|192.168.1.200|root@cia.gov sekret files|for realz|RHEL4isn't especially convincing.Even if it's a real list, it could be something as simple as a pilfered company document off a laptop, a script-kiddie wannabe hacker employee showing off to his friends on IRC, or any of a hundred scenarios.Do I doubt it's difficult to own a bunch of HP-UX boxes?
Nah.Have I learned to not spastically freak out every time some random people claim they hacked something?
Yah.Trouble is, T-Mobile wouldn't exactly be forthcoming with any confirmations.At the end of the day, you just have to plan around being hacked.
You have to ensure your payment method associated with external services can handle being owned.
You have to be ready for people getting your SSN and private info, since it's moronically being used for frivolous purposes everywhere.Which is not to say you shouldn't do your best to keep your data protected and secure - I just try to plan around any data I give out to various companies being owned.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244419</id>
	<title>Re:Why....</title>
	<author>blitzkrieg3</author>
	<datestamp>1244371800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is no way to know and it's a moot point.  Presumably they attacked the systems while they were live, so the information would have been decrypted anyway in order for the database system to access it.  There is also the inside job scenario that someone outlined above.
<br> <br>
Encryption doesn't really matter in this type of break in, it's more for "oh shit I left my hard drive and laptop in an airport" type of scenarios.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no way to know and it 's a moot point .
Presumably they attacked the systems while they were live , so the information would have been decrypted anyway in order for the database system to access it .
There is also the inside job scenario that someone outlined above .
Encryption does n't really matter in this type of break in , it 's more for " oh shit I left my hard drive and laptop in an airport " type of scenarios .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no way to know and it's a moot point.
Presumably they attacked the systems while they were live, so the information would have been decrypted anyway in order for the database system to access it.
There is also the inside job scenario that someone outlined above.
Encryption doesn't really matter in this type of break in, it's more for "oh shit I left my hard drive and laptop in an airport" type of scenarios.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243977</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28256441</id>
	<title>Re:All UNIX/UNIX-likes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244455080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really? Ever heard of SQL slammer? How about the Diebold ATM breaches that affected customers of Citibank, bank of America and others? There are plenty more examples of serious Windows Server breaches, particularly in the financial sector.</p><p>Also, we don't know yet if the T-mobile incident is an actual breach or a hoax.  All they have is a list of servers.  That is not necessarily proof of an actual breach, although I am not dismissing that possibility either.  We just need more evidence to come to a educated conclusion.</p><p>Know what you are talking about before you open your mouth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ?
Ever heard of SQL slammer ?
How about the Diebold ATM breaches that affected customers of Citibank , bank of America and others ?
There are plenty more examples of serious Windows Server breaches , particularly in the financial sector.Also , we do n't know yet if the T-mobile incident is an actual breach or a hoax .
All they have is a list of servers .
That is not necessarily proof of an actual breach , although I am not dismissing that possibility either .
We just need more evidence to come to a educated conclusion.Know what you are talking about before you open your mouth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really?
Ever heard of SQL slammer?
How about the Diebold ATM breaches that affected customers of Citibank, bank of America and others?
There are plenty more examples of serious Windows Server breaches, particularly in the financial sector.Also, we don't know yet if the T-mobile incident is an actual breach or a hoax.
All they have is a list of servers.
That is not necessarily proof of an actual breach, although I am not dismissing that possibility either.
We just need more evidence to come to a educated conclusion.Know what you are talking about before you open your mouth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243965</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28245021</id>
	<title>Re:T-Mobile Customer?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244376120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I really would hate to see T-Mobile go though.  They are by far the best deal in prepaid phones around.  The cheapest is just $10 a <em>year</em> for a prepaid phone (once you get $100 on your prepaid account then any minutes you buy last a year and $10 is the minimum when adding minutes).  Especially handy for people like me that need a cell phone but very rarely use it and no other carrier offers such a good deal for us light users.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I really would hate to see T-Mobile go though .
They are by far the best deal in prepaid phones around .
The cheapest is just $ 10 a year for a prepaid phone ( once you get $ 100 on your prepaid account then any minutes you buy last a year and $ 10 is the minimum when adding minutes ) .
Especially handy for people like me that need a cell phone but very rarely use it and no other carrier offers such a good deal for us light users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really would hate to see T-Mobile go though.
They are by far the best deal in prepaid phones around.
The cheapest is just $10 a year for a prepaid phone (once you get $100 on your prepaid account then any minutes you buy last a year and $10 is the minimum when adding minutes).
Especially handy for people like me that need a cell phone but very rarely use it and no other carrier offers such a good deal for us light users.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244083</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244275</id>
	<title>Re:Using the data for good purposes</title>
	<author>AuMatar</author>
	<datestamp>1244370780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it was an internet service I'd agree with you, because anyone could start a competing service.  But the airwaves are a limited resource overseen by the government.  It's within the government's purview to oversee pricing on services using them, to keep things fair for the consumer and ensure efficient utilization of the resource.  Although with the availability of unlimited text plans and data plans (IM is a substitute for text), even though the rates are rip off level I don't think its needed here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it was an internet service I 'd agree with you , because anyone could start a competing service .
But the airwaves are a limited resource overseen by the government .
It 's within the government 's purview to oversee pricing on services using them , to keep things fair for the consumer and ensure efficient utilization of the resource .
Although with the availability of unlimited text plans and data plans ( IM is a substitute for text ) , even though the rates are rip off level I do n't think its needed here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it was an internet service I'd agree with you, because anyone could start a competing service.
But the airwaves are a limited resource overseen by the government.
It's within the government's purview to oversee pricing on services using them, to keep things fair for the consumer and ensure efficient utilization of the resource.
Although with the availability of unlimited text plans and data plans (IM is a substitute for text), even though the rates are rip off level I don't think its needed here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244033</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28246605</id>
	<title>Re:worthless data!</title>
	<author>rilian4</author>
	<datestamp>1244390760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why? Because their grammar is less than perfect? I hope you have more to go on then that.

TFA had a poster who said he was a former employee and recognized server names from the posted log file. He could be a plant or a wannabe but its worth mentioning at least.

Frankly if there was nothing to this, I'd expect t-mobile to be yelling from the roof tops. The fact that they are fairly quiet suggests there could be trouble.

-rilian</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why ?
Because their grammar is less than perfect ?
I hope you have more to go on then that .
TFA had a poster who said he was a former employee and recognized server names from the posted log file .
He could be a plant or a wannabe but its worth mentioning at least .
Frankly if there was nothing to this , I 'd expect t-mobile to be yelling from the roof tops .
The fact that they are fairly quiet suggests there could be trouble .
-rilian</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why?
Because their grammar is less than perfect?
I hope you have more to go on then that.
TFA had a poster who said he was a former employee and recognized server names from the posted log file.
He could be a plant or a wannabe but its worth mentioning at least.
Frankly if there was nothing to this, I'd expect t-mobile to be yelling from the roof tops.
The fact that they are fairly quiet suggests there could be trouble.
-rilian</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243873</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28249457</id>
	<title>Re:nice!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244466540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>We forget these guys are no different than the robbers and thugs you see on "cops" or the evening news</i></p><p>When thieves rob ordinary citizens, it's sad.</p><p>When thieves rob other thieves, it's schadenfreude.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We forget these guys are no different than the robbers and thugs you see on " cops " or the evening newsWhen thieves rob ordinary citizens , it 's sad.When thieves rob other thieves , it 's schadenfreude .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We forget these guys are no different than the robbers and thugs you see on "cops" or the evening newsWhen thieves rob ordinary citizens, it's sad.When thieves rob other thieves, it's schadenfreude.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28246439</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244041</id>
	<title>Is that the list of compromised servers?</title>
	<author>jsveiga</author>
	<datestamp>1244369280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Interesting. I only saw HP-UX, SunOS, AIX and Linux. No Windows used in T-Mobile, or they could not be cracked? Or T-Mobile just don't put anything important on Windows servers?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting .
I only saw HP-UX , SunOS , AIX and Linux .
No Windows used in T-Mobile , or they could not be cracked ?
Or T-Mobile just do n't put anything important on Windows servers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting.
I only saw HP-UX, SunOS, AIX and Linux.
No Windows used in T-Mobile, or they could not be cracked?
Or T-Mobile just don't put anything important on Windows servers?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243965</id>
	<title>All UNIX/UNIX-likes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244368680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All of their production servers are running UNIX- or UNIX-like operating systems. Had they been running a Windows-only setup, this would not have happened.</p><p>Ever heard of a high-profile Windows shop being compromised during the last five years? No? Didn't think so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All of their production servers are running UNIX- or UNIX-like operating systems .
Had they been running a Windows-only setup , this would not have happened.Ever heard of a high-profile Windows shop being compromised during the last five years ?
No ? Did n't think so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All of their production servers are running UNIX- or UNIX-like operating systems.
Had they been running a Windows-only setup, this would not have happened.Ever heard of a high-profile Windows shop being compromised during the last five years?
No? Didn't think so.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244601</id>
	<title>So many in the black community using safe mail</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244373000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why so many in the black community using safe mail? Is it really as safe as it seems to be?<br>I remember some years ago, I saw a forum where there was a guy offering thousands of E tablets over his "Safe Mail" account. He was a regular supplier.</p><p>"PRIVACY: Safe-mail will not disclose information about you or your use of the Safe-mail system, unless Safe-mail believes that such action is necessary to comply with its legal requirements or process; enforce these terms; or protect the interests of Safe-mail, its members or others. You agree that Safe-mail may access your account, including its contents, for these reasons or for service or technical reasons. Please note that your Internet Protocol address is transmitted with each message sent from your account." From Safemail web site.</p><p>I wonder if Safe Mail cares about so many crimes committed used by their customers..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why so many in the black community using safe mail ?
Is it really as safe as it seems to be ? I remember some years ago , I saw a forum where there was a guy offering thousands of E tablets over his " Safe Mail " account .
He was a regular supplier .
" PRIVACY : Safe-mail will not disclose information about you or your use of the Safe-mail system , unless Safe-mail believes that such action is necessary to comply with its legal requirements or process ; enforce these terms ; or protect the interests of Safe-mail , its members or others .
You agree that Safe-mail may access your account , including its contents , for these reasons or for service or technical reasons .
Please note that your Internet Protocol address is transmitted with each message sent from your account .
" From Safemail web site.I wonder if Safe Mail cares about so many crimes committed used by their customers. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why so many in the black community using safe mail?
Is it really as safe as it seems to be?I remember some years ago, I saw a forum where there was a guy offering thousands of E tablets over his "Safe Mail" account.
He was a regular supplier.
"PRIVACY: Safe-mail will not disclose information about you or your use of the Safe-mail system, unless Safe-mail believes that such action is necessary to comply with its legal requirements or process; enforce these terms; or protect the interests of Safe-mail, its members or others.
You agree that Safe-mail may access your account, including its contents, for these reasons or for service or technical reasons.
Please note that your Internet Protocol address is transmitted with each message sent from your account.
" From Safemail web site.I wonder if Safe Mail cares about so many crimes committed used by their customers..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243941</id>
	<title>Re:Like competitors would ever pay for this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244368380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Seriously, how do they think T-Mobile's competitors are going to legally pay and use such information?</i></p><p>Well, what is the value of the information? I can't see it being that useful to a competing carrier.</p><p>The only thing that might be useful is a list of good customers getting close to their end of contract, so you could have a good shot at stealing their business.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , how do they think T-Mobile 's competitors are going to legally pay and use such information ? Well , what is the value of the information ?
I ca n't see it being that useful to a competing carrier.The only thing that might be useful is a list of good customers getting close to their end of contract , so you could have a good shot at stealing their business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, how do they think T-Mobile's competitors are going to legally pay and use such information?Well, what is the value of the information?
I can't see it being that useful to a competing carrier.The only thing that might be useful is a list of good customers getting close to their end of contract, so you could have a good shot at stealing their business.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243909</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28251977</id>
	<title>Re:nice!</title>
	<author>nametaken</author>
	<datestamp>1244481000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well said.  If this turns out to be true, and people have all their billing info, usage info, etc. compromised... I feel bad for those people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well said .
If this turns out to be true , and people have all their billing info , usage info , etc .
compromised... I feel bad for those people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well said.
If this turns out to be true, and people have all their billing info, usage info, etc.
compromised... I feel bad for those people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28246439</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28246967</id>
	<title>Re:Using the data for good purposes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244394240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Collusion would be the best explanation in a void of facts.  Here I think I can be of assistance.</p><p>
    I am a telecommunications engineer.  I am reading this article because it relates to my industry, not because of any belief that these data thieves have done anything remotely interesting.  Given that it may be "on topic" to assume this could affect SMS pricing, it seems then "on topic" to relate why it cannot.</p><p>Here are the Big Secrets:</p><p>
    Except for one hour a day, SMSs don't cost anything.</p><p>
    Except for one hour a day, Voice calls don't cost anything.</p><p>
    There.  It's out.  The servers that process these things on average draw 4.0 amps per 2U at idle and 4.5 amps per 2U at busy.  That's the total power savings ratio going from peak-hour to 4 a.m.</p><p>
    Since the equipment is already sitting there and the bandwidth is already leased and a large carrier rarely has to use another carrier's network for Long Distance transport.  The fix costs burn whether you are yammering away on your phone or not.</p><p>
    Where adding customers to the network costs money is when those customers make a call during the busy hour.  A "blocked call rate" is the \% of people who get a network-busy signal or some sort of error when they try to make a call while the system is already at full capacity.  Large carriers try to keep this number below 1\%.</p><p>
    So where you cost them money in added infrastructure is when you make calls that contribute to busy hour traffic.  The rest of the time the cost of your calls rounds comfortably down to zero.</p><p>
    Since the cost of support in a given month is 90\% sunk whether you have zero calls or spend the whole month busy, your marketing department is given a large dollar figure they have to get from the subscribers so you can stay in the black.</p><p>
    The question then is "How to bill for it?"  Enter game theory.</p><p>
    If you announced to the world what your busy hour is (say 9 a.m.), and that you were only charging for calls during that time, naturally no one would call during that time.  You could then announce the new busy hour (now 10 a.m.), and then people would avoid that....  I'm sure you see where this is going.  As a carrier with a growing subscriber base you'd still have to be adding cell-sites for the constantly roving busy hour and people on your network would constantly have to update their calling habits to dodge it.</p><p>
    So they pick large chunk of the day where the business users can't really avoid making calls and they divide cost of busy hour infrastructure across those hours.  It's not all that tricky.  The rest of the day is given away free or near free as the marketing gimmick enthusiasts see fit.</p><p>
    Slightly trickier, is the math to relate people's usage to the probability that they will cost you money in infrastructure upgrades.  It's convoluted, but there isn't even any calculus involved.  I've seen the spreadsheets where this is done.  They generally just tweak a number here and a number there and hit F9 until they see the numbers they like.</p><p>
    The same issues apply to SMS.  If you announced that "on your network all SMSs are free" you'd get people switching over just because of that (more money == good), but then they'd be SMS enthusiasts who would shortly saturate your SS7 infrastructure with messages.  That equipment is very expensive.  You can argue that it shouldn't be and what a great value it would be to create a nationwide wireless topology consisting entirely of WRT54Gs, but in the real world, the only people buying SS7 gear are large carriers, and the people selling it know that and charge much like they would charge the government.</p><p>
    So you want</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Collusion would be the best explanation in a void of facts .
Here I think I can be of assistance .
I am a telecommunications engineer .
I am reading this article because it relates to my industry , not because of any belief that these data thieves have done anything remotely interesting .
Given that it may be " on topic " to assume this could affect SMS pricing , it seems then " on topic " to relate why it can not.Here are the Big Secrets : Except for one hour a day , SMSs do n't cost anything .
Except for one hour a day , Voice calls do n't cost anything .
There. It 's out .
The servers that process these things on average draw 4.0 amps per 2U at idle and 4.5 amps per 2U at busy .
That 's the total power savings ratio going from peak-hour to 4 a.m . Since the equipment is already sitting there and the bandwidth is already leased and a large carrier rarely has to use another carrier 's network for Long Distance transport .
The fix costs burn whether you are yammering away on your phone or not .
Where adding customers to the network costs money is when those customers make a call during the busy hour .
A " blocked call rate " is the \ % of people who get a network-busy signal or some sort of error when they try to make a call while the system is already at full capacity .
Large carriers try to keep this number below 1 \ % .
So where you cost them money in added infrastructure is when you make calls that contribute to busy hour traffic .
The rest of the time the cost of your calls rounds comfortably down to zero .
Since the cost of support in a given month is 90 \ % sunk whether you have zero calls or spend the whole month busy , your marketing department is given a large dollar figure they have to get from the subscribers so you can stay in the black .
The question then is " How to bill for it ?
" Enter game theory .
If you announced to the world what your busy hour is ( say 9 a.m. ) , and that you were only charging for calls during that time , naturally no one would call during that time .
You could then announce the new busy hour ( now 10 a.m. ) , and then people would avoid that.... I 'm sure you see where this is going .
As a carrier with a growing subscriber base you 'd still have to be adding cell-sites for the constantly roving busy hour and people on your network would constantly have to update their calling habits to dodge it .
So they pick large chunk of the day where the business users ca n't really avoid making calls and they divide cost of busy hour infrastructure across those hours .
It 's not all that tricky .
The rest of the day is given away free or near free as the marketing gimmick enthusiasts see fit .
Slightly trickier , is the math to relate people 's usage to the probability that they will cost you money in infrastructure upgrades .
It 's convoluted , but there is n't even any calculus involved .
I 've seen the spreadsheets where this is done .
They generally just tweak a number here and a number there and hit F9 until they see the numbers they like .
The same issues apply to SMS .
If you announced that " on your network all SMSs are free " you 'd get people switching over just because of that ( more money = = good ) , but then they 'd be SMS enthusiasts who would shortly saturate your SS7 infrastructure with messages .
That equipment is very expensive .
You can argue that it should n't be and what a great value it would be to create a nationwide wireless topology consisting entirely of WRT54Gs , but in the real world , the only people buying SS7 gear are large carriers , and the people selling it know that and charge much like they would charge the government .
So you want</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Collusion would be the best explanation in a void of facts.
Here I think I can be of assistance.
I am a telecommunications engineer.
I am reading this article because it relates to my industry, not because of any belief that these data thieves have done anything remotely interesting.
Given that it may be "on topic" to assume this could affect SMS pricing, it seems then "on topic" to relate why it cannot.Here are the Big Secrets:
    Except for one hour a day, SMSs don't cost anything.
Except for one hour a day, Voice calls don't cost anything.
There.  It's out.
The servers that process these things on average draw 4.0 amps per 2U at idle and 4.5 amps per 2U at busy.
That's the total power savings ratio going from peak-hour to 4 a.m.
    Since the equipment is already sitting there and the bandwidth is already leased and a large carrier rarely has to use another carrier's network for Long Distance transport.
The fix costs burn whether you are yammering away on your phone or not.
Where adding customers to the network costs money is when those customers make a call during the busy hour.
A "blocked call rate" is the \% of people who get a network-busy signal or some sort of error when they try to make a call while the system is already at full capacity.
Large carriers try to keep this number below 1\%.
So where you cost them money in added infrastructure is when you make calls that contribute to busy hour traffic.
The rest of the time the cost of your calls rounds comfortably down to zero.
Since the cost of support in a given month is 90\% sunk whether you have zero calls or spend the whole month busy, your marketing department is given a large dollar figure they have to get from the subscribers so you can stay in the black.
The question then is "How to bill for it?
"  Enter game theory.
If you announced to the world what your busy hour is (say 9 a.m.), and that you were only charging for calls during that time, naturally no one would call during that time.
You could then announce the new busy hour (now 10 a.m.), and then people would avoid that....  I'm sure you see where this is going.
As a carrier with a growing subscriber base you'd still have to be adding cell-sites for the constantly roving busy hour and people on your network would constantly have to update their calling habits to dodge it.
So they pick large chunk of the day where the business users can't really avoid making calls and they divide cost of busy hour infrastructure across those hours.
It's not all that tricky.
The rest of the day is given away free or near free as the marketing gimmick enthusiasts see fit.
Slightly trickier, is the math to relate people's usage to the probability that they will cost you money in infrastructure upgrades.
It's convoluted, but there isn't even any calculus involved.
I've seen the spreadsheets where this is done.
They generally just tweak a number here and a number there and hit F9 until they see the numbers they like.
The same issues apply to SMS.
If you announced that "on your network all SMSs are free" you'd get people switching over just because of that (more money == good), but then they'd be SMS enthusiasts who would shortly saturate your SS7 infrastructure with messages.
That equipment is very expensive.
You can argue that it shouldn't be and what a great value it would be to create a nationwide wireless topology consisting entirely of WRT54Gs, but in the real world, the only people buying SS7 gear are large carriers, and the people selling it know that and charge much like they would charge the government.
So you want</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243897</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244737</id>
	<title>Re:Look on the bright side..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244374200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe the hackers will release Magenta from T-Mobile's grasp... http://freemagenta.nl if I recall the URL.</p><p>undear T-Mobile,<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; What goes around, comes around.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Now up yours,<br>the world</p><p>Hang on, I dug up a now-retired old battered 5c coin. That's my best and final offer for the Company.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe the hackers will release Magenta from T-Mobile 's grasp... http : //freemagenta.nl if I recall the URL.undear T-Mobile ,     What goes around , comes around .
    Now up yours,the worldHang on , I dug up a now-retired old battered 5c coin .
That 's my best and final offer for the Company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe the hackers will release Magenta from T-Mobile's grasp... http://freemagenta.nl if I recall the URL.undear T-Mobile,
    What goes around, comes around.
    Now up yours,the worldHang on, I dug up a now-retired old battered 5c coin.
That's my best and final offer for the Company.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243899</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244383</id>
	<title>Re:T-Mobile Customer?</title>
	<author>MrMista\_B</author>
	<datestamp>1244371680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The claim itself is damaging. If these hackers are lying, with the sole intent to damage T-Mobile's reputation, then they've already wildly succeeded, and the evidence they'd have to provide wouldn't require a very deep penetration at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The claim itself is damaging .
If these hackers are lying , with the sole intent to damage T-Mobile 's reputation , then they 've already wildly succeeded , and the evidence they 'd have to provide would n't require a very deep penetration at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The claim itself is damaging.
If these hackers are lying, with the sole intent to damage T-Mobile's reputation, then they've already wildly succeeded, and the evidence they'd have to provide wouldn't require a very deep penetration at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244083</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28245031</id>
	<title>Re:Like competitors would ever pay for this</title>
	<author>phorm</author>
	<datestamp>1244376180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Legally, I'm not sure. But having a list of customers (especially those near the end of a contract) to call and say:</p><p>"Did you know that your current provider was hacked and all your critical information was exposed, how about to you switch to a more secure provider instead" might be useful.</p><p>Of course, even without a list I'd say that if competitors focused on security and advertised it, they might be able to gobble some customers up if this hits big news.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Legally , I 'm not sure .
But having a list of customers ( especially those near the end of a contract ) to call and say : " Did you know that your current provider was hacked and all your critical information was exposed , how about to you switch to a more secure provider instead " might be useful.Of course , even without a list I 'd say that if competitors focused on security and advertised it , they might be able to gobble some customers up if this hits big news .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Legally, I'm not sure.
But having a list of customers (especially those near the end of a contract) to call and say:"Did you know that your current provider was hacked and all your critical information was exposed, how about to you switch to a more secure provider instead" might be useful.Of course, even without a list I'd say that if competitors focused on security and advertised it, they might be able to gobble some customers up if this hits big news.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243909</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243955</id>
	<title>Re:Why....</title>
	<author>Brian Gordon</author>
	<datestamp>1244368560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well for one thing they have to actually use a lot of this data on a day-to-day basis. And if hundreds of call operators have to know to what address to dispatch repair crews et al, there's really no securing it. <br> <br>I'm not surprised by breaches like this at all. <i>So</i> many people have access to this data it's unreasonable to assume it's secure. I just huddle in the herd of helpless millions and hope that sheer numbers protect me. Oh, and it helps to live the student lifestyle with only a few transactions a month on my bank account.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well for one thing they have to actually use a lot of this data on a day-to-day basis .
And if hundreds of call operators have to know to what address to dispatch repair crews et al , there 's really no securing it .
I 'm not surprised by breaches like this at all .
So many people have access to this data it 's unreasonable to assume it 's secure .
I just huddle in the herd of helpless millions and hope that sheer numbers protect me .
Oh , and it helps to live the student lifestyle with only a few transactions a month on my bank account .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well for one thing they have to actually use a lot of this data on a day-to-day basis.
And if hundreds of call operators have to know to what address to dispatch repair crews et al, there's really no securing it.
I'm not surprised by breaches like this at all.
So many people have access to this data it's unreasonable to assume it's secure.
I just huddle in the herd of helpless millions and hope that sheer numbers protect me.
Oh, and it helps to live the student lifestyle with only a few transactions a month on my bank account.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243877</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28245045</id>
	<title>Re:If you were smart, you used a prepaid phone</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244376300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, unless you bought your phone at a store with cash, and buy refills the same way.. </p><p>I guess I am the "not smart" T-Mobile user, as I bought my prepaid phone through their web site.. You seem to be imply that T-Mobile is somehow a flyby night company<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... They are in fact 8th largest in the world.. Verizon is 14th., AT&amp;T is 15th., Sprint doesn't make the top 20 and they have slightly more than half as many subscribers as AT&amp;T... Of all these companies, why should I not have trust in T-Mobile ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , unless you bought your phone at a store with cash , and buy refills the same way.. I guess I am the " not smart " T-Mobile user , as I bought my prepaid phone through their web site.. You seem to be imply that T-Mobile is somehow a flyby night company ... They are in fact 8th largest in the world.. Verizon is 14th. , AT&amp;T is 15th. , Sprint does n't make the top 20 and they have slightly more than half as many subscribers as AT&amp;T... Of all these companies , why should I not have trust in T-Mobile ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, unless you bought your phone at a store with cash, and buy refills the same way.. I guess I am the "not smart" T-Mobile user, as I bought my prepaid phone through their web site.. You seem to be imply that T-Mobile is somehow a flyby night company ... They are in fact 8th largest in the world.. Verizon is 14th., AT&amp;T is 15th., Sprint doesn't make the top 20 and they have slightly more than half as many subscribers as AT&amp;T... Of all these companies, why should I not have trust in T-Mobile ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243945</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243909</id>
	<title>Like competitors would ever pay for this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244368140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the "hackers" <i>We already contacted with their competitors and they didn't show interest in buying their data -probably because the mails got to the wrong people- so now we are offering them for the highest bidder.</i> Seriously, how do they think T-Mobile's competitors are going to legally pay and use such information?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From the " hackers " We already contacted with their competitors and they did n't show interest in buying their data -probably because the mails got to the wrong people- so now we are offering them for the highest bidder .
Seriously , how do they think T-Mobile 's competitors are going to legally pay and use such information ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the "hackers" We already contacted with their competitors and they didn't show interest in buying their data -probably because the mails got to the wrong people- so now we are offering them for the highest bidder.
Seriously, how do they think T-Mobile's competitors are going to legally pay and use such information?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28246161</id>
	<title>Re: If they really have the internal documents</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244386320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they want to really prove it start by handing out the private emails of the CTO and idiot IT team that let it happen in the first place.Heck call them at home from a voip proxy.</p><p>Hey did you upgrade the security yet?</p><p>Nope, couldn't figure out what the words encrypted connection mean.</p><p>What's so hard there?</p><p>If it's encrypted then I can read it.</p><p>Duh... remember your password or tattoo it to the bosses buttcrack so you have a reminder</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they want to really prove it start by handing out the private emails of the CTO and idiot IT team that let it happen in the first place.Heck call them at home from a voip proxy.Hey did you upgrade the security yet ? Nope , could n't figure out what the words encrypted connection mean.What 's so hard there ? If it 's encrypted then I can read it.Duh... remember your password or tattoo it to the bosses buttcrack so you have a reminder</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they want to really prove it start by handing out the private emails of the CTO and idiot IT team that let it happen in the first place.Heck call them at home from a voip proxy.Hey did you upgrade the security yet?Nope, couldn't figure out what the words encrypted connection mean.What's so hard there?If it's encrypted then I can read it.Duh... remember your password or tattoo it to the bosses buttcrack so you have a reminder</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243931</id>
	<title>Re:Why....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244368320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What stuff?  You mean the raw database?  Theoretically, there are various layers of security here: firewalls to the outside, authentication to particular views on the inside where only data you Need To Know is available to you, and proper firewalls on each database server to limit access to the database port(s) and probably ssh.</p><p>If the hackers could get through all of this, they must be *very* good.  More likely, however, is that they have someone on the inside which bypasses all of this.  And it would bypass the encryption on the data anyway since s/he obviously already had Need To Know to get at the data anyway, and thus would have the decryption key.  There isn't much a corporation can do against an insider that needs that info just to perform the job they were hired to perform.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What stuff ?
You mean the raw database ?
Theoretically , there are various layers of security here : firewalls to the outside , authentication to particular views on the inside where only data you Need To Know is available to you , and proper firewalls on each database server to limit access to the database port ( s ) and probably ssh.If the hackers could get through all of this , they must be * very * good .
More likely , however , is that they have someone on the inside which bypasses all of this .
And it would bypass the encryption on the data anyway since s/he obviously already had Need To Know to get at the data anyway , and thus would have the decryption key .
There is n't much a corporation can do against an insider that needs that info just to perform the job they were hired to perform .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What stuff?
You mean the raw database?
Theoretically, there are various layers of security here: firewalls to the outside, authentication to particular views on the inside where only data you Need To Know is available to you, and proper firewalls on each database server to limit access to the database port(s) and probably ssh.If the hackers could get through all of this, they must be *very* good.
More likely, however, is that they have someone on the inside which bypasses all of this.
And it would bypass the encryption on the data anyway since s/he obviously already had Need To Know to get at the data anyway, and thus would have the decryption key.
There isn't much a corporation can do against an insider that needs that info just to perform the job they were hired to perform.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243877</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243877</id>
	<title>Why....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244367840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why isn't this stuff encrypted? For the few places that would need the data why not have a special viewer that would decrypt the stuff thats sensitive?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is n't this stuff encrypted ?
For the few places that would need the data why not have a special viewer that would decrypt the stuff thats sensitive ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why isn't this stuff encrypted?
For the few places that would need the data why not have a special viewer that would decrypt the stuff thats sensitive?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244185</id>
	<title>Re:Using the data for good purposes</title>
	<author>otter42</author>
	<datestamp>1244370240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Why should Congress bother with SMS pricing? Isn't that what competition is for?</i></p><p>Why? Because the cell providers are monopolies, created in part through the (very necessary) restriction of broadcast frequencies. Contrary to popular opinion, government *is* supposed to do good things for its citizens. I really admire that the EU has chosen to take the cell providers over there head-on, forcing them to lower rates. I disagree with how they did it, but that's only because they chose to regulate maximum prices instead of just breaking the monopolies up.</p><p>So when there were sufficient cell companies to have competition, American cell prices were the lowest in the world by far. Now that all the small players have been gobbled up, and we're only left with effectively three companies, there is no more competition.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why should Congress bother with SMS pricing ?
Is n't that what competition is for ? Why ?
Because the cell providers are monopolies , created in part through the ( very necessary ) restriction of broadcast frequencies .
Contrary to popular opinion , government * is * supposed to do good things for its citizens .
I really admire that the EU has chosen to take the cell providers over there head-on , forcing them to lower rates .
I disagree with how they did it , but that 's only because they chose to regulate maximum prices instead of just breaking the monopolies up.So when there were sufficient cell companies to have competition , American cell prices were the lowest in the world by far .
Now that all the small players have been gobbled up , and we 're only left with effectively three companies , there is no more competition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why should Congress bother with SMS pricing?
Isn't that what competition is for?Why?
Because the cell providers are monopolies, created in part through the (very necessary) restriction of broadcast frequencies.
Contrary to popular opinion, government *is* supposed to do good things for its citizens.
I really admire that the EU has chosen to take the cell providers over there head-on, forcing them to lower rates.
I disagree with how they did it, but that's only because they chose to regulate maximum prices instead of just breaking the monopolies up.So when there were sufficient cell companies to have competition, American cell prices were the lowest in the world by far.
Now that all the small players have been gobbled up, and we're only left with effectively three companies, there is no more competition.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244033</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28246465</id>
	<title>Same guys</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244389320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is the same guys that previously claimed to have broken into Checkpoint: http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2008/Dec/0344.html</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the same guys that previously claimed to have broken into Checkpoint : http : //seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2008/Dec/0344.html</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the same guys that previously claimed to have broken into Checkpoint: http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2008/Dec/0344.html</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28246343</id>
	<title>Re:I call BS!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244388180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Multiple hosts can share the same IP address on one interface if part of a cluster.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Multiple hosts can share the same IP address on one interface if part of a cluster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Multiple hosts can share the same IP address on one interface if part of a cluster.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244669</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28245393</id>
	<title>Confirmation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244379060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is there any confirmation for this?

I have T-Mobile, and I just called their support line. The customer service representative, and her supervisor, haven't heard anything about this.

The CSR I talked to said that they have a "T-Mobile news ticker" of some sort on their screens, that updates with whatever's happening with the company. There has been no company-wide memo sent out, or anything like that.

I'll see if I hear anything else about this, perhaps something from someone who's done some actual research on the matter.

Incidentally, it was a pain in the ass to try to tell the CSR how to get to Slashdot. (As it should be, of course.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there any confirmation for this ?
I have T-Mobile , and I just called their support line .
The customer service representative , and her supervisor , have n't heard anything about this .
The CSR I talked to said that they have a " T-Mobile news ticker " of some sort on their screens , that updates with whatever 's happening with the company .
There has been no company-wide memo sent out , or anything like that .
I 'll see if I hear anything else about this , perhaps something from someone who 's done some actual research on the matter .
Incidentally , it was a pain in the ass to try to tell the CSR how to get to Slashdot .
( As it should be , of course .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there any confirmation for this?
I have T-Mobile, and I just called their support line.
The customer service representative, and her supervisor, haven't heard anything about this.
The CSR I talked to said that they have a "T-Mobile news ticker" of some sort on their screens, that updates with whatever's happening with the company.
There has been no company-wide memo sent out, or anything like that.
I'll see if I hear anything else about this, perhaps something from someone who's done some actual research on the matter.
Incidentally, it was a pain in the ass to try to tell the CSR how to get to Slashdot.
(As it should be, of course.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28245347</id>
	<title>Re:T-Mobile Customer?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244378640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"If you are, you better start thinking about where to go next. Their service is now wide open. Anything transferred through their network is now questionable."</p><p>I'm a T-Mobile customer.  I use pretty much voice only, no data, I don't text, but I get texts.  I have no friends, and largely call my immediate family.  The rest of the time, the phone is simply to order takeout, or to pay a bill with a virtual credit card account number, or to call Comcast when their shitty service konks out again.</p><p>The only reason I keep the service is because they are GSM, their low rates compared to Verizon and AT&amp;T, and damn good, friendly customer service.  Their CR people try, and I mean really try, but what they have to work with is near worthless.</p><p>For awhile now, I've felt they've been owned or would be.  If you've ever paid your bill online, and looked at how they handle data, such as the confirmed payment printable receipt, it's obviously they have bad coders--they put your data (i.e. name, address, telephone number, account number, amount paid, etc.) in the https header, which while technically secure/SSL'd, is stupid, since if they have any logging, it likely goes in unencrypted; it's just bad form.</p><p>When you have voicemails 2 weeks old saved that are suddenly deleted, and you call in to find out at least why, and they can't get a trace on the problem, they have an incompetent logging setup.</p><p>When their entire system bonks and deletes everything except the bare necessity in your account, including calling information, which happened to me in February, and again they can't pull up any sort of traceable logs or records to figure out what happened, they have security problems.</p><p>When they do several system "upgrades" over the past few years, and every upgrade has a correlating outage, voicemail loss, or some strange change in features that gets fixed a few days later, you know the people doing this are incompetent, overworked, or working with crap when they can't even perform a basic test or rollout of the new system first.</p><p>Any observant T-Mobile customer knows T-Mobile's underpinnings are really, really, really shitty.  And that's aside from their crappy frequency which doesn't seem to penetrate most city buildings and has dropout points in coverage areas which are just weird.  It feels as if they have some incompetent, ancient legacy boss who tries to do the right thing but doesn't.</p><p>I hate Verizon given they are the spawn of the hated landline baby bell company.  I used to be with AT&amp;T, but their rates just suck.  I've been tempted to go to Sprint, but I've heard horrors a few years back about their nationwide coverage.</p><p>You might be asking why I stay with T-Mobile, aside from the fact their rates are cheap.  I stay with T-Mobile since, despite all their problems, they've otherwise given me the fewest grief of any telephone provider I've ever had.  Which is sort of a sad comment on the state of cellular providers in the US.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" If you are , you better start thinking about where to go next .
Their service is now wide open .
Anything transferred through their network is now questionable .
" I 'm a T-Mobile customer .
I use pretty much voice only , no data , I do n't text , but I get texts .
I have no friends , and largely call my immediate family .
The rest of the time , the phone is simply to order takeout , or to pay a bill with a virtual credit card account number , or to call Comcast when their shitty service konks out again.The only reason I keep the service is because they are GSM , their low rates compared to Verizon and AT&amp;T , and damn good , friendly customer service .
Their CR people try , and I mean really try , but what they have to work with is near worthless.For awhile now , I 've felt they 've been owned or would be .
If you 've ever paid your bill online , and looked at how they handle data , such as the confirmed payment printable receipt , it 's obviously they have bad coders--they put your data ( i.e .
name , address , telephone number , account number , amount paid , etc .
) in the https header , which while technically secure/SSL 'd , is stupid , since if they have any logging , it likely goes in unencrypted ; it 's just bad form.When you have voicemails 2 weeks old saved that are suddenly deleted , and you call in to find out at least why , and they ca n't get a trace on the problem , they have an incompetent logging setup.When their entire system bonks and deletes everything except the bare necessity in your account , including calling information , which happened to me in February , and again they ca n't pull up any sort of traceable logs or records to figure out what happened , they have security problems.When they do several system " upgrades " over the past few years , and every upgrade has a correlating outage , voicemail loss , or some strange change in features that gets fixed a few days later , you know the people doing this are incompetent , overworked , or working with crap when they ca n't even perform a basic test or rollout of the new system first.Any observant T-Mobile customer knows T-Mobile 's underpinnings are really , really , really shitty .
And that 's aside from their crappy frequency which does n't seem to penetrate most city buildings and has dropout points in coverage areas which are just weird .
It feels as if they have some incompetent , ancient legacy boss who tries to do the right thing but does n't.I hate Verizon given they are the spawn of the hated landline baby bell company .
I used to be with AT&amp;T , but their rates just suck .
I 've been tempted to go to Sprint , but I 've heard horrors a few years back about their nationwide coverage.You might be asking why I stay with T-Mobile , aside from the fact their rates are cheap .
I stay with T-Mobile since , despite all their problems , they 've otherwise given me the fewest grief of any telephone provider I 've ever had .
Which is sort of a sad comment on the state of cellular providers in the US .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"If you are, you better start thinking about where to go next.
Their service is now wide open.
Anything transferred through their network is now questionable.
"I'm a T-Mobile customer.
I use pretty much voice only, no data, I don't text, but I get texts.
I have no friends, and largely call my immediate family.
The rest of the time, the phone is simply to order takeout, or to pay a bill with a virtual credit card account number, or to call Comcast when their shitty service konks out again.The only reason I keep the service is because they are GSM, their low rates compared to Verizon and AT&amp;T, and damn good, friendly customer service.
Their CR people try, and I mean really try, but what they have to work with is near worthless.For awhile now, I've felt they've been owned or would be.
If you've ever paid your bill online, and looked at how they handle data, such as the confirmed payment printable receipt, it's obviously they have bad coders--they put your data (i.e.
name, address, telephone number, account number, amount paid, etc.
) in the https header, which while technically secure/SSL'd, is stupid, since if they have any logging, it likely goes in unencrypted; it's just bad form.When you have voicemails 2 weeks old saved that are suddenly deleted, and you call in to find out at least why, and they can't get a trace on the problem, they have an incompetent logging setup.When their entire system bonks and deletes everything except the bare necessity in your account, including calling information, which happened to me in February, and again they can't pull up any sort of traceable logs or records to figure out what happened, they have security problems.When they do several system "upgrades" over the past few years, and every upgrade has a correlating outage, voicemail loss, or some strange change in features that gets fixed a few days later, you know the people doing this are incompetent, overworked, or working with crap when they can't even perform a basic test or rollout of the new system first.Any observant T-Mobile customer knows T-Mobile's underpinnings are really, really, really shitty.
And that's aside from their crappy frequency which doesn't seem to penetrate most city buildings and has dropout points in coverage areas which are just weird.
It feels as if they have some incompetent, ancient legacy boss who tries to do the right thing but doesn't.I hate Verizon given they are the spawn of the hated landline baby bell company.
I used to be with AT&amp;T, but their rates just suck.
I've been tempted to go to Sprint, but I've heard horrors a few years back about their nationwide coverage.You might be asking why I stay with T-Mobile, aside from the fact their rates are cheap.
I stay with T-Mobile since, despite all their problems, they've otherwise given me the fewest grief of any telephone provider I've ever had.
Which is sort of a sad comment on the state of cellular providers in the US.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244083</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244161</id>
	<title>Expect to see...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244370120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>some hackers, killed in a shootout with police.  And by police, I mean the police say they were there and heard lots of gunfire.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>some hackers , killed in a shootout with police .
And by police , I mean the police say they were there and heard lots of gunfire .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>some hackers, killed in a shootout with police.
And by police, I mean the police say they were there and heard lots of gunfire.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244461</id>
	<title>Re:T-Mobile Customer?</title>
	<author>Jah-Wren Ryel</author>
	<datestamp>1244372040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Of course this was almost certainly an inside-assisted job. But then you better watch who your employees are. If you're employing people that have access to potentially sensitive data, how do you know they aren't in a financial bind and will do anything to make next month's mortgage payment? Or have some gambling debts that they have to pay or their wife will work off?</p></div><p>You can never know for certain.  Even if you could know, how do you know that one of the people whose job is to watch other people isn't compromised?</p><p>Rather than require that employees have absolutely zero privacy, a far better approach is to implement business processes that are inherently self-checking.  Kind of like the two-man switch for nuclear missile launches as seen in the movies.  That way you limit the damage that a single compromised employee can do.  While it may be possible to compromise one arbitrary employee, it is significantly more difficult to compromise one employee and the exact other employee that happens to be the one who is the other part of the process. With this approach you also gain the benefit of being more resistant to simple errors too.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course this was almost certainly an inside-assisted job .
But then you better watch who your employees are .
If you 're employing people that have access to potentially sensitive data , how do you know they are n't in a financial bind and will do anything to make next month 's mortgage payment ?
Or have some gambling debts that they have to pay or their wife will work off ? You can never know for certain .
Even if you could know , how do you know that one of the people whose job is to watch other people is n't compromised ? Rather than require that employees have absolutely zero privacy , a far better approach is to implement business processes that are inherently self-checking .
Kind of like the two-man switch for nuclear missile launches as seen in the movies .
That way you limit the damage that a single compromised employee can do .
While it may be possible to compromise one arbitrary employee , it is significantly more difficult to compromise one employee and the exact other employee that happens to be the one who is the other part of the process .
With this approach you also gain the benefit of being more resistant to simple errors too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course this was almost certainly an inside-assisted job.
But then you better watch who your employees are.
If you're employing people that have access to potentially sensitive data, how do you know they aren't in a financial bind and will do anything to make next month's mortgage payment?
Or have some gambling debts that they have to pay or their wife will work off?You can never know for certain.
Even if you could know, how do you know that one of the people whose job is to watch other people isn't compromised?Rather than require that employees have absolutely zero privacy, a far better approach is to implement business processes that are inherently self-checking.
Kind of like the two-man switch for nuclear missile launches as seen in the movies.
That way you limit the damage that a single compromised employee can do.
While it may be possible to compromise one arbitrary employee, it is significantly more difficult to compromise one employee and the exact other employee that happens to be the one who is the other part of the process.
With this approach you also gain the benefit of being more resistant to simple errors too.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244083</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243867</id>
	<title>nice!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244367720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>all your data are belong to us!</htmltext>
<tokenext>all your data are belong to us !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>all your data are belong to us!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243961</id>
	<title>Re:Like competitors would ever pay for this</title>
	<author>Brian Gordon</author>
	<datestamp>1244368620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Certainly not legally...<br> <br>
Seems a little far-fetched to me too, but I suppose they would know better than me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Certainly not legally.. . Seems a little far-fetched to me too , but I suppose they would know better than me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Certainly not legally... 
Seems a little far-fetched to me too, but I suppose they would know better than me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243909</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28251581</id>
	<title>Re:worthless data!</title>
	<author>JustJenFelice</author>
	<datestamp>1244478660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hello...it's called "receipt of stolen goods", 18 U.S.C. 2315...and interstate commerce, no less...felony, baby.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hello...it 's called " receipt of stolen goods " , 18 U.S.C .
2315...and interstate commerce , no less...felony , baby .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hello...it's called "receipt of stolen goods", 18 U.S.C.
2315...and interstate commerce, no less...felony, baby.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243873</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28255775</id>
	<title>TMobMail.net</title>
	<author>gorndog</author>
	<datestamp>1244452980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When you want to send an e-mail to a T-Mobile user, you address it to [10-digit-number]@tmomail.net

But many (including myself) address it to [10-digit-number]@tmobmail.net  (there should not be a "b").

So I registered @tmobmail.net and have an auto-reply that informs the sender of the mistake.

I would not believe the amount of sexting messages I receive through it.

When I tried to contact T-Mobile folks (unsolicited e-mail) to see if they cared / wanted it, etc, I received no replies.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When you want to send an e-mail to a T-Mobile user , you address it to [ 10-digit-number ] @ tmomail.net But many ( including myself ) address it to [ 10-digit-number ] @ tmobmail.net ( there should not be a " b " ) .
So I registered @ tmobmail.net and have an auto-reply that informs the sender of the mistake .
I would not believe the amount of sexting messages I receive through it .
When I tried to contact T-Mobile folks ( unsolicited e-mail ) to see if they cared / wanted it , etc , I received no replies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you want to send an e-mail to a T-Mobile user, you address it to [10-digit-number]@tmomail.net

But many (including myself) address it to [10-digit-number]@tmobmail.net  (there should not be a "b").
So I registered @tmobmail.net and have an auto-reply that informs the sender of the mistake.
I would not believe the amount of sexting messages I receive through it.
When I tried to contact T-Mobile folks (unsolicited e-mail) to see if they cared / wanted it, etc, I received no replies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244669</id>
	<title>I call BS!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244373540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Look here- from the list: protbm01 Prod Projects #N/A #N/A #N/A 10.133.65.54 HP-UX 11.23 NEXUS #N/A #N/A 1<br>protbm01 Prod Projects #N/A #N/A #N/A 10.133.65.54 HP-UX 11.31 NEXUS #N/A #N/A 1<br>protbm02 Prod Projects #N/A #N/A #N/A 10.133.65.55 HP-UX 11.31 NEXUS #N/A #N/A 1<br>protbm02 Prod Projects #N/A #N/A #N/A 10.133.65.55 HP-UX 11.23 NEXUS #N/A #N/A 1     Dupes of IP's and host addresses. You wouldn't have a host with same IP and different OS versions.  Unless it was a spreadsheet of planned upgrades or something...... BO ---- wait for it ---- GUS! Next they will tell us they are part of a Beowulf cluster.....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look here- from the list : protbm01 Prod Projects # N/A # N/A # N/A 10.133.65.54 HP-UX 11.23 NEXUS # N/A # N/A 1protbm01 Prod Projects # N/A # N/A # N/A 10.133.65.54 HP-UX 11.31 NEXUS # N/A # N/A 1protbm02 Prod Projects # N/A # N/A # N/A 10.133.65.55 HP-UX 11.31 NEXUS # N/A # N/A 1protbm02 Prod Projects # N/A # N/A # N/A 10.133.65.55 HP-UX 11.23 NEXUS # N/A # N/A 1 Dupes of IP 's and host addresses .
You would n't have a host with same IP and different OS versions .
Unless it was a spreadsheet of planned upgrades or something...... BO ---- wait for it ---- GUS !
Next they will tell us they are part of a Beowulf cluster.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look here- from the list: protbm01 Prod Projects #N/A #N/A #N/A 10.133.65.54 HP-UX 11.23 NEXUS #N/A #N/A 1protbm01 Prod Projects #N/A #N/A #N/A 10.133.65.54 HP-UX 11.31 NEXUS #N/A #N/A 1protbm02 Prod Projects #N/A #N/A #N/A 10.133.65.55 HP-UX 11.31 NEXUS #N/A #N/A 1protbm02 Prod Projects #N/A #N/A #N/A 10.133.65.55 HP-UX 11.23 NEXUS #N/A #N/A 1     Dupes of IP's and host addresses.
You wouldn't have a host with same IP and different OS versions.
Unless it was a spreadsheet of planned upgrades or something...... BO ---- wait for it ---- GUS!
Next they will tell us they are part of a Beowulf cluster.....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244231</id>
	<title>Re:T-Mobile Customer?</title>
	<author>117</author>
	<datestamp>1244370480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> T-Mobile (really Vodaphone from Germany)</p> </div><p>No, really T-Mobile (whose parent company is Deutsche Telekom) from Germany.  Vodafone (not 'Voda<b>ph</b>one') are a UK-based company and T-Mobile's biggest rival.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>T-Mobile ( really Vodaphone from Germany ) No , really T-Mobile ( whose parent company is Deutsche Telekom ) from Germany .
Vodafone ( not 'Vodaphone ' ) are a UK-based company and T-Mobile 's biggest rival .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> T-Mobile (really Vodaphone from Germany) No, really T-Mobile (whose parent company is Deutsche Telekom) from Germany.
Vodafone (not 'Vodaphone') are a UK-based company and T-Mobile's biggest rival.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244083</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28257895</id>
	<title>Re:Rotten customer service, rotten company</title>
	<author>kelnos</author>
	<datestamp>1244460540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Really?  I've been a T-Mobile customer for a little over 2 years now, and I've never had a problem with them.  Of course, I've only had to call customer service twice.  Both times they were friendly, quick, and helpful.  One time I was having call dropping issues that turned out to be problems with my handset, but they tried to get to the bottom of it without assuming it was my fault.  The other time I was going overseas and wanted to unlock my phone so I could use a local SIM card... The CSR immediately offered to email me the unlock code for my phone (which was still under the 2-year subsidized contract) and agreed that using a local SIM was a great way to save money while traveling.<br>
<br>
So... HAH, my anecdotal report meets yours in battle!  I'm sure there are plenty of people with both good and bad experiences.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ?
I 've been a T-Mobile customer for a little over 2 years now , and I 've never had a problem with them .
Of course , I 've only had to call customer service twice .
Both times they were friendly , quick , and helpful .
One time I was having call dropping issues that turned out to be problems with my handset , but they tried to get to the bottom of it without assuming it was my fault .
The other time I was going overseas and wanted to unlock my phone so I could use a local SIM card... The CSR immediately offered to email me the unlock code for my phone ( which was still under the 2-year subsidized contract ) and agreed that using a local SIM was a great way to save money while traveling .
So... HAH , my anecdotal report meets yours in battle !
I 'm sure there are plenty of people with both good and bad experiences .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really?
I've been a T-Mobile customer for a little over 2 years now, and I've never had a problem with them.
Of course, I've only had to call customer service twice.
Both times they were friendly, quick, and helpful.
One time I was having call dropping issues that turned out to be problems with my handset, but they tried to get to the bottom of it without assuming it was my fault.
The other time I was going overseas and wanted to unlock my phone so I could use a local SIM card... The CSR immediately offered to email me the unlock code for my phone (which was still under the 2-year subsidized contract) and agreed that using a local SIM was a great way to save money while traveling.
So... HAH, my anecdotal report meets yours in battle!
I'm sure there are plenty of people with both good and bad experiences.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28247115</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28250417</id>
	<title>Re:Using the data for good purposes</title>
	<author>bluefoxlucid</author>
	<datestamp>1244472780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>unless you're WikiLeaks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>unless you 're WikiLeaks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>unless you're WikiLeaks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244071</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244867</id>
	<title>Re:If you were smart, you used a prepaid phone</title>
	<author>demonlapin</author>
	<datestamp>1244375040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Intriguingly, T-mobile's prepaid service is one of the best prepaid deals in the US.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Intriguingly , T-mobile 's prepaid service is one of the best prepaid deals in the US .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Intriguingly, T-mobile's prepaid service is one of the best prepaid deals in the US.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243945</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243977</id>
	<title>Re:Why....</title>
	<author>jythie</author>
	<datestamp>1244368740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who said it was not encrypted?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who said it was not encrypted ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who said it was not encrypted?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243877</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243899</id>
	<title>Look on the bright side..</title>
	<author>nanospook</author>
	<datestamp>1244368020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe the hackers can offer better service?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe the hackers can offer better service ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe the hackers can offer better service?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244311</id>
	<title>Re:T-Mobile Customer?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244371080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I always hated it how other people would correct me in comments on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. It always came off very conceited and obnoxious, so forgive me if I sound the same. But Vodafone, and Deutsche Telekom are competators, and Deutsche Telekom is the parent company of T-Mobile USA. And I'm a customer of the USA affiliate and I'm very concerned.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I always hated it how other people would correct me in comments on / .
It always came off very conceited and obnoxious , so forgive me if I sound the same .
But Vodafone , and Deutsche Telekom are competators , and Deutsche Telekom is the parent company of T-Mobile USA .
And I 'm a customer of the USA affiliate and I 'm very concerned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I always hated it how other people would correct me in comments on /.
It always came off very conceited and obnoxious, so forgive me if I sound the same.
But Vodafone, and Deutsche Telekom are competators, and Deutsche Telekom is the parent company of T-Mobile USA.
And I'm a customer of the USA affiliate and I'm very concerned.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244083</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28251173</id>
	<title>HP-UX 11.00 is 12 years old</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244476800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If that server list is to be believed, several infrastructure servers running root level apps (Tidal Scheduler &amp; HP Openview) were extremely out of date. They are listed as HP-UX version 11.00, which was released in 1997.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If that server list is to be believed , several infrastructure servers running root level apps ( Tidal Scheduler &amp; HP Openview ) were extremely out of date .
They are listed as HP-UX version 11.00 , which was released in 1997 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If that server list is to be believed, several infrastructure servers running root level apps (Tidal Scheduler &amp; HP Openview) were extremely out of date.
They are listed as HP-UX version 11.00, which was released in 1997.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243965</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244183</id>
	<title>Re:worthless data!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244370240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What is there in this data that would cause an AT&amp;T executive to risk losing his job and perhaps going to prison?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What is there in this data that would cause an AT&amp;T executive to risk losing his job and perhaps going to prison ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is there in this data that would cause an AT&amp;T executive to risk losing his job and perhaps going to prison?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243873</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244833</id>
	<title>Re:Using the data for good purposes</title>
	<author>Mr2001</author>
	<datestamp>1244374800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The prices to the consumer have nothing to do with "costs", especially material costs. It has to do with what the market will pay. If they charge $1 a message and people will pay it, that is the price.</p></div><p>No, you're missing an important part of how markets are supposed to work.</p><p>In a free market, if providers A and B are charging $1 for a message, then <i>even if people are willing to pay $1</i>, provider C will notice that they can grab a lot of customers by charging, say, $0.75. They'll lower their prices, and customers will jump at the opportunity to save 25\% on their messaging. Then A and B will have little choice but to lower their own prices... and this process will repeat every so often, until the price is so low that it can't be lowered any more (without becoming unprofitable).</p><p>But that hasn't happened. SMS prices have gone up, not down, despite strong evidence that the current price could be slashed dramatically while still remaining profitable (i.e. forwarding an SMS message costs almost nothing). Perhaps the providers are colluding to keep prices high, or perhaps the cost of switching providers is so high that there's effectively no competition. Either way, this is clearly a market failure, and resolving market failures is a duty of the government.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The prices to the consumer have nothing to do with " costs " , especially material costs .
It has to do with what the market will pay .
If they charge $ 1 a message and people will pay it , that is the price.No , you 're missing an important part of how markets are supposed to work.In a free market , if providers A and B are charging $ 1 for a message , then even if people are willing to pay $ 1 , provider C will notice that they can grab a lot of customers by charging , say , $ 0.75 .
They 'll lower their prices , and customers will jump at the opportunity to save 25 \ % on their messaging .
Then A and B will have little choice but to lower their own prices... and this process will repeat every so often , until the price is so low that it ca n't be lowered any more ( without becoming unprofitable ) .But that has n't happened .
SMS prices have gone up , not down , despite strong evidence that the current price could be slashed dramatically while still remaining profitable ( i.e .
forwarding an SMS message costs almost nothing ) .
Perhaps the providers are colluding to keep prices high , or perhaps the cost of switching providers is so high that there 's effectively no competition .
Either way , this is clearly a market failure , and resolving market failures is a duty of the government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The prices to the consumer have nothing to do with "costs", especially material costs.
It has to do with what the market will pay.
If they charge $1 a message and people will pay it, that is the price.No, you're missing an important part of how markets are supposed to work.In a free market, if providers A and B are charging $1 for a message, then even if people are willing to pay $1, provider C will notice that they can grab a lot of customers by charging, say, $0.75.
They'll lower their prices, and customers will jump at the opportunity to save 25\% on their messaging.
Then A and B will have little choice but to lower their own prices... and this process will repeat every so often, until the price is so low that it can't be lowered any more (without becoming unprofitable).But that hasn't happened.
SMS prices have gone up, not down, despite strong evidence that the current price could be slashed dramatically while still remaining profitable (i.e.
forwarding an SMS message costs almost nothing).
Perhaps the providers are colluding to keep prices high, or perhaps the cost of switching providers is so high that there's effectively no competition.
Either way, this is clearly a market failure, and resolving market failures is a duty of the government.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28245779</id>
	<title>As a longtime T-mobile customer...</title>
	<author>funkify</author>
	<datestamp>1244382360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I, for one, welcome our new hacker overlords.  Who cares who sees my cell phone records or texts.  Besides, you'd have to be stupid to do anything REALLY private over the airwaves these days anyway, what with Bush and Obama both agreeing that warrantless wiretaps are a good idea.</p><p>Seriously though, I've done PLENTY of shopping around over the years, and T-Mobile always has the best rates, best coverage, and best customer service out of all the US cellular providers.  That might be like calling them a tall midget, but the best is the best.  I get 2 lines with completely unlimited calling for less than $90.</p><p>If this is real and T-Mobile's networks actually DO get shut down temporarily, then that will just be one less way that I get bothered.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I , for one , welcome our new hacker overlords .
Who cares who sees my cell phone records or texts .
Besides , you 'd have to be stupid to do anything REALLY private over the airwaves these days anyway , what with Bush and Obama both agreeing that warrantless wiretaps are a good idea.Seriously though , I 've done PLENTY of shopping around over the years , and T-Mobile always has the best rates , best coverage , and best customer service out of all the US cellular providers .
That might be like calling them a tall midget , but the best is the best .
I get 2 lines with completely unlimited calling for less than $ 90.If this is real and T-Mobile 's networks actually DO get shut down temporarily , then that will just be one less way that I get bothered .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I, for one, welcome our new hacker overlords.
Who cares who sees my cell phone records or texts.
Besides, you'd have to be stupid to do anything REALLY private over the airwaves these days anyway, what with Bush and Obama both agreeing that warrantless wiretaps are a good idea.Seriously though, I've done PLENTY of shopping around over the years, and T-Mobile always has the best rates, best coverage, and best customer service out of all the US cellular providers.
That might be like calling them a tall midget, but the best is the best.
I get 2 lines with completely unlimited calling for less than $90.If this is real and T-Mobile's networks actually DO get shut down temporarily, then that will just be one less way that I get bothered.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244501</id>
	<title>Re:nice!</title>
	<author>hurfy</author>
	<datestamp>1244372220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does this mean service will improve?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does this mean service will improve ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does this mean service will improve?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243867</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244337</id>
	<title>Re:worthless data!</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1244371260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you were AT&amp;T, and someone sent you some spam advertising T-Mobile's customer lists, would you be interested? No? Me neither.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you were AT&amp;T , and someone sent you some spam advertising T-Mobile 's customer lists , would you be interested ?
No ? Me neither .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you were AT&amp;T, and someone sent you some spam advertising T-Mobile's customer lists, would you be interested?
No? Me neither.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243873</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28258815</id>
	<title>password</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244465340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe they should change their password from "PASSWORD1" to "PASSWORD!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe they should change their password from " PASSWORD1 " to " PASSWORD !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe they should change their password from "PASSWORD1" to "PASSWORD!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28250381</id>
	<title>Re:Using the data for good purposes</title>
	<author>amoeba1911</author>
	<datestamp>1244472660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"reflects supply &amp; demand" is bull. The supply is not limited, the phone company isn't going to run out of SMS's and their network isn't going to get bogged down with 160 byte messages that people type on a phone with two fingers. The whole thing is idiotic, even more idiotic they actually charge twice: once for sending, once more for receiving.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" reflects supply &amp; demand " is bull .
The supply is not limited , the phone company is n't going to run out of SMS 's and their network is n't going to get bogged down with 160 byte messages that people type on a phone with two fingers .
The whole thing is idiotic , even more idiotic they actually charge twice : once for sending , once more for receiving .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"reflects supply &amp; demand" is bull.
The supply is not limited, the phone company isn't going to run out of SMS's and their network isn't going to get bogged down with 160 byte messages that people type on a phone with two fingers.
The whole thing is idiotic, even more idiotic they actually charge twice: once for sending, once more for receiving.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244051</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28255505</id>
	<title>Re:T-Mobile Customer?</title>
	<author>Optic7</author>
	<datestamp>1244452140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly. Vodafone actually has a serious partnership with Verizon in the US.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
Vodafone actually has a serious partnership with Verizon in the US .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
Vodafone actually has a serious partnership with Verizon in the US.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244231</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244295</id>
	<title>Re:T-Mobile Customer?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244371020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This does not chage the fact that email in itself is not a secure medium.  Even if this were on a 'non wide-open' service provider, you can never say the same for the other end receiving the messages.</p><p>Bottom line, if you want secure communication, use an encryption mechanism like PGP and your carrier's security is not an issue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This does not chage the fact that email in itself is not a secure medium .
Even if this were on a 'non wide-open ' service provider , you can never say the same for the other end receiving the messages.Bottom line , if you want secure communication , use an encryption mechanism like PGP and your carrier 's security is not an issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This does not chage the fact that email in itself is not a secure medium.
Even if this were on a 'non wide-open' service provider, you can never say the same for the other end receiving the messages.Bottom line, if you want secure communication, use an encryption mechanism like PGP and your carrier's security is not an issue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244083</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244117</id>
	<title>Re:Why....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244369760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They are a bunch of kids with an insider. Just read the disclosure.</p><p>"We already contacted with their competitors and they didn't show interest in buying their data<br>Please only serious offers, don't waste our time.</p><p>Contact: pwnmobile@safe-mail.net"<br>Yea, good luck with that Mr Pwnmobile. Do you accept paypal?</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They are a bunch of kids with an insider .
Just read the disclosure .
" We already contacted with their competitors and they did n't show interest in buying their dataPlease only serious offers , do n't waste our time.Contact : pwnmobile @ safe-mail.net " Yea , good luck with that Mr Pwnmobile .
Do you accept paypal ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are a bunch of kids with an insider.
Just read the disclosure.
"We already contacted with their competitors and they didn't show interest in buying their dataPlease only serious offers, don't waste our time.Contact: pwnmobile@safe-mail.net"Yea, good luck with that Mr Pwnmobile.
Do you accept paypal?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243931</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244271</id>
	<title>Honey Pot?</title>
	<author>mehemiah</author>
	<datestamp>1244370780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>what if they just got a very convincing Honey Pot ?</htmltext>
<tokenext>what if they just got a very convincing Honey Pot ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what if they just got a very convincing Honey Pot ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28249277</id>
	<title>Re:All UNIX/UNIX-likes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244464620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> security lock-downs </p><p>Either OS can be secure enough (although far from impenetrable) if the right steps are taken to appropriately lock down the machine.  I work on a project that distributes primarily linux-based solutions.  You can bet that every machine that leaves our shop is rigorously locked down to the point where doing anything meaningful on the machine requires a separate and distinct password.  Ports are closed, and myriad of other measures are taken to ensure that it is the most secure solution we can offer.  The same can be done on a Wintel box (or MacOS for that matter too).</p><p>The real question, as stated before, is whether companies want to pay for the added security.  It could be that there is a correlation between companies using free software and companies not wanting to spend money on security (makes sense to me - especially given that linux is largely considered impenetrable by the 'non-expert').  Companies willing to pay the licensing fees for M$ may be more security savvy simply because of the high-profile security breaches that have made M$ so well known for their "poor" security.</p><p>My point, I guess, is that when you look at the market - it makes sense that we don't hear about a ton of Windows-only breaches... IT companies are well aware of the risks already and they spend money trying to fix the problems that arise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>security lock-downs Either OS can be secure enough ( although far from impenetrable ) if the right steps are taken to appropriately lock down the machine .
I work on a project that distributes primarily linux-based solutions .
You can bet that every machine that leaves our shop is rigorously locked down to the point where doing anything meaningful on the machine requires a separate and distinct password .
Ports are closed , and myriad of other measures are taken to ensure that it is the most secure solution we can offer .
The same can be done on a Wintel box ( or MacOS for that matter too ) .The real question , as stated before , is whether companies want to pay for the added security .
It could be that there is a correlation between companies using free software and companies not wanting to spend money on security ( makes sense to me - especially given that linux is largely considered impenetrable by the 'non-expert ' ) .
Companies willing to pay the licensing fees for M $ may be more security savvy simply because of the high-profile security breaches that have made M $ so well known for their " poor " security.My point , I guess , is that when you look at the market - it makes sense that we do n't hear about a ton of Windows-only breaches... IT companies are well aware of the risks already and they spend money trying to fix the problems that arise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> security lock-downs Either OS can be secure enough (although far from impenetrable) if the right steps are taken to appropriately lock down the machine.
I work on a project that distributes primarily linux-based solutions.
You can bet that every machine that leaves our shop is rigorously locked down to the point where doing anything meaningful on the machine requires a separate and distinct password.
Ports are closed, and myriad of other measures are taken to ensure that it is the most secure solution we can offer.
The same can be done on a Wintel box (or MacOS for that matter too).The real question, as stated before, is whether companies want to pay for the added security.
It could be that there is a correlation between companies using free software and companies not wanting to spend money on security (makes sense to me - especially given that linux is largely considered impenetrable by the 'non-expert').
Companies willing to pay the licensing fees for M$ may be more security savvy simply because of the high-profile security breaches that have made M$ so well known for their "poor" security.My point, I guess, is that when you look at the market - it makes sense that we don't hear about a ton of Windows-only breaches... IT companies are well aware of the risks already and they spend money trying to fix the problems that arise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243965</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28246897</id>
	<title>Re:Why....</title>
	<author>Deanalator</author>
	<datestamp>1244393520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What exactly is it that makes you think that this data was not encrypted?  Encrypted documents can prevent some of the smash and grab exposures, but all you need to do is stick around a couple days and gather passwords, and you can decrypt anything you would need.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What exactly is it that makes you think that this data was not encrypted ?
Encrypted documents can prevent some of the smash and grab exposures , but all you need to do is stick around a couple days and gather passwords , and you can decrypt anything you would need .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What exactly is it that makes you think that this data was not encrypted?
Encrypted documents can prevent some of the smash and grab exposures, but all you need to do is stick around a couple days and gather passwords, and you can decrypt anything you would need.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243877</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244139</id>
	<title>Re:Using the data for good purposes</title>
	<author>cdrguru</author>
	<datestamp>1244370000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So what?  Are you just complaining because the price is high, or are you prevented from using SMS services because of the pricing?</p><p>What possible relationship should the price to the consumer have to what is really costs?  Do you believe there is any relationship between consumer products and the price charged?  If you do, you are sadly mistaken.  The prices to the consumer have nothing to do with "costs", especially material costs.  It has to do with what the market will pay.  If they charge $1 a message and people will pay it, that is the price.</p><p>And why would you want the government to get involved?  Do you think the government should regulate all prices?  Did you think the price of a car is closely tied to the cost of the materials?  How about books?  Do you think a 100 page book absolutely has to cost less than a 200 page book?  Aren't you confused when you go to the store and the prices do not reflect this?  Should the government fix this problem?</p><p>No, the government shouldn't have anything to do with this.  A bit of education will teach you that prices have nothing whatsoever to do with costs - lots of stuff is sold for less than it costs to make it.  Plenty more stuff is sold for way, way more than it costs to make it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So what ?
Are you just complaining because the price is high , or are you prevented from using SMS services because of the pricing ? What possible relationship should the price to the consumer have to what is really costs ?
Do you believe there is any relationship between consumer products and the price charged ?
If you do , you are sadly mistaken .
The prices to the consumer have nothing to do with " costs " , especially material costs .
It has to do with what the market will pay .
If they charge $ 1 a message and people will pay it , that is the price.And why would you want the government to get involved ?
Do you think the government should regulate all prices ?
Did you think the price of a car is closely tied to the cost of the materials ?
How about books ?
Do you think a 100 page book absolutely has to cost less than a 200 page book ?
Are n't you confused when you go to the store and the prices do not reflect this ?
Should the government fix this problem ? No , the government should n't have anything to do with this .
A bit of education will teach you that prices have nothing whatsoever to do with costs - lots of stuff is sold for less than it costs to make it .
Plenty more stuff is sold for way , way more than it costs to make it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what?
Are you just complaining because the price is high, or are you prevented from using SMS services because of the pricing?What possible relationship should the price to the consumer have to what is really costs?
Do you believe there is any relationship between consumer products and the price charged?
If you do, you are sadly mistaken.
The prices to the consumer have nothing to do with "costs", especially material costs.
It has to do with what the market will pay.
If they charge $1 a message and people will pay it, that is the price.And why would you want the government to get involved?
Do you think the government should regulate all prices?
Did you think the price of a car is closely tied to the cost of the materials?
How about books?
Do you think a 100 page book absolutely has to cost less than a 200 page book?
Aren't you confused when you go to the store and the prices do not reflect this?
Should the government fix this problem?No, the government shouldn't have anything to do with this.
A bit of education will teach you that prices have nothing whatsoever to do with costs - lots of stuff is sold for less than it costs to make it.
Plenty more stuff is sold for way, way more than it costs to make it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243897</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28245799</id>
	<title>Re:If you were smart, you used a prepaid phone</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244382540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Got a source?  8th largest by what?, certainly not most metrics that I am aware of.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Got a source ?
8th largest by what ? , certainly not most metrics that I am aware of .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Got a source?
8th largest by what?, certainly not most metrics that I am aware of.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28245045</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244865</id>
	<title>Re:Using the data for good purposes</title>
	<author>ScottCooperDotNet</author>
	<datestamp>1244374980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>And why would you want the government to get involved? Do you think the government should regulate all prices?</p></div></blockquote><p>When a company gets a license to exclusively use a certain radio frequency, yes, We the People should have the ability to set certain restrictions.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And why would you want the government to get involved ?
Do you think the government should regulate all prices ? When a company gets a license to exclusively use a certain radio frequency , yes , We the People should have the ability to set certain restrictions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And why would you want the government to get involved?
Do you think the government should regulate all prices?When a company gets a license to exclusively use a certain radio frequency, yes, We the People should have the ability to set certain restrictions.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244051</id>
	<title>Re:Using the data for good purposes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244369340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>However, I'd like to see a silver lining to this by seeing the data employed to put paid to the idea that SMSes have to cost so much.</i></p><p>They don't have to cost so much. In fact, the cost of providing SMS service is next to nothing - it's an afterthought that runs in the cell phone control channel.</p><p>HOWEVER, in the real world, the price of a product/service doesn't depend on the cost to provide the service, it depends on what people are willing to pay. The fact that so many people are willing to pay high prices for SMS reflects supply &amp; demand.</p><p>Personally, I never send SMS. If I want to talk to you, I'll call you. Otherwise I'll send email. But I seem to be in the minority.</p><p>A better question is why is there so little competition in SMS prices - is there collusion to avoid competition?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>However , I 'd like to see a silver lining to this by seeing the data employed to put paid to the idea that SMSes have to cost so much.They do n't have to cost so much .
In fact , the cost of providing SMS service is next to nothing - it 's an afterthought that runs in the cell phone control channel.HOWEVER , in the real world , the price of a product/service does n't depend on the cost to provide the service , it depends on what people are willing to pay .
The fact that so many people are willing to pay high prices for SMS reflects supply &amp; demand.Personally , I never send SMS .
If I want to talk to you , I 'll call you .
Otherwise I 'll send email .
But I seem to be in the minority.A better question is why is there so little competition in SMS prices - is there collusion to avoid competition ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However, I'd like to see a silver lining to this by seeing the data employed to put paid to the idea that SMSes have to cost so much.They don't have to cost so much.
In fact, the cost of providing SMS service is next to nothing - it's an afterthought that runs in the cell phone control channel.HOWEVER, in the real world, the price of a product/service doesn't depend on the cost to provide the service, it depends on what people are willing to pay.
The fact that so many people are willing to pay high prices for SMS reflects supply &amp; demand.Personally, I never send SMS.
If I want to talk to you, I'll call you.
Otherwise I'll send email.
But I seem to be in the minority.A better question is why is there so little competition in SMS prices - is there collusion to avoid competition?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243897</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28253807</id>
	<title>Re:Before I hit the panic button</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244489220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'll wait for some validation. Cuz, you know;</p><p>prodsrv1|192.168.1.200|root@cia.gov sekret files|for realz|RHEL4</p><p>isn't especially convincing.</p><p>Even if it's a real list, it could be something as simple as a pilfered company document off a laptop, a script-kiddie wannabe hacker employee showing off to his friends on IRC, or any of a hundred scenarios.</p><p>Do I doubt it's difficult to own a bunch of HP-UX boxes? Nah.</p><p>Have I learned to not spastically freak out every time some random people claim they hacked something? Yah.</p><p>Trouble is, T-Mobile wouldn't exactly be forthcoming with any confirmations.</p><p>At the end of the day, you just have to plan around being hacked. You have to ensure your payment method associated with external services can handle being owned. You have to be ready for people getting your SSN and private info, since it's moronically being used for frivolous purposes everywhere.</p><p>Which is not to say you shouldn't do your best to keep your data protected and secure - I just try to plan around any data I give out to various companies being owned.</p></div><p>Hi. I just got off the phone with T-Mobile, and yes, they were indeed hacked. Snail mail letters are being sent out. Customer Service was very up front about it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll wait for some validation .
Cuz , you know ; prodsrv1 | 192.168.1.200 | root @ cia.gov sekret files | for realz | RHEL4is n't especially convincing.Even if it 's a real list , it could be something as simple as a pilfered company document off a laptop , a script-kiddie wannabe hacker employee showing off to his friends on IRC , or any of a hundred scenarios.Do I doubt it 's difficult to own a bunch of HP-UX boxes ?
Nah.Have I learned to not spastically freak out every time some random people claim they hacked something ?
Yah.Trouble is , T-Mobile would n't exactly be forthcoming with any confirmations.At the end of the day , you just have to plan around being hacked .
You have to ensure your payment method associated with external services can handle being owned .
You have to be ready for people getting your SSN and private info , since it 's moronically being used for frivolous purposes everywhere.Which is not to say you should n't do your best to keep your data protected and secure - I just try to plan around any data I give out to various companies being owned.Hi .
I just got off the phone with T-Mobile , and yes , they were indeed hacked .
Snail mail letters are being sent out .
Customer Service was very up front about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll wait for some validation.
Cuz, you know;prodsrv1|192.168.1.200|root@cia.gov sekret files|for realz|RHEL4isn't especially convincing.Even if it's a real list, it could be something as simple as a pilfered company document off a laptop, a script-kiddie wannabe hacker employee showing off to his friends on IRC, or any of a hundred scenarios.Do I doubt it's difficult to own a bunch of HP-UX boxes?
Nah.Have I learned to not spastically freak out every time some random people claim they hacked something?
Yah.Trouble is, T-Mobile wouldn't exactly be forthcoming with any confirmations.At the end of the day, you just have to plan around being hacked.
You have to ensure your payment method associated with external services can handle being owned.
You have to be ready for people getting your SSN and private info, since it's moronically being used for frivolous purposes everywhere.Which is not to say you shouldn't do your best to keep your data protected and secure - I just try to plan around any data I give out to various companies being owned.Hi.
I just got off the phone with T-Mobile, and yes, they were indeed hacked.
Snail mail letters are being sent out.
Customer Service was very up front about it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244733</id>
	<title>Pay some smart $$$ get smart security</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244374140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How hard is it to keep a Linux, AIX and SunOS servers patched with security updates, seriously.  These boxes must of never been properly secured in the first place for that many operating systems to be compromised.  I know it is a bit of security through obscurity but having multiple server OS usually offers you some protection but to have this many fail seems like they need to pay more $$$$ and get a competent sysadmin group.  I would not be surprised if a majority of their day to day sysadmin work was outsourced.  If you do not have someone that is there with the firewall logs in real time, at least one honeypot behind the firewall and <a href="http://sourceforge.net/projects/tripwire/" title="sourceforge.net">tripwire</a> [sourceforge.net] setups that page everyone but god when your honeypot is disturbed you are not even trying.  Hell, I have that at home.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How hard is it to keep a Linux , AIX and SunOS servers patched with security updates , seriously .
These boxes must of never been properly secured in the first place for that many operating systems to be compromised .
I know it is a bit of security through obscurity but having multiple server OS usually offers you some protection but to have this many fail seems like they need to pay more $ $ $ $ and get a competent sysadmin group .
I would not be surprised if a majority of their day to day sysadmin work was outsourced .
If you do not have someone that is there with the firewall logs in real time , at least one honeypot behind the firewall and tripwire [ sourceforge.net ] setups that page everyone but god when your honeypot is disturbed you are not even trying .
Hell , I have that at home .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How hard is it to keep a Linux, AIX and SunOS servers patched with security updates, seriously.
These boxes must of never been properly secured in the first place for that many operating systems to be compromised.
I know it is a bit of security through obscurity but having multiple server OS usually offers you some protection but to have this many fail seems like they need to pay more $$$$ and get a competent sysadmin group.
I would not be surprised if a majority of their day to day sysadmin work was outsourced.
If you do not have someone that is there with the firewall logs in real time, at least one honeypot behind the firewall and tripwire [sourceforge.net] setups that page everyone but god when your honeypot is disturbed you are not even trying.
Hell, I have that at home.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244041</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28248029</id>
	<title>Re:Before I hit the panic button</title>
	<author>Pyrus.mg</author>
	<datestamp>1244493840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Aside from the CIA's sekret files|for realz, you'd think Insecure.org's description of the Full Disclosure mailing list might raise some doubts about the veracity of this.

"Full Disclosure -- An unmoderated high-traffic forum for disclosure of security information. Fresh vulnerabilities sometimes hit this list many hours before they pass through the Bugtraq moderation queue. The relaxed atmosphere of this quirky list provides some comic relief and certain industry gossip. Unfortunately 80\% of the posts are worthless drivel, so finding the gems takes patience."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Aside from the CIA 's sekret files | for realz , you 'd think Insecure.org 's description of the Full Disclosure mailing list might raise some doubts about the veracity of this .
" Full Disclosure -- An unmoderated high-traffic forum for disclosure of security information .
Fresh vulnerabilities sometimes hit this list many hours before they pass through the Bugtraq moderation queue .
The relaxed atmosphere of this quirky list provides some comic relief and certain industry gossip .
Unfortunately 80 \ % of the posts are worthless drivel , so finding the gems takes patience .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aside from the CIA's sekret files|for realz, you'd think Insecure.org's description of the Full Disclosure mailing list might raise some doubts about the veracity of this.
"Full Disclosure -- An unmoderated high-traffic forum for disclosure of security information.
Fresh vulnerabilities sometimes hit this list many hours before they pass through the Bugtraq moderation queue.
The relaxed atmosphere of this quirky list provides some comic relief and certain industry gossip.
Unfortunately 80\% of the posts are worthless drivel, so finding the gems takes patience.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28247253</id>
	<title>Re:worthless data!</title>
	<author>Swampash</author>
	<datestamp>1244397780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not worthless - it's so valuable that it's radioactive. Any competitor coming anywhere near this data would get sued into oblivion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not worthless - it 's so valuable that it 's radioactive .
Any competitor coming anywhere near this data would get sued into oblivion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not worthless - it's so valuable that it's radioactive.
Any competitor coming anywhere near this data would get sued into oblivion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243873</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244333</id>
	<title>Re:Why....</title>
	<author>SharpFang</author>
	<datestamp>1244371200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Once you have access to the filesystem of the machine that runs the database, all the Need To Know restrictions are null and void, you just grab the database file. And that tends to be one firewall + one host away from The Wild.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Once you have access to the filesystem of the machine that runs the database , all the Need To Know restrictions are null and void , you just grab the database file .
And that tends to be one firewall + one host away from The Wild .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once you have access to the filesystem of the machine that runs the database, all the Need To Know restrictions are null and void, you just grab the database file.
And that tends to be one firewall + one host away from The Wild.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243931</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28248299</id>
	<title>Re:Why....</title>
	<author>tinkertim</author>
	<datestamp>1244453040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>My guess is the conversations go like this:</p><p>Front-line Manager: We need to</p></div></blockquote><p>It probably ended there<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My guess is the conversations go like this : Front-line Manager : We need toIt probably ended there .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My guess is the conversations go like this:Front-line Manager: We need toIt probably ended there ...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243915</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243897</id>
	<title>Using the data for good purposes</title>
	<author>otter42</author>
	<datestamp>1244367960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now, I'm not going to cheer crackers breaking into a private corporation's data services. The breech has tremendous privacy implications, and a lot of these fall squarely on the head of the consumer. However, I'd like to see a silver lining to this by seeing the data employed to put paid to the idea that SMSes have to cost so much. Time after time, the data has shown that SMSes *should* be giant cash cows for these monopolistic entities, but lacking internal financial data it has always been difficult to make an issue out of this at Congress. Of course the cell companies have every interest to keep this data private, but maybe in this case T-Mobile won't have the choice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now , I 'm not going to cheer crackers breaking into a private corporation 's data services .
The breech has tremendous privacy implications , and a lot of these fall squarely on the head of the consumer .
However , I 'd like to see a silver lining to this by seeing the data employed to put paid to the idea that SMSes have to cost so much .
Time after time , the data has shown that SMSes * should * be giant cash cows for these monopolistic entities , but lacking internal financial data it has always been difficult to make an issue out of this at Congress .
Of course the cell companies have every interest to keep this data private , but maybe in this case T-Mobile wo n't have the choice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now, I'm not going to cheer crackers breaking into a private corporation's data services.
The breech has tremendous privacy implications, and a lot of these fall squarely on the head of the consumer.
However, I'd like to see a silver lining to this by seeing the data employed to put paid to the idea that SMSes have to cost so much.
Time after time, the data has shown that SMSes *should* be giant cash cows for these monopolistic entities, but lacking internal financial data it has always been difficult to make an issue out of this at Congress.
Of course the cell companies have every interest to keep this data private, but maybe in this case T-Mobile won't have the choice.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28251171</id>
	<title>Re:nice!</title>
	<author>Nikker</author>
	<datestamp>1244476800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think the "good job" attitude we refer to in situations like this is not because of the actual property / data compromised but the fact it sheds light to the public that computer security is not being scaled as it should.  Mom &amp; Pop shops getting hacked likely happens quite a bit but for a much larger company (that specializes in data) to get touched like this is a wake up call.  If we talk about bank robbers it would be similar to some kid taking all the money out of a bank with out having to walk into it and no one noticing it was gone, for something like that to happen it is not legally the banks fault but in reality they should taken to the wood shed and smacked around.  I think the mentality behind this is that the "hackers" want to be caught and get somewhat disappointed when they don't that's why they raise all this bs.  It's kinda like saying this shouldn't be happening what's going on.  I'm almost happy this has happened since if there are vectors that can be exploited to result in this, these guys were not likely the first ones to do it.  Now all we need is for each T-Mobile customer to dispute their bill based on this for them to really start to take this stuff seriously.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the " good job " attitude we refer to in situations like this is not because of the actual property / data compromised but the fact it sheds light to the public that computer security is not being scaled as it should .
Mom &amp; Pop shops getting hacked likely happens quite a bit but for a much larger company ( that specializes in data ) to get touched like this is a wake up call .
If we talk about bank robbers it would be similar to some kid taking all the money out of a bank with out having to walk into it and no one noticing it was gone , for something like that to happen it is not legally the banks fault but in reality they should taken to the wood shed and smacked around .
I think the mentality behind this is that the " hackers " want to be caught and get somewhat disappointed when they do n't that 's why they raise all this bs .
It 's kinda like saying this should n't be happening what 's going on .
I 'm almost happy this has happened since if there are vectors that can be exploited to result in this , these guys were not likely the first ones to do it .
Now all we need is for each T-Mobile customer to dispute their bill based on this for them to really start to take this stuff seriously .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the "good job" attitude we refer to in situations like this is not because of the actual property / data compromised but the fact it sheds light to the public that computer security is not being scaled as it should.
Mom &amp; Pop shops getting hacked likely happens quite a bit but for a much larger company (that specializes in data) to get touched like this is a wake up call.
If we talk about bank robbers it would be similar to some kid taking all the money out of a bank with out having to walk into it and no one noticing it was gone, for something like that to happen it is not legally the banks fault but in reality they should taken to the wood shed and smacked around.
I think the mentality behind this is that the "hackers" want to be caught and get somewhat disappointed when they don't that's why they raise all this bs.
It's kinda like saying this shouldn't be happening what's going on.
I'm almost happy this has happened since if there are vectors that can be exploited to result in this, these guys were not likely the first ones to do it.
Now all we need is for each T-Mobile customer to dispute their bill based on this for them to really start to take this stuff seriously.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28246439</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244445</id>
	<title>Re:Millions of credit cards, unprecedented access</title>
	<author>Voyager529</author>
	<datestamp>1244371920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And the best thing they can think of doing with it all is to offer it to T-Mobiles competitors? Seriously? I can think of tons of ways to profit off of all that information.</p></div><p>So buy it from them for $10,000 and make your millions.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And the best thing they can think of doing with it all is to offer it to T-Mobiles competitors ?
Seriously ? I can think of tons of ways to profit off of all that information.So buy it from them for $ 10,000 and make your millions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And the best thing they can think of doing with it all is to offer it to T-Mobiles competitors?
Seriously? I can think of tons of ways to profit off of all that information.So buy it from them for $10,000 and make your millions.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244073</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28246461</id>
	<title>Re:Using the data for good purposes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244389260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>3 companies? i count 4. AT&amp;T, Verizon, Sprint, and T-mobile</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>3 companies ?
i count 4 .
AT&amp;T , Verizon , Sprint , and T-mobile</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3 companies?
i count 4.
AT&amp;T, Verizon, Sprint, and T-mobile</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244185</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28251641</id>
	<title>Re:Why....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244479020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>My guess is the conversations go like this:</p><p>help desk lackee: We need to encrypt our dataz.</p><p>Middle Manager: How much will this cost?</p><p>help desk lackee: gpg</p><p>Middle Manager: ???</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My guess is the conversations go like this : help desk lackee : We need to encrypt our dataz.Middle Manager : How much will this cost ? help desk lackee : gpgMiddle Manager : ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My guess is the conversations go like this:help desk lackee: We need to encrypt our dataz.Middle Manager: How much will this cost?help desk lackee: gpgMiddle Manager: ??
?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243915</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244535</id>
	<title>"Hackers Claim To Hit T-Mobile Hard"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244372460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hacker: T-Mobile? I'd hit it. Hard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hacker : T-Mobile ?
I 'd hit it .
Hard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hacker: T-Mobile?
I'd hit it.
Hard.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244495</id>
	<title>Re:T-Mobile Customer?</title>
	<author>antdude</author>
	<datestamp>1244372160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where to though? All companies have problems.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where to though ?
All companies have problems .
: (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where to though?
All companies have problems.
:(</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244083</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244915</id>
	<title>Ah yes, worshipping the so-called "free market"</title>
	<author>fnj</author>
	<datestamp>1244375400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Telecoms is not a free market.  It is an oligopoly.  As such, there is no meaningful competition.  The pricing of SMS is an ABOMINATION.  At a personal level, this kind of gouging would be an unforgivable breach of ethics.  I for one do not see why corporations should be licensed to disregard ethics.</p><p>How does a faceless corporation browbeat tens of millions of customers?  One at a time, of course.</p><p>If I were a hospital, following your logic, I would negotiate with each patient.  "Well, Mr. Gates, how much would you pay for a heart transplant?  A billion dollars?  OK, make it $1.2 billion and you've got a deal."  Then one day this schmuck shows up.  "Well, Mr. Schmuck, how much would you pay for a heart transplant?  A hundred dollars in installments is all you can come up with?  Do you know that just last week another gentleman paid us over a billion?  You are insulting me.  Go away.  There are plenty of wealthy people who need new hearts."  (the hospital negotiator seems not to notice that he is describing himself all too literally)</p><p>You may say that regulations and planned economies and safety nets do not work.  That is arguable.  The logical response, however, would be to say, let us apply human ingenuity, work ethic, and compassion, and try to make them work.  Not, let's not even try.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Telecoms is not a free market .
It is an oligopoly .
As such , there is no meaningful competition .
The pricing of SMS is an ABOMINATION .
At a personal level , this kind of gouging would be an unforgivable breach of ethics .
I for one do not see why corporations should be licensed to disregard ethics.How does a faceless corporation browbeat tens of millions of customers ?
One at a time , of course.If I were a hospital , following your logic , I would negotiate with each patient .
" Well , Mr. Gates , how much would you pay for a heart transplant ?
A billion dollars ?
OK , make it $ 1.2 billion and you 've got a deal .
" Then one day this schmuck shows up .
" Well , Mr. Schmuck , how much would you pay for a heart transplant ?
A hundred dollars in installments is all you can come up with ?
Do you know that just last week another gentleman paid us over a billion ?
You are insulting me .
Go away .
There are plenty of wealthy people who need new hearts .
" ( the hospital negotiator seems not to notice that he is describing himself all too literally ) You may say that regulations and planned economies and safety nets do not work .
That is arguable .
The logical response , however , would be to say , let us apply human ingenuity , work ethic , and compassion , and try to make them work .
Not , let 's not even try .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Telecoms is not a free market.
It is an oligopoly.
As such, there is no meaningful competition.
The pricing of SMS is an ABOMINATION.
At a personal level, this kind of gouging would be an unforgivable breach of ethics.
I for one do not see why corporations should be licensed to disregard ethics.How does a faceless corporation browbeat tens of millions of customers?
One at a time, of course.If I were a hospital, following your logic, I would negotiate with each patient.
"Well, Mr. Gates, how much would you pay for a heart transplant?
A billion dollars?
OK, make it $1.2 billion and you've got a deal.
"  Then one day this schmuck shows up.
"Well, Mr. Schmuck, how much would you pay for a heart transplant?
A hundred dollars in installments is all you can come up with?
Do you know that just last week another gentleman paid us over a billion?
You are insulting me.
Go away.
There are plenty of wealthy people who need new hearts.
"  (the hospital negotiator seems not to notice that he is describing himself all too literally)You may say that regulations and planned economies and safety nets do not work.
That is arguable.
The logical response, however, would be to say, let us apply human ingenuity, work ethic, and compassion, and try to make them work.
Not, let's not even try.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244599</id>
	<title>Re:T-Mobile Customer?</title>
	<author>eison</author>
	<datestamp>1244372940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What makes you think it's different anywhere else?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What makes you think it 's different anywhere else ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What makes you think it's different anywhere else?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244083</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244083</id>
	<title>T-Mobile Customer?</title>
	<author>cdrguru</author>
	<datestamp>1244369580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you are, you better start thinking about where to go next.  Their service is now wide open.  Anything transferred through their network is now questionable.</p><p>Can you afford to send an email from a smartphone and have a couple of bytes changed, say from "no" to "yes"?  Or from $100 to $10,000?</p><p>Can you afford to have your phone records available to everyone on the Internet?  How far back could T-Mobile's records go?  Two years?  Five years?</p><p>I'd say if this was played right to the media it could shut T-Mobile down in about two weeks.  After all, wouldn't that be a great goal?  Their inability to keep hackers out equals no reason to be in business.</p><p>Of course this was almost certainly an inside-assisted job.  But then you better watch who your employees are.  If you're employing people that have access to potentially sensitive data, how do you know they aren't in a financial bind and will do anything to make next month's mortgage payment?  Or have some gambling debts that they have to pay or their wife will work off?</p><p>I won't be happy to see T-Mobile (really Vodaphone from Germany) go under, but if these hackers have half a brain they will take the company down.  If they are just your average script kiddies this will not make to the nightly news and will have no effect on the company.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you are , you better start thinking about where to go next .
Their service is now wide open .
Anything transferred through their network is now questionable.Can you afford to send an email from a smartphone and have a couple of bytes changed , say from " no " to " yes " ?
Or from $ 100 to $ 10,000 ? Can you afford to have your phone records available to everyone on the Internet ?
How far back could T-Mobile 's records go ?
Two years ?
Five years ? I 'd say if this was played right to the media it could shut T-Mobile down in about two weeks .
After all , would n't that be a great goal ?
Their inability to keep hackers out equals no reason to be in business.Of course this was almost certainly an inside-assisted job .
But then you better watch who your employees are .
If you 're employing people that have access to potentially sensitive data , how do you know they are n't in a financial bind and will do anything to make next month 's mortgage payment ?
Or have some gambling debts that they have to pay or their wife will work off ? I wo n't be happy to see T-Mobile ( really Vodaphone from Germany ) go under , but if these hackers have half a brain they will take the company down .
If they are just your average script kiddies this will not make to the nightly news and will have no effect on the company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you are, you better start thinking about where to go next.
Their service is now wide open.
Anything transferred through their network is now questionable.Can you afford to send an email from a smartphone and have a couple of bytes changed, say from "no" to "yes"?
Or from $100 to $10,000?Can you afford to have your phone records available to everyone on the Internet?
How far back could T-Mobile's records go?
Two years?
Five years?I'd say if this was played right to the media it could shut T-Mobile down in about two weeks.
After all, wouldn't that be a great goal?
Their inability to keep hackers out equals no reason to be in business.Of course this was almost certainly an inside-assisted job.
But then you better watch who your employees are.
If you're employing people that have access to potentially sensitive data, how do you know they aren't in a financial bind and will do anything to make next month's mortgage payment?
Or have some gambling debts that they have to pay or their wife will work off?I won't be happy to see T-Mobile (really Vodaphone from Germany) go under, but if these hackers have half a brain they will take the company down.
If they are just your average script kiddies this will not make to the nightly news and will have no effect on the company.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2019246_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244083
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28245771
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2019246_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243877
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243915
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28248299
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2019246_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243877
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243977
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244419
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2019246_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243897
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244051
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28247647
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2019246_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243897
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244033
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244185
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28246719
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2019246_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243867
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28246439
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28251171
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2019246_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244041
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244373
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2019246_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243965
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28249277
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2019246_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243909
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244097
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2019246_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243873
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28246605
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2019246_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243867
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244501
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2019246_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243873
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28251581
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2019246_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243945
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28245045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28252361
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2019246_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243877
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243915
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28251641
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2019246_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243897
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28246967
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2019246_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243897
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244033
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244185
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28246461
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2019246_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243867
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28246439
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28249457
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2019246_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243873
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28247253
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2019246_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244083
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28246329
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2019246_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243965
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244165
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28246525
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2019246_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243965
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28251173
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2019246_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243909
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28247217
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2019246_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243965
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244331
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28258653
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2019246_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244073
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28251327
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2019246_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243897
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244051
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28250381
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2019246_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243897
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244441
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2019246_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243877
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243955
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2019246_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243877
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243931
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244333
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2019246_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243897
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244033
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244275
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2019246_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243899
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244687
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2019246_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243965
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244047
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2019246_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243877
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243931
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244117
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2019246_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243909
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28245031
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2019246_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244083
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244231
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28255505
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2019246_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243945
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244867
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2019246_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244669
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28246343
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2019246_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243965
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28247147
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2019246_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243867
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28246439
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28251977
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2019246_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244083
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244599
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2019246_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243897
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244833
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28248947
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2019246_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243909
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243961
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2019246_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243965
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244111
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2019246_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244083
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244311
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2019246_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28245393
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28252653
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2019246_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244041
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244733
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2019246_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243873
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244337
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2019246_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243897
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244071
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28250417
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2019246_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243897
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244125
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244263
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2019246_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243965
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244165
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28246287
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2019246_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243897
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244863
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2019246_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28247115
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28257895
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2019246_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244083
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244495
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2019246_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28248029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2019246_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243897
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244849
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2019246_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243897
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244915
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2019246_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243877
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28246897
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2019246_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244083
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28245347
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2019246_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243965
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28256441
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2019246_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243897
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2019246_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243945
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28245045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28247285
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2019246_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244083
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244461
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2019246_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243909
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243959
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2019246_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244073
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244445
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2019246_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28253807
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2019246_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243897
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244051
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28269059
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2019246_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243899
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244737
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2019246_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244083
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244295
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2019246_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243867
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28246439
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28248645
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2019246_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243945
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28245045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28245799
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28249669
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2019246_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244073
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244679
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2019246_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243965
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28259641
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2019246_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244083
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244383
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2019246_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244083
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28245021
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2019246_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243909
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243941
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2019246_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243873
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244183
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2019246_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243867
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28246439
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28249931
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_2019246_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243877
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243931
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244629
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28246431
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_07_2019246.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243899
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244737
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244687
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_07_2019246.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244405
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28248029
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28253807
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_07_2019246.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244271
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_07_2019246.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244509
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_07_2019246.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243965
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28249277
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28256441
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244331
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28258653
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244111
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28259641
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28251173
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28247147
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244047
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244165
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28246525
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28246287
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_07_2019246.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28246241
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_07_2019246.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243867
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244501
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28246439
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28251171
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28249457
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28251977
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28249931
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28248645
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_07_2019246.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244229
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_07_2019246.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244073
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244679
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28251327
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244445
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_07_2019246.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244083
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28245771
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28245347
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244599
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244231
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28255505
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28245021
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244383
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28246329
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244461
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244495
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244311
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244295
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_07_2019246.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243917
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_07_2019246.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243945
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244867
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28245045
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28247285
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28245799
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28249669
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28252361
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_07_2019246.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243909
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28247217
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244097
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243961
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28245031
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243959
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243941
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_07_2019246.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244041
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244733
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244373
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_07_2019246.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28245995
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_07_2019246.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244669
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28246343
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_07_2019246.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244959
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_07_2019246.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28247115
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28257895
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_07_2019246.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243877
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28246897
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243955
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243915
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28251641
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28248299
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243931
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244333
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244117
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244629
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28246431
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243977
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244419
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_07_2019246.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28245865
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_07_2019246.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243873
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244337
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28247253
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28246605
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244183
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28251581
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_07_2019246.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28243897
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28246967
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244441
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244071
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28250417
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244033
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244275
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244185
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28246719
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28246461
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244139
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244863
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244865
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244915
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244833
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28248947
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244849
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244051
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28250381
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28269059
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28247647
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244125
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28244263
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_07_2019246.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28245439
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_07_2019246.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28245393
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_2019246.28252653
</commentlist>
</conversation>
