<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_22_1245205</id>
	<title>Siemens, Nokia Helped Provide Iran's Censoring Tech</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1245675600000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"The Wall Street Journal has an article about <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124562668777335653.html#mod=rss\_whats\_news\_us">Nokia and Siemens selling the censoring technology to Iran's government</a>. Do you believe that the public relations damage to these companies can persuade them from selling this kind of technology to other dictatorial regimes?"</i>  I don't believe there will *be* any PR Damage, and that makes me a little sad.</htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " The Wall Street Journal has an article about Nokia and Siemens selling the censoring technology to Iran 's government .
Do you believe that the public relations damage to these companies can persuade them from selling this kind of technology to other dictatorial regimes ?
" I do n't believe there will * be * any PR Damage , and that makes me a little sad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "The Wall Street Journal has an article about Nokia and Siemens selling the censoring technology to Iran's government.
Do you believe that the public relations damage to these companies can persuade them from selling this kind of technology to other dictatorial regimes?
"  I don't believe there will *be* any PR Damage, and that makes me a little sad.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28431995</id>
	<title>Re:Hell NO! They'll Probably Use As A Selling Poin</title>
	<author>gmhowell</author>
	<datestamp>1245676620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The GP is a little off. Economics teaches that harmful monopolies do not exist in free trade. Harmful means taking excessive profit (actually, excess rent. I forget some of the technical terms). The mechanism for abusive monopoly prevention <b>is</b> described. If there is excess rent, then there is the possibility for another entity to provide the good or service for less. Someone will see this and compete with the abusive monopolizer. The abusive monopolizer must lower prices in order to be a viable competitor, thus no longer being abusive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The GP is a little off .
Economics teaches that harmful monopolies do not exist in free trade .
Harmful means taking excessive profit ( actually , excess rent .
I forget some of the technical terms ) .
The mechanism for abusive monopoly prevention is described .
If there is excess rent , then there is the possibility for another entity to provide the good or service for less .
Someone will see this and compete with the abusive monopolizer .
The abusive monopolizer must lower prices in order to be a viable competitor , thus no longer being abusive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The GP is a little off.
Economics teaches that harmful monopolies do not exist in free trade.
Harmful means taking excessive profit (actually, excess rent.
I forget some of the technical terms).
The mechanism for abusive monopoly prevention is described.
If there is excess rent, then there is the possibility for another entity to provide the good or service for less.
Someone will see this and compete with the abusive monopolizer.
The abusive monopolizer must lower prices in order to be a viable competitor, thus no longer being abusive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28429311</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420425</id>
	<title>Hell NO! They'll Probably Use As A Selling Point!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245679320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm sure first and second world dictatorships all over the world will be looking at buying that technology.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure first and second world dictatorships all over the world will be looking at buying that technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure first and second world dictatorships all over the world will be looking at buying that technology.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28422081</id>
	<title>Re:Like the Nazis</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245685260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"In short, don't blame the maker for the use of the tool."</p><p>That's untenable and I'm sure you know it.</p><p>My question would be - is the company selling them products which are normally useful (but can be used for evil purposes) or are they selling products designed to be used for censorship?</p><p>If it's just that Nokia and Siemens designed the telecommunications network, and the normal management tools \_can\_ be used to censor, track, or shut down parts of it...I'd be inclined to blame the end user.</p><p>If Nokia and Siemens said, "hey, our new CensorWare 3.0 would go great with that PBX you just bought"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... I'm more than happy to blame the maker.  Designing a tool that can not be used for any ethical purpose doesn't clear you of responsibility.</p><p>If this is about "deep packet inspection"...well, I'm not so sure I'd consider DIS to be an innocent technique.  Is there generally any real reason why DIS is important for regular network operations and maintenance?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" In short , do n't blame the maker for the use of the tool .
" That 's untenable and I 'm sure you know it.My question would be - is the company selling them products which are normally useful ( but can be used for evil purposes ) or are they selling products designed to be used for censorship ? If it 's just that Nokia and Siemens designed the telecommunications network , and the normal management tools \ _can \ _ be used to censor , track , or shut down parts of it...I 'd be inclined to blame the end user.If Nokia and Siemens said , " hey , our new CensorWare 3.0 would go great with that PBX you just bought " ... I 'm more than happy to blame the maker .
Designing a tool that can not be used for any ethical purpose does n't clear you of responsibility.If this is about " deep packet inspection " ...well , I 'm not so sure I 'd consider DIS to be an innocent technique .
Is there generally any real reason why DIS is important for regular network operations and maintenance ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"In short, don't blame the maker for the use of the tool.
"That's untenable and I'm sure you know it.My question would be - is the company selling them products which are normally useful (but can be used for evil purposes) or are they selling products designed to be used for censorship?If it's just that Nokia and Siemens designed the telecommunications network, and the normal management tools \_can\_ be used to censor, track, or shut down parts of it...I'd be inclined to blame the end user.If Nokia and Siemens said, "hey, our new CensorWare 3.0 would go great with that PBX you just bought" ... I'm more than happy to blame the maker.
Designing a tool that can not be used for any ethical purpose doesn't clear you of responsibility.If this is about "deep packet inspection"...well, I'm not so sure I'd consider DIS to be an innocent technique.
Is there generally any real reason why DIS is important for regular network operations and maintenance?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420661</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420955</id>
	<title>Re:Like the Nazis</title>
	<author>andrewd18</author>
	<datestamp>1245681540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thank you. Deep packet inspection is nothing new and it's up to its administrator to make wise decisions about how and when to use it. This has very little to do with Nokia and Siemens, other than the fact that they had a customer and the customer happened to use it in an inappropriate manner.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank you .
Deep packet inspection is nothing new and it 's up to its administrator to make wise decisions about how and when to use it .
This has very little to do with Nokia and Siemens , other than the fact that they had a customer and the customer happened to use it in an inappropriate manner .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank you.
Deep packet inspection is nothing new and it's up to its administrator to make wise decisions about how and when to use it.
This has very little to do with Nokia and Siemens, other than the fact that they had a customer and the customer happened to use it in an inappropriate manner.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420661</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420661</id>
	<title>Like the Nazis</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245680340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It just occured to me that I Godwin'd this story already, but this is just like when IBM sold adding machines to the Nazis to help them tabulate Holocaust victims.</p><p>Way I see it, who cares? The corner store selling smokes isn't to blame for the lung cancer - ultimately the smoker is. Except it's even more generic than that.</p><p>- Siemens sold network technology to Iran - the same you'd use for all sorts of network admin - and they used it to censor. That's Iran's bad.<br>- IBM sold adding machines - they'll count anything - and the Nazis used them to count Jews (and others). That's the Nazi's bad.</p><p>In short, don't blame the maker for the use of the tool.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It just occured to me that I Godwin 'd this story already , but this is just like when IBM sold adding machines to the Nazis to help them tabulate Holocaust victims.Way I see it , who cares ?
The corner store selling smokes is n't to blame for the lung cancer - ultimately the smoker is .
Except it 's even more generic than that.- Siemens sold network technology to Iran - the same you 'd use for all sorts of network admin - and they used it to censor .
That 's Iran 's bad.- IBM sold adding machines - they 'll count anything - and the Nazis used them to count Jews ( and others ) .
That 's the Nazi 's bad.In short , do n't blame the maker for the use of the tool .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It just occured to me that I Godwin'd this story already, but this is just like when IBM sold adding machines to the Nazis to help them tabulate Holocaust victims.Way I see it, who cares?
The corner store selling smokes isn't to blame for the lung cancer - ultimately the smoker is.
Except it's even more generic than that.- Siemens sold network technology to Iran - the same you'd use for all sorts of network admin - and they used it to censor.
That's Iran's bad.- IBM sold adding machines - they'll count anything - and the Nazis used them to count Jews (and others).
That's the Nazi's bad.In short, don't blame the maker for the use of the tool.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28424647</id>
	<title>Re:Like the Nazis</title>
	<author>GMFTatsujin</author>
	<datestamp>1245693900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nokia (or whoever)  may be in an excusable position, because with any network equipment you have the intrinsic need to monitor, shape, and restrict certain traffic.  Anybody with manual or a HOWTO file can learn how to do that.  It's the definition of a network admin.</p><p>However, IBM was in a different position in the 30's and 40's, and its behavior should be remembered for what it was.</p><p>IBM didn't just sell the tabulating machines for the Nazis to work their Nefarious Evil on. In those days, you didn't buy them -- you *leased* them. And when you leased them, you were really leasing services by IBM specialists who came over to the boxes and configured them for what you wanted to do. Nobody else could touch the machines other than to load them with materials and hit the GO button.</p><p>Which means, at some point, someone from IBM was asked to configure the machines to tabulate census data based on racial and ethnic lines. Further, they were tasked with configuring IBM's leased machines to innovatively streamline mechanisms to separate out those populations, deliver them efficiently to collection hubs, and monitor the populations of those hubs -- which went precipitously downward because we're talking about Dachau.</p><p>This is more than a case of OMG WE JUST SOLD THE BOXES WE DIDN'T KNOW HOW COULD WE.  IBM knew exactly what was going on with its machines in Germany.</p><p>The Nazis had the Big Idea, sure. They hit the GO button. But IBM was involved up to its economic, administrative, and technical eyeballs with engineering the GO button to do exactly what their client wanted it to do.</p><p>Similarly, the Nokia folks will have some 'splainin' to do if it turns out they've been sending network specialists to Iran with the specific goal of helping maintain a repressive infrastructure.  "I was only following orders" just doesn't wash if you know what the orders are calling for you to do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nokia ( or whoever ) may be in an excusable position , because with any network equipment you have the intrinsic need to monitor , shape , and restrict certain traffic .
Anybody with manual or a HOWTO file can learn how to do that .
It 's the definition of a network admin.However , IBM was in a different position in the 30 's and 40 's , and its behavior should be remembered for what it was.IBM did n't just sell the tabulating machines for the Nazis to work their Nefarious Evil on .
In those days , you did n't buy them -- you * leased * them .
And when you leased them , you were really leasing services by IBM specialists who came over to the boxes and configured them for what you wanted to do .
Nobody else could touch the machines other than to load them with materials and hit the GO button.Which means , at some point , someone from IBM was asked to configure the machines to tabulate census data based on racial and ethnic lines .
Further , they were tasked with configuring IBM 's leased machines to innovatively streamline mechanisms to separate out those populations , deliver them efficiently to collection hubs , and monitor the populations of those hubs -- which went precipitously downward because we 're talking about Dachau.This is more than a case of OMG WE JUST SOLD THE BOXES WE DID N'T KNOW HOW COULD WE .
IBM knew exactly what was going on with its machines in Germany.The Nazis had the Big Idea , sure .
They hit the GO button .
But IBM was involved up to its economic , administrative , and technical eyeballs with engineering the GO button to do exactly what their client wanted it to do.Similarly , the Nokia folks will have some 'splainin ' to do if it turns out they 've been sending network specialists to Iran with the specific goal of helping maintain a repressive infrastructure .
" I was only following orders " just does n't wash if you know what the orders are calling for you to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nokia (or whoever)  may be in an excusable position, because with any network equipment you have the intrinsic need to monitor, shape, and restrict certain traffic.
Anybody with manual or a HOWTO file can learn how to do that.
It's the definition of a network admin.However, IBM was in a different position in the 30's and 40's, and its behavior should be remembered for what it was.IBM didn't just sell the tabulating machines for the Nazis to work their Nefarious Evil on.
In those days, you didn't buy them -- you *leased* them.
And when you leased them, you were really leasing services by IBM specialists who came over to the boxes and configured them for what you wanted to do.
Nobody else could touch the machines other than to load them with materials and hit the GO button.Which means, at some point, someone from IBM was asked to configure the machines to tabulate census data based on racial and ethnic lines.
Further, they were tasked with configuring IBM's leased machines to innovatively streamline mechanisms to separate out those populations, deliver them efficiently to collection hubs, and monitor the populations of those hubs -- which went precipitously downward because we're talking about Dachau.This is more than a case of OMG WE JUST SOLD THE BOXES WE DIDN'T KNOW HOW COULD WE.
IBM knew exactly what was going on with its machines in Germany.The Nazis had the Big Idea, sure.
They hit the GO button.
But IBM was involved up to its economic, administrative, and technical eyeballs with engineering the GO button to do exactly what their client wanted it to do.Similarly, the Nokia folks will have some 'splainin' to do if it turns out they've been sending network specialists to Iran with the specific goal of helping maintain a repressive infrastructure.
"I was only following orders" just doesn't wash if you know what the orders are calling for you to do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420661</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421901</id>
	<title>Re:it's the kind of world we live in !</title>
	<author>SeeSp0tRun</author>
	<datestamp>1245684780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Embargo on Cuba?
<br> <br>
As a country who endorses free trade and capitalism (United States), there is still an embargo on Cuba due to their political system and economic beliefs.
<br> <br>
Any  government has the authority to stop any and all business with a country.  Companies will strive for global market superiority.  These companies have just gotten great publicity in any market looking for censoring technology.  Most people wont care, as long as they turn their blind eye and say "it doesn't affect me."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Embargo on Cuba ?
As a country who endorses free trade and capitalism ( United States ) , there is still an embargo on Cuba due to their political system and economic beliefs .
Any government has the authority to stop any and all business with a country .
Companies will strive for global market superiority .
These companies have just gotten great publicity in any market looking for censoring technology .
Most people wont care , as long as they turn their blind eye and say " it does n't affect me .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Embargo on Cuba?
As a country who endorses free trade and capitalism (United States), there is still an embargo on Cuba due to their political system and economic beliefs.
Any  government has the authority to stop any and all business with a country.
Companies will strive for global market superiority.
These companies have just gotten great publicity in any market looking for censoring technology.
Most people wont care, as long as they turn their blind eye and say "it doesn't affect me.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420469</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421135</id>
	<title>Re:More propaganda</title>
	<author>will\_die</author>
	<datestamp>1245682200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>What would the story be if a US company had sold the equipment to Iran?</i> <br>
It would be a story in some areas, FoxNews did a bunch of stuff when it came out that US companies* were selling stuff to Iran; last year when this came out.<br>
<br>
Since Finland probably does not have any trade enbargo against Iran it is perfectly alright for them to sell any equipment they own and it not a story.<br>

* Companies like Coke, GE, etc do not sell from thier US companies to Iran.  Most huge companies have seperate cutout corporations that are run in different countries and those are what sell to Iran.  So it was Coke Ireland and GE France that sold Iran not Coke USA or GE USA.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What would the story be if a US company had sold the equipment to Iran ?
It would be a story in some areas , FoxNews did a bunch of stuff when it came out that US companies * were selling stuff to Iran ; last year when this came out .
Since Finland probably does not have any trade enbargo against Iran it is perfectly alright for them to sell any equipment they own and it not a story .
* Companies like Coke , GE , etc do not sell from thier US companies to Iran .
Most huge companies have seperate cutout corporations that are run in different countries and those are what sell to Iran .
So it was Coke Ireland and GE France that sold Iran not Coke USA or GE USA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What would the story be if a US company had sold the equipment to Iran?
It would be a story in some areas, FoxNews did a bunch of stuff when it came out that US companies* were selling stuff to Iran; last year when this came out.
Since Finland probably does not have any trade enbargo against Iran it is perfectly alright for them to sell any equipment they own and it not a story.
* Companies like Coke, GE, etc do not sell from thier US companies to Iran.
Most huge companies have seperate cutout corporations that are run in different countries and those are what sell to Iran.
So it was Coke Ireland and GE France that sold Iran not Coke USA or GE USA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420497</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420861</id>
	<title>Business as usual</title>
	<author>Celeste R</author>
	<datestamp>1245681120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The question has to be asked:  why does this matter?  Iran would still do its own thing.</p><p>In this case, they had the product, so why not buy it?  That's not such a hard thing to understand.  This is like saying "omg Raytheon makes missiles!" which is no surprise to anyone.  What about their clients?  What about their unofficial clients?  Even those aren't a surprise.</p><p>Sure, we may not agree with Iran's internet policy, and yes, the vendor may take a portion of the blame in an incident, but I hardly see Iran's isolationism as the fault of any one company.</p><p>Seeing as how most of the footage we get out of Iran is from mobile phones and such, is it any surprise that they'd ask a mobile phone maker for help?  Business is business, and in this case, it's easy to pin the responsibility on the buying party.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The question has to be asked : why does this matter ?
Iran would still do its own thing.In this case , they had the product , so why not buy it ?
That 's not such a hard thing to understand .
This is like saying " omg Raytheon makes missiles !
" which is no surprise to anyone .
What about their clients ?
What about their unofficial clients ?
Even those are n't a surprise.Sure , we may not agree with Iran 's internet policy , and yes , the vendor may take a portion of the blame in an incident , but I hardly see Iran 's isolationism as the fault of any one company.Seeing as how most of the footage we get out of Iran is from mobile phones and such , is it any surprise that they 'd ask a mobile phone maker for help ?
Business is business , and in this case , it 's easy to pin the responsibility on the buying party .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The question has to be asked:  why does this matter?
Iran would still do its own thing.In this case, they had the product, so why not buy it?
That's not such a hard thing to understand.
This is like saying "omg Raytheon makes missiles!
" which is no surprise to anyone.
What about their clients?
What about their unofficial clients?
Even those aren't a surprise.Sure, we may not agree with Iran's internet policy, and yes, the vendor may take a portion of the blame in an incident, but I hardly see Iran's isolationism as the fault of any one company.Seeing as how most of the footage we get out of Iran is from mobile phones and such, is it any surprise that they'd ask a mobile phone maker for help?
Business is business, and in this case, it's easy to pin the responsibility on the buying party.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421911</id>
	<title>Does anyone else...</title>
	<author>slack\_justyb</author>
	<datestamp>1245684780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does anyone else find it interesting that Nokia is the owner of Qt?<br>
They're also the ones who decided to LGPL it.
<br> <br>
Go figure.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does anyone else find it interesting that Nokia is the owner of Qt ?
They 're also the ones who decided to LGPL it .
Go figure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does anyone else find it interesting that Nokia is the owner of Qt?
They're also the ones who decided to LGPL it.
Go figure.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421053</id>
	<title>Don't be so surprised</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245681900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't be so surprised! IBM was able to sell their number crunching machines to the Germans during the Holocaust period. Read the book<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance Between Nazi Germany and America's Most Powerful Corporation</p><p>by Edwin Black</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't be so surprised !
IBM was able to sell their number crunching machines to the Germans during the Holocaust period .
Read the book ...IBM and the Holocaust : The Strategic Alliance Between Nazi Germany and America 's Most Powerful Corporationby Edwin Black</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't be so surprised!
IBM was able to sell their number crunching machines to the Germans during the Holocaust period.
Read the book ...IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance Between Nazi Germany and America's Most Powerful Corporationby Edwin Black</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28423435</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245689820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course, the U.S. government is using AT&amp; T for this.  Which is another sign of our falling behind as innovators.  I mean AT&amp;T can't get MMS on my Iphone yet.  Anybody think Iranian telecom allows tethering?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , the U.S. government is using AT&amp; T for this .
Which is another sign of our falling behind as innovators .
I mean AT&amp;T ca n't get MMS on my Iphone yet .
Anybody think Iranian telecom allows tethering ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, the U.S. government is using AT&amp; T for this.
Which is another sign of our falling behind as innovators.
I mean AT&amp;T can't get MMS on my Iphone yet.
Anybody think Iranian telecom allows tethering?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28431605</id>
	<title>This issue isn't anything like what the WSJ says.</title>
	<author>rizzn</author>
	<datestamp>1245674700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not surprisingly, the Wall Street Journal has this completely wrong.<br> <br>

The DPI software/hardware does *not* do the broadband filtration that the WSJ says it does.  At SALabs, our R&amp;D arm of the SiliconANGLE blog, we've done some pretty extensive research, and it's plain to us (and likely most of the IT audience here at Slashdot) that the type of censorship taking place in Iran is unsophisticated and isn't the result of DPI techniques.<br> <br>

We have several articles going into this matter on the site.<br>
(http://www.siliconangle.com/ver2/?p=5972) (http://www.siliconangle.com/ver2/?p=5925) and (http://www.siliconangle.com/ver2/?p=5919).<br> <br>

The bottom line is that this stuff is good old fashioned gateway blocking of addresses.  The DPI software that Nokia sells is for mobile network packet shaping only, and not useful for censoring an entire country's information infrastructure.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not surprisingly , the Wall Street Journal has this completely wrong .
The DPI software/hardware does * not * do the broadband filtration that the WSJ says it does .
At SALabs , our R&amp;D arm of the SiliconANGLE blog , we 've done some pretty extensive research , and it 's plain to us ( and likely most of the IT audience here at Slashdot ) that the type of censorship taking place in Iran is unsophisticated and is n't the result of DPI techniques .
We have several articles going into this matter on the site .
( http : //www.siliconangle.com/ver2/ ? p = 5972 ) ( http : //www.siliconangle.com/ver2/ ? p = 5925 ) and ( http : //www.siliconangle.com/ver2/ ? p = 5919 ) .
The bottom line is that this stuff is good old fashioned gateway blocking of addresses .
The DPI software that Nokia sells is for mobile network packet shaping only , and not useful for censoring an entire country 's information infrastructure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not surprisingly, the Wall Street Journal has this completely wrong.
The DPI software/hardware does *not* do the broadband filtration that the WSJ says it does.
At SALabs, our R&amp;D arm of the SiliconANGLE blog, we've done some pretty extensive research, and it's plain to us (and likely most of the IT audience here at Slashdot) that the type of censorship taking place in Iran is unsophisticated and isn't the result of DPI techniques.
We have several articles going into this matter on the site.
(http://www.siliconangle.com/ver2/?p=5972) (http://www.siliconangle.com/ver2/?p=5925) and (http://www.siliconangle.com/ver2/?p=5919).
The bottom line is that this stuff is good old fashioned gateway blocking of addresses.
The DPI software that Nokia sells is for mobile network packet shaping only, and not useful for censoring an entire country's information infrastructure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420425</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28422047</id>
	<title>Re:More propaganda</title>
	<author>TubeSteak</author>
	<datestamp>1245685200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Seriously, Why blame the technology ? I mean don't we use the same argument when defending bittorrent?</p><p>It's not the technology it's the people who put it to use.</p></div><p>A) Some technologies are inherently abuseable &amp;/or have a much lower threshold for abuse. (guns &amp; <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications\_Assistance\_for\_Law\_Enforcement\_Act" title="wikipedia.org">CALEA</a> [wikipedia.org] vs heart monitors)</p><p>B) There's also the matter of the level of abuse. Using bittorrent to infringe copyrights is NOT on the same level as using deep packet inspection to censor free speech. It's a false equivalence that doesn't stand up to any level of scrutiny.</p><p>Of course, this is only relevant in the academic sense, since there are no laws against censorship in Iran and it is unlikely there will be any in the future.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , Why blame the technology ?
I mean do n't we use the same argument when defending bittorrent ? It 's not the technology it 's the people who put it to use.A ) Some technologies are inherently abuseable &amp;/or have a much lower threshold for abuse .
( guns &amp; CALEA [ wikipedia.org ] vs heart monitors ) B ) There 's also the matter of the level of abuse .
Using bittorrent to infringe copyrights is NOT on the same level as using deep packet inspection to censor free speech .
It 's a false equivalence that does n't stand up to any level of scrutiny.Of course , this is only relevant in the academic sense , since there are no laws against censorship in Iran and it is unlikely there will be any in the future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, Why blame the technology ?
I mean don't we use the same argument when defending bittorrent?It's not the technology it's the people who put it to use.A) Some technologies are inherently abuseable &amp;/or have a much lower threshold for abuse.
(guns &amp; CALEA [wikipedia.org] vs heart monitors)B) There's also the matter of the level of abuse.
Using bittorrent to infringe copyrights is NOT on the same level as using deep packet inspection to censor free speech.
It's a false equivalence that doesn't stand up to any level of scrutiny.Of course, this is only relevant in the academic sense, since there are no laws against censorship in Iran and it is unlikely there will be any in the future.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420893</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421145</id>
	<title>You helped provide Iran's money to buy the tech</title>
	<author>AtomicJake</author>
	<datestamp>1245682260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or, did you stop refueling your car?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or , did you stop refueling your car ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or, did you stop refueling your car?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28425487</id>
	<title>Re:Hell NO! They'll Probably Use As A Selling Poin</title>
	<author>Jane Q. Public</author>
	<datestamp>1245696840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is a balance. Obviously <b>some</b> controls must be in place, such as antitrust laws.
<br> <br>
On the other hand, I do not agree with your main argument. Many economists, in fact, do believe that a free market <b>prevents</b> the formation of monopolies, and that monopolies do not form naturally without some form of government collusion. There is some evidence to support that idea.
<br> <br>
For example, in recent years the FTC has been allowing corporate mergers that in the past would <b>never</b> have gotten through, on grounds of being anti-competitive. That is certainly a form of government collusion. On the other hand, some free-market purists might argue that the FTC is unnecessary regulation (which is foolish).
<br> <br>
In any case, certainly some regulation is necessary. But the questions remain: how much and what kind?</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a balance .
Obviously some controls must be in place , such as antitrust laws .
On the other hand , I do not agree with your main argument .
Many economists , in fact , do believe that a free market prevents the formation of monopolies , and that monopolies do not form naturally without some form of government collusion .
There is some evidence to support that idea .
For example , in recent years the FTC has been allowing corporate mergers that in the past would never have gotten through , on grounds of being anti-competitive .
That is certainly a form of government collusion .
On the other hand , some free-market purists might argue that the FTC is unnecessary regulation ( which is foolish ) .
In any case , certainly some regulation is necessary .
But the questions remain : how much and what kind ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a balance.
Obviously some controls must be in place, such as antitrust laws.
On the other hand, I do not agree with your main argument.
Many economists, in fact, do believe that a free market prevents the formation of monopolies, and that monopolies do not form naturally without some form of government collusion.
There is some evidence to support that idea.
For example, in recent years the FTC has been allowing corporate mergers that in the past would never have gotten through, on grounds of being anti-competitive.
That is certainly a form of government collusion.
On the other hand, some free-market purists might argue that the FTC is unnecessary regulation (which is foolish).
In any case, certainly some regulation is necessary.
But the questions remain: how much and what kind?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421453</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28422067</id>
	<title>Re:Party Talk</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245685260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No.. Technologies are not value neutral.  You can brush your teeth with a pistol, and you can kill someone with a toothbrush, but each is clearly better suited to the other task.</p><p>Censorship technology presupposes that there's an authority that knows better than you what you should be allowed to see.  This is the source of the problem, and designing technology to support it \_is\_ a problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No.. Technologies are not value neutral .
You can brush your teeth with a pistol , and you can kill someone with a toothbrush , but each is clearly better suited to the other task.Censorship technology presupposes that there 's an authority that knows better than you what you should be allowed to see .
This is the source of the problem , and designing technology to support it \ _is \ _ a problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.. Technologies are not value neutral.
You can brush your teeth with a pistol, and you can kill someone with a toothbrush, but each is clearly better suited to the other task.Censorship technology presupposes that there's an authority that knows better than you what you should be allowed to see.
This is the source of the problem, and designing technology to support it \_is\_ a problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420793</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28426771</id>
	<title>The providers of the world</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245701580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please, out of America Nokia and Siemens are the biggest technology providers (talking about communications). I'm shure IBM, Microsoft,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... are providing technology for other evil projects. And who cares ? this is the capitalism, this is America (even Europe), don't blame SIEMENS or NOKIA to play the game.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please , out of America Nokia and Siemens are the biggest technology providers ( talking about communications ) .
I 'm shure IBM , Microsoft , ... are providing technology for other evil projects .
And who cares ?
this is the capitalism , this is America ( even Europe ) , do n't blame SIEMENS or NOKIA to play the game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please, out of America Nokia and Siemens are the biggest technology providers (talking about communications).
I'm shure IBM, Microsoft, ... are providing technology for other evil projects.
And who cares ?
this is the capitalism, this is America (even Europe), don't blame SIEMENS or NOKIA to play the game.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28431649</id>
	<title>I always use https:// when fighting the man</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245674940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>[parade]
[rain]
<a href="http://www.thoughtcrime.org/software/sslstrip/" title="thoughtcrime.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.thoughtcrime.org/software/sslstrip/</a> [thoughtcrime.org]
[/parade]
[/rain]</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ parade ] [ rain ] http : //www.thoughtcrime.org/software/sslstrip/ [ thoughtcrime.org ] [ /parade ] [ /rain ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[parade]
[rain]
http://www.thoughtcrime.org/software/sslstrip/ [thoughtcrime.org]
[/parade]
[/rain]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28423841</id>
	<title>Re:Like the Nazis</title>
	<author>blind biker</author>
	<datestamp>1245691260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The way I see it, one should care: the end of the war was dictated by realities on the war front. The survival in the largest concentration camps was between 3 and 6 months (it was nearly impossible to survive longer than that. Just the winter roll-calls would be a murdering device all in itself). If the Nazis had a less efficient method of keeping track of the population, they would have picked up the Jews somewhat (it's debatable how much, but probably by a considerable amount) slower than they in fact did, allowing for more survivors by the end of the war. We are talking about law abiding, fully innocent civilians here.</p><p>This is my point of view, feel free to dsimiss it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The way I see it , one should care : the end of the war was dictated by realities on the war front .
The survival in the largest concentration camps was between 3 and 6 months ( it was nearly impossible to survive longer than that .
Just the winter roll-calls would be a murdering device all in itself ) .
If the Nazis had a less efficient method of keeping track of the population , they would have picked up the Jews somewhat ( it 's debatable how much , but probably by a considerable amount ) slower than they in fact did , allowing for more survivors by the end of the war .
We are talking about law abiding , fully innocent civilians here.This is my point of view , feel free to dsimiss it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The way I see it, one should care: the end of the war was dictated by realities on the war front.
The survival in the largest concentration camps was between 3 and 6 months (it was nearly impossible to survive longer than that.
Just the winter roll-calls would be a murdering device all in itself).
If the Nazis had a less efficient method of keeping track of the population, they would have picked up the Jews somewhat (it's debatable how much, but probably by a considerable amount) slower than they in fact did, allowing for more survivors by the end of the war.
We are talking about law abiding, fully innocent civilians here.This is my point of view, feel free to dsimiss it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420661</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28423105</id>
	<title>Nokia-Siemans responds:</title>
	<author>another joe</author>
	<datestamp>1245688740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Recent media reports have speculated about Nokia Siemens Networks' role in providing monitoring capability to Iran. Nokia Siemens Networks has provided Lawful Intercept capability solely for the monitoring of local voice calls in Iran. Nokia Siemens Networks has not provided any deep packet inspection, web censorship or Internet filtering capability to Iran."

<a href="http://www.nokiasiemensnetworks.com/global/Press/Press+releases/news-archive/Provision+of+Lawful+Intercept+capability+in+Iran.htm" title="nokiasiemensnetworks.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.nokiasiemensnetworks.com/global/Press/Press+releases/news-archive/Provision+of+Lawful+Intercept+capability+in+Iran.htm</a> [nokiasiemensnetworks.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Recent media reports have speculated about Nokia Siemens Networks ' role in providing monitoring capability to Iran .
Nokia Siemens Networks has provided Lawful Intercept capability solely for the monitoring of local voice calls in Iran .
Nokia Siemens Networks has not provided any deep packet inspection , web censorship or Internet filtering capability to Iran .
" http : //www.nokiasiemensnetworks.com/global/Press/Press + releases/news-archive/Provision + of + Lawful + Intercept + capability + in + Iran.htm [ nokiasiemensnetworks.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Recent media reports have speculated about Nokia Siemens Networks' role in providing monitoring capability to Iran.
Nokia Siemens Networks has provided Lawful Intercept capability solely for the monitoring of local voice calls in Iran.
Nokia Siemens Networks has not provided any deep packet inspection, web censorship or Internet filtering capability to Iran.
"

http://www.nokiasiemensnetworks.com/global/Press/Press+releases/news-archive/Provision+of+Lawful+Intercept+capability+in+Iran.htm [nokiasiemensnetworks.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421879</id>
	<title>Re:Like the Nazis</title>
	<author>martas</author>
	<datestamp>1245684660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't think a general argument like that is valid. One could just as well say that selling all the necessary equipment for manufacturing, for example, biological weapons isn't "bad", but only actually manufacturing and using them is. That being said, I do agree that in this case the technology in question was probably "generic" enough that whoever sold it could have had a reasonable expectation that it would be used for "legitimate" purposes (although the word is not entirely appropriate, since in Iran it is "legitimate" to execute homosexuals, etc. Perhaps I should say "moral", or "! violation of human rights").</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think a general argument like that is valid .
One could just as well say that selling all the necessary equipment for manufacturing , for example , biological weapons is n't " bad " , but only actually manufacturing and using them is .
That being said , I do agree that in this case the technology in question was probably " generic " enough that whoever sold it could have had a reasonable expectation that it would be used for " legitimate " purposes ( although the word is not entirely appropriate , since in Iran it is " legitimate " to execute homosexuals , etc .
Perhaps I should say " moral " , or " !
violation of human rights " ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think a general argument like that is valid.
One could just as well say that selling all the necessary equipment for manufacturing, for example, biological weapons isn't "bad", but only actually manufacturing and using them is.
That being said, I do agree that in this case the technology in question was probably "generic" enough that whoever sold it could have had a reasonable expectation that it would be used for "legitimate" purposes (although the word is not entirely appropriate, since in Iran it is "legitimate" to execute homosexuals, etc.
Perhaps I should say "moral", or "!
violation of human rights").</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420661</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420781</id>
	<title>same....</title>
	<author>zoso</author>
	<datestamp>1245680880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sure they sell the same technology to all the governments in the world so it's just question of time when German, US, Chinese, Iran<br>will enable filters for democracy, sex, scandals, personal freedom and security....... of course for our own good.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure they sell the same technology to all the governments in the world so it 's just question of time when German , US , Chinese , Iranwill enable filters for democracy , sex , scandals , personal freedom and security....... of course for our own good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure they sell the same technology to all the governments in the world so it's just question of time when German, US, Chinese, Iranwill enable filters for democracy, sex, scandals, personal freedom and security....... of course for our own good.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421621</id>
	<title>Re:Not unless...</title>
	<author>Kulfaangaren!</author>
	<datestamp>1245683820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree that what Iran is doing is wrong, however, I do not think companies should be the ones to dictate foreign policies towards other countries not even evil dictatorships. The ones that should react more strongly are the governments of the world. The Finnish and German governments should impose these export restrictions just as the US does butuntil they do, I do not think Nokia/Siemens should avoid exporting to Iran.<br>
<br>
There is an other example of western tech ending up in Iran's missile research program in the news today. AMD Opteron processors power their numbercrunchersupercomputer ( <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&amp;taxonomyName=knowledge\_center&amp;articleId=340338&amp;taxonomyId=1&amp;intsrc=kc\_top" title="computerworld.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&amp;taxonomyName=knowledge\_center&amp;articleId=340338&amp;taxonomyId=1&amp;intsrc=kc\_top</a> [computerworld.com] ). My point is, this technology will end up being used by these countries no matter what we do. They can steal it, they can buy it in a neighboring country and illegally export it to Iran. Only nation sanctioned/enforced embargos can have any kind of effect on an other nation and in some cases not even these embargos work.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree that what Iran is doing is wrong , however , I do not think companies should be the ones to dictate foreign policies towards other countries not even evil dictatorships .
The ones that should react more strongly are the governments of the world .
The Finnish and German governments should impose these export restrictions just as the US does butuntil they do , I do not think Nokia/Siemens should avoid exporting to Iran .
There is an other example of western tech ending up in Iran 's missile research program in the news today .
AMD Opteron processors power their numbercrunchersupercomputer ( http : //www.computerworld.com/action/article.do ? command = viewArticleBasic&amp;taxonomyName = knowledge \ _center&amp;articleId = 340338&amp;taxonomyId = 1&amp;intsrc = kc \ _top [ computerworld.com ] ) .
My point is , this technology will end up being used by these countries no matter what we do .
They can steal it , they can buy it in a neighboring country and illegally export it to Iran .
Only nation sanctioned/enforced embargos can have any kind of effect on an other nation and in some cases not even these embargos work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree that what Iran is doing is wrong, however, I do not think companies should be the ones to dictate foreign policies towards other countries not even evil dictatorships.
The ones that should react more strongly are the governments of the world.
The Finnish and German governments should impose these export restrictions just as the US does butuntil they do, I do not think Nokia/Siemens should avoid exporting to Iran.
There is an other example of western tech ending up in Iran's missile research program in the news today.
AMD Opteron processors power their numbercrunchersupercomputer ( http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&amp;taxonomyName=knowledge\_center&amp;articleId=340338&amp;taxonomyId=1&amp;intsrc=kc\_top [computerworld.com] ).
My point is, this technology will end up being used by these countries no matter what we do.
They can steal it, they can buy it in a neighboring country and illegally export it to Iran.
Only nation sanctioned/enforced embargos can have any kind of effect on an other nation and in some cases not even these embargos work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420445</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421119</id>
	<title>At the risk of invoking Godwin...</title>
	<author>HBI</author>
	<datestamp>1245682200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I see a parallel here between the supply of Hollerith card machines (punch card sorters, etc) to Nazi Germany by IBM, and the supply of 'great firewalls' to Iran.  In neither case was it critical to the country in question to source their IT equipment from a particular supplier - they just wanted something that worked.  The refusal to sell to the government in question wouldn't have materially affected the outcome in that nation.  So what's the big deal anyway, since their refusal to sell wouldn't have mattered a bit in the real world?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I see a parallel here between the supply of Hollerith card machines ( punch card sorters , etc ) to Nazi Germany by IBM , and the supply of 'great firewalls ' to Iran .
In neither case was it critical to the country in question to source their IT equipment from a particular supplier - they just wanted something that worked .
The refusal to sell to the government in question would n't have materially affected the outcome in that nation .
So what 's the big deal anyway , since their refusal to sell would n't have mattered a bit in the real world ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see a parallel here between the supply of Hollerith card machines (punch card sorters, etc) to Nazi Germany by IBM, and the supply of 'great firewalls' to Iran.
In neither case was it critical to the country in question to source their IT equipment from a particular supplier - they just wanted something that worked.
The refusal to sell to the government in question wouldn't have materially affected the outcome in that nation.
So what's the big deal anyway, since their refusal to sell wouldn't have mattered a bit in the real world?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28422087</id>
	<title>Going to sound melodramatic.....</title>
	<author>JasonWM</author>
	<datestamp>1245685320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...but technology is a double edged sword.  It can be used for bad purposes as well as good purposes.  It doesn't mean that I or any of should condone such activity, but it should be a reminder that we need use caution.  Much like people saying in movies and books that we need to have a healthy respect for the things can bite back.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...but technology is a double edged sword .
It can be used for bad purposes as well as good purposes .
It does n't mean that I or any of should condone such activity , but it should be a reminder that we need use caution .
Much like people saying in movies and books that we need to have a healthy respect for the things can bite back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...but technology is a double edged sword.
It can be used for bad purposes as well as good purposes.
It doesn't mean that I or any of should condone such activity, but it should be a reminder that we need use caution.
Much like people saying in movies and books that we need to have a healthy respect for the things can bite back.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421387</id>
	<title>So is there any evidence of election rigging yet?</title>
	<author>distantbody</author>
	<datestamp>1245682980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>...or is this just the media cynically cheering-on a 'peoples revolution' so that they can fill out their news cycles. So far I haven't heard of any widespread election tamporing, some anecdotal stories, unlike in some other elections. I could have missed it though.<br> <br>Honestly so far I just see this as a knee-jerk reaction in the west sympathising with the disgruntled minority voters because clearly 'Iranians would never vote for that evil, west-hating dictator, so it must have been rigged'.<br> <br>One thing I DID hear through some media analyses is that up until a few months ago, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was the favourite to get elected, then he made some fumbles, made some comments, and his standing in THE ELECTION POLLS significantly reduced, and the opposition got giddy. Well that can either be a realistic reflection of the voters intentions, or it could just be a backlash that gets put to the side when it comes to making the final and long-term decision in the voting box.<br> <br>So, is there any evidence of election rigging yet?<br> <br>PS, I'm not apologising for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, just that suggesting that, maybe, he is popularly supported. I know that when I watched a recent doco about Iran I was surprised that their society was much more modern and free than I felt that I had been led to believe.<br>PPS I'm not saying it wasn't rigged either, just that in the large amount of media I have seen on it, it is all about rallys and protest, not of massive vote rigging, feel free to point out something concrete on the contrary.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...or is this just the media cynically cheering-on a 'peoples revolution ' so that they can fill out their news cycles .
So far I have n't heard of any widespread election tamporing , some anecdotal stories , unlike in some other elections .
I could have missed it though .
Honestly so far I just see this as a knee-jerk reaction in the west sympathising with the disgruntled minority voters because clearly 'Iranians would never vote for that evil , west-hating dictator , so it must have been rigged' .
One thing I DID hear through some media analyses is that up until a few months ago , Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was the favourite to get elected , then he made some fumbles , made some comments , and his standing in THE ELECTION POLLS significantly reduced , and the opposition got giddy .
Well that can either be a realistic reflection of the voters intentions , or it could just be a backlash that gets put to the side when it comes to making the final and long-term decision in the voting box .
So , is there any evidence of election rigging yet ?
PS , I 'm not apologising for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad , just that suggesting that , maybe , he is popularly supported .
I know that when I watched a recent doco about Iran I was surprised that their society was much more modern and free than I felt that I had been led to believe.PPS I 'm not saying it was n't rigged either , just that in the large amount of media I have seen on it , it is all about rallys and protest , not of massive vote rigging , feel free to point out something concrete on the contrary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...or is this just the media cynically cheering-on a 'peoples revolution' so that they can fill out their news cycles.
So far I haven't heard of any widespread election tamporing, some anecdotal stories, unlike in some other elections.
I could have missed it though.
Honestly so far I just see this as a knee-jerk reaction in the west sympathising with the disgruntled minority voters because clearly 'Iranians would never vote for that evil, west-hating dictator, so it must have been rigged'.
One thing I DID hear through some media analyses is that up until a few months ago, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was the favourite to get elected, then he made some fumbles, made some comments, and his standing in THE ELECTION POLLS significantly reduced, and the opposition got giddy.
Well that can either be a realistic reflection of the voters intentions, or it could just be a backlash that gets put to the side when it comes to making the final and long-term decision in the voting box.
So, is there any evidence of election rigging yet?
PS, I'm not apologising for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, just that suggesting that, maybe, he is popularly supported.
I know that when I watched a recent doco about Iran I was surprised that their society was much more modern and free than I felt that I had been led to believe.PPS I'm not saying it wasn't rigged either, just that in the large amount of media I have seen on it, it is all about rallys and protest, not of massive vote rigging, feel free to point out something concrete on the contrary.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420791</id>
	<title>This is stupid</title>
	<author>AdmiralXyz</author>
	<datestamp>1245680880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm getting a little fatigued of calling these companies out because their products are used for censorship purposes. Where do you draw the line between when it is acceptable to sell to them and when it isn't? Canada engages in certain levels of Internet censorship (child pornography and so forth), should Siemens stop selling to the Canadian government? And more importantly, who decides where to draw that line? The corporations themselves? No thank you, sir.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm getting a little fatigued of calling these companies out because their products are used for censorship purposes .
Where do you draw the line between when it is acceptable to sell to them and when it is n't ?
Canada engages in certain levels of Internet censorship ( child pornography and so forth ) , should Siemens stop selling to the Canadian government ?
And more importantly , who decides where to draw that line ?
The corporations themselves ?
No thank you , sir .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm getting a little fatigued of calling these companies out because their products are used for censorship purposes.
Where do you draw the line between when it is acceptable to sell to them and when it isn't?
Canada engages in certain levels of Internet censorship (child pornography and so forth), should Siemens stop selling to the Canadian government?
And more importantly, who decides where to draw that line?
The corporations themselves?
No thank you, sir.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420981</id>
	<title>same technology to be used in Germany</title>
	<author>kubitus</author>
	<datestamp>1245681660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>the Bundestag decided on a law which will "ban Children-Pornography and Terrorist Websites".<p>

the blocking and inspection list is not to be viewed by public nor by the courts!</p><p>

1984 = 2000 - 16</p><p>

maybe Eric Arthur Blair ( not Tony ) meant 2000 + 16 ?</p><p>

Eric Arthur Blair a.k.a. George Orwell</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the Bundestag decided on a law which will " ban Children-Pornography and Terrorist Websites " .
the blocking and inspection list is not to be viewed by public nor by the courts !
1984 = 2000 - 16 maybe Eric Arthur Blair ( not Tony ) meant 2000 + 16 ?
Eric Arthur Blair a.k.a .
George Orwell</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the Bundestag decided on a law which will "ban Children-Pornography and Terrorist Websites".
the blocking and inspection list is not to be viewed by public nor by the courts!
1984 = 2000 - 16

maybe Eric Arthur Blair ( not Tony ) meant 2000 + 16 ?
Eric Arthur Blair a.k.a.
George Orwell</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28422005</id>
	<title>Re:Not unless...</title>
	<author>ClientNine</author>
	<datestamp>1245685080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's unlikely to happen.  For a competitor to step up and say "Hey! They're helping Iran be ebil!" would be to imply that Iran = Evil, which has a vaguely Bush-y connotation since nowadays we're all about extending "hands instead of fists".

This is where the anti-US slant of modern liberalism hamstrings us; the really *important* liberal issues (like freedom of communication) get ignored, because the people that suppress free speech also hate the United States, and liberal dogma says to fall all over yourself displaying good will toward any self-declared enemies.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's unlikely to happen .
For a competitor to step up and say " Hey !
They 're helping Iran be ebil !
" would be to imply that Iran = Evil , which has a vaguely Bush-y connotation since nowadays we 're all about extending " hands instead of fists " .
This is where the anti-US slant of modern liberalism hamstrings us ; the really * important * liberal issues ( like freedom of communication ) get ignored , because the people that suppress free speech also hate the United States , and liberal dogma says to fall all over yourself displaying good will toward any self-declared enemies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's unlikely to happen.
For a competitor to step up and say "Hey!
They're helping Iran be ebil!
" would be to imply that Iran = Evil, which has a vaguely Bush-y connotation since nowadays we're all about extending "hands instead of fists".
This is where the anti-US slant of modern liberalism hamstrings us; the really *important* liberal issues (like freedom of communication) get ignored, because the people that suppress free speech also hate the United States, and liberal dogma says to fall all over yourself displaying good will toward any self-declared enemies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420445</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28422955</id>
	<title>hypocracy</title>
	<author>gripusa</author>
	<datestamp>1245688200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>such a hypocrisy as usual from slashdotters, we are living in countries where everything is monitored and censored (esp UK &amp; USA and considering I am Muslim and i m sure these words i m typing too ) and still we all moaning about Iran's censorship. Lets play in equal field, every government has their policies either wrong or right and we cant criticize on standing wrong footed.

P.S. it does not mean whatever Iranian Govt is doing is right as well !!!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>such a hypocrisy as usual from slashdotters , we are living in countries where everything is monitored and censored ( esp UK &amp; USA and considering I am Muslim and i m sure these words i m typing too ) and still we all moaning about Iran 's censorship .
Lets play in equal field , every government has their policies either wrong or right and we cant criticize on standing wrong footed .
P.S. it does not mean whatever Iranian Govt is doing is right as well ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>such a hypocrisy as usual from slashdotters, we are living in countries where everything is monitored and censored (esp UK &amp; USA and considering I am Muslim and i m sure these words i m typing too ) and still we all moaning about Iran's censorship.
Lets play in equal field, every government has their policies either wrong or right and we cant criticize on standing wrong footed.
P.S. it does not mean whatever Iranian Govt is doing is right as well !!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420497</id>
	<title>More propaganda</title>
	<author>OzPeter</author>
	<datestamp>1245679620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>From TFA<p> <i>"It couldn't be determined whether the equipment from Nokia Siemens Networks is used specifically for deep packet inspection."</i> </p><p>So in other words a European venture sold a bunch of equipment to Iran for network usage and (also FTFA)</p><p> <i>If you sell networks, you also, intrinsically, sell the capability to intercept any communication that runs over them."</i> </p><p>It sounds like a beat up to me.  What would the story be if a US company had sold the equipment to Iran? (yeah I know<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. trade embargo etc) This story smells of sour grapes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFA " It could n't be determined whether the equipment from Nokia Siemens Networks is used specifically for deep packet inspection .
" So in other words a European venture sold a bunch of equipment to Iran for network usage and ( also FTFA ) If you sell networks , you also , intrinsically , sell the capability to intercept any communication that runs over them .
" It sounds like a beat up to me .
What would the story be if a US company had sold the equipment to Iran ?
( yeah I know .. trade embargo etc ) This story smells of sour grapes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFA "It couldn't be determined whether the equipment from Nokia Siemens Networks is used specifically for deep packet inspection.
" So in other words a European venture sold a bunch of equipment to Iran for network usage and (also FTFA) If you sell networks, you also, intrinsically, sell the capability to intercept any communication that runs over them.
" It sounds like a beat up to me.
What would the story be if a US company had sold the equipment to Iran?
(yeah I know .. trade embargo etc) This story smells of sour grapes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28426533</id>
	<title>confusing technology with morality again...</title>
	<author>funkboy</author>
	<datestamp>1245700740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The BBC article is very good:</p><p><a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8112550.stm" title="bbc.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8112550.stm</a> [bbc.co.uk]</p><p>The BBC's article points out that a monitored system is better than no system, and that the Islamic Republic would certainly not have allowed mobile phones &amp; internet to exist without such a system.</p><p>Listen:</p><p>Most large mobile phone networks (and internet networks) in western countries have a feature known as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawful\_interception" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">lawful intercept</a> [wikipedia.org] designed to allow law enforcement officials to monitor subscriber conversations.  No vendor in their right mind would design gear without this feature as many nations' laws mandate its presence in public telecom networks.</p><p>In western nations, it's use requires a search warrant by law.  Obviously, the hardware has no clue whether the operator has a warrant or not.</p><p>The only difference is that Khamenei doesn't give two shits about the warrant.  But then, George Bush ordered the use of this exact same feature on AT&amp;T and PacBell's networks without warrants as well, so what's the difference?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The BBC article is very good : http : //news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8112550.stm [ bbc.co.uk ] The BBC 's article points out that a monitored system is better than no system , and that the Islamic Republic would certainly not have allowed mobile phones &amp; internet to exist without such a system.Listen : Most large mobile phone networks ( and internet networks ) in western countries have a feature known as lawful intercept [ wikipedia.org ] designed to allow law enforcement officials to monitor subscriber conversations .
No vendor in their right mind would design gear without this feature as many nations ' laws mandate its presence in public telecom networks.In western nations , it 's use requires a search warrant by law .
Obviously , the hardware has no clue whether the operator has a warrant or not.The only difference is that Khamenei does n't give two shits about the warrant .
But then , George Bush ordered the use of this exact same feature on AT&amp;T and PacBell 's networks without warrants as well , so what 's the difference ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The BBC article is very good:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8112550.stm [bbc.co.uk]The BBC's article points out that a monitored system is better than no system, and that the Islamic Republic would certainly not have allowed mobile phones &amp; internet to exist without such a system.Listen:Most large mobile phone networks (and internet networks) in western countries have a feature known as lawful intercept [wikipedia.org] designed to allow law enforcement officials to monitor subscriber conversations.
No vendor in their right mind would design gear without this feature as many nations' laws mandate its presence in public telecom networks.In western nations, it's use requires a search warrant by law.
Obviously, the hardware has no clue whether the operator has a warrant or not.The only difference is that Khamenei doesn't give two shits about the warrant.
But then, George Bush ordered the use of this exact same feature on AT&amp;T and PacBell's networks without warrants as well, so what's the difference?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421907</id>
	<title>Re:it's the kind of world we live in !</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245684780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But since they are Europeans, they happily trade with the enemy.</p></div><p>You left off, "While smugly lecturing the US."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But since they are Europeans , they happily trade with the enemy.You left off , " While smugly lecturing the US .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But since they are Europeans, they happily trade with the enemy.You left off, "While smugly lecturing the US.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420947</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28430097</id>
	<title>Re:Let Their Big Friend in the Sky Help Them</title>
	<author>StikyPad</author>
	<datestamp>1245669540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All of the people you mentioned were also religious.</p><p>Also, insane people deserve technology at least as much as anyone else.. and probably need it more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All of the people you mentioned were also religious.Also , insane people deserve technology at least as much as anyone else.. and probably need it more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All of the people you mentioned were also religious.Also, insane people deserve technology at least as much as anyone else.. and probably need it more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420589</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28424547</id>
	<title>Re:Party Talk</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245693600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> The problem is how those tools are used. There are evil shit-heads all over the world. That does not mean the tools themselves are evil.</p></div><p>When companies sell "tools"  like censoring/filtering software to for example China or Iran, they know damn well what it is going to be used for.<br>In the same way you can also consider firearms "tools", but would you ever sell a firearm to a known criminal?</p><p>Censoring/filtering software are technically tools, but it is kind of obvious that these tools will be misused by repressive governments. Companies have a choice whether they supply this software/hardware or not. When they supply them to these governments they choose money over ethics.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is how those tools are used .
There are evil shit-heads all over the world .
That does not mean the tools themselves are evil.When companies sell " tools " like censoring/filtering software to for example China or Iran , they know damn well what it is going to be used for.In the same way you can also consider firearms " tools " , but would you ever sell a firearm to a known criminal ? Censoring/filtering software are technically tools , but it is kind of obvious that these tools will be misused by repressive governments .
Companies have a choice whether they supply this software/hardware or not .
When they supply them to these governments they choose money over ethics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The problem is how those tools are used.
There are evil shit-heads all over the world.
That does not mean the tools themselves are evil.When companies sell "tools"  like censoring/filtering software to for example China or Iran, they know damn well what it is going to be used for.In the same way you can also consider firearms "tools", but would you ever sell a firearm to a known criminal?Censoring/filtering software are technically tools, but it is kind of obvious that these tools will be misused by repressive governments.
Companies have a choice whether they supply this software/hardware or not.
When they supply them to these governments they choose money over ethics.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420793</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421319</id>
	<title>Dying News = Skewed News</title>
	<author>TheLeopardsAreComing</author>
	<datestamp>1245682800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The trend here seems to be that Nokia and Cisco are the ones to blame.  If you ask me this sounds like more bad news from a dying news source trying to get one last whiff of the limelight.  They are all scared of social networking sites because they have millions of eyes and ears... most of which are not tethered to some political agenda.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The trend here seems to be that Nokia and Cisco are the ones to blame .
If you ask me this sounds like more bad news from a dying news source trying to get one last whiff of the limelight .
They are all scared of social networking sites because they have millions of eyes and ears... most of which are not tethered to some political agenda .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The trend here seems to be that Nokia and Cisco are the ones to blame.
If you ask me this sounds like more bad news from a dying news source trying to get one last whiff of the limelight.
They are all scared of social networking sites because they have millions of eyes and ears... most of which are not tethered to some political agenda.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28427613</id>
	<title>Or more succinctly...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245703980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When you give a gun to an idiot, you are responsible when he shoots himself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When you give a gun to an idiot , you are responsible when he shoots himself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you give a gun to an idiot, you are responsible when he shoots himself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421369</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28429311</id>
	<title>Re:Hell NO! They'll Probably Use As A Selling Poin</title>
	<author>PopeRatzo</author>
	<datestamp>1245666540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Many economists, in fact, do believe that a free market prevents the formation of monopolies</p></div></blockquote><p>Yes, they do, but they never, ever explain the mechanism by which this prevention supposedly occurs.</p><p>Pick any book by one of the big free-market believers.  Go to the section on how free markets make people "free" and you'll read the equivalent of a poorly-executed fairy tale.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Many economists , in fact , do believe that a free market prevents the formation of monopoliesYes , they do , but they never , ever explain the mechanism by which this prevention supposedly occurs.Pick any book by one of the big free-market believers .
Go to the section on how free markets make people " free " and you 'll read the equivalent of a poorly-executed fairy tale .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many economists, in fact, do believe that a free market prevents the formation of monopoliesYes, they do, but they never, ever explain the mechanism by which this prevention supposedly occurs.Pick any book by one of the big free-market believers.
Go to the section on how free markets make people "free" and you'll read the equivalent of a poorly-executed fairy tale.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28425487</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420965</id>
	<title>I would</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245681600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In this economic environment and with my student loans, I'd being do that. I wouldn't be turning away business! </p><p>This isn't death camps or anything like this. This is just censoring and eventually it'll just worsen the Iranian Government even more. </p><p>Yeah, yeah, yeah! When you make my student loan payments, mortgage, and other bills, THEN you can judge me!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In this economic environment and with my student loans , I 'd being do that .
I would n't be turning away business !
This is n't death camps or anything like this .
This is just censoring and eventually it 'll just worsen the Iranian Government even more .
Yeah , yeah , yeah !
When you make my student loan payments , mortgage , and other bills , THEN you can judge me !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In this economic environment and with my student loans, I'd being do that.
I wouldn't be turning away business!
This isn't death camps or anything like this.
This is just censoring and eventually it'll just worsen the Iranian Government even more.
Yeah, yeah, yeah!
When you make my student loan payments, mortgage, and other bills, THEN you can judge me!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420707</id>
	<title>Technology isn't the Problem</title>
	<author>Comatose51</author>
	<datestamp>1245680520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm willing to bet if you poll the Iranian population, you will find that the majority of them would support censorship.  The same thing would happen in China.  Censorship has been with us for as long as there as been communications.  I'm not saying it's alright or that censorship is a good thing.  Freedom of speech is actually a pretty radical ideal and one that isn't universal outside of the western societies.  Even in the US that right is constantly under threat from different sources.  At the end of the day it is our believe in the value of freedom of speech that keeps it alive.  Look at how often this issue comes up on Slashdot and how people are all up in arms about it.  The EFF is constantly busy fighting for it.  Didn't some very wise man once said, "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance."?  If Iran or China is to have freedom of speech, their people must be convinced of its value and necessity.  Until that happens, denying them the technology would lead to them either developing their own or just not connecting to the Internet.  I am not sure the latter is actually better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm willing to bet if you poll the Iranian population , you will find that the majority of them would support censorship .
The same thing would happen in China .
Censorship has been with us for as long as there as been communications .
I 'm not saying it 's alright or that censorship is a good thing .
Freedom of speech is actually a pretty radical ideal and one that is n't universal outside of the western societies .
Even in the US that right is constantly under threat from different sources .
At the end of the day it is our believe in the value of freedom of speech that keeps it alive .
Look at how often this issue comes up on Slashdot and how people are all up in arms about it .
The EFF is constantly busy fighting for it .
Did n't some very wise man once said , " The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. " ?
If Iran or China is to have freedom of speech , their people must be convinced of its value and necessity .
Until that happens , denying them the technology would lead to them either developing their own or just not connecting to the Internet .
I am not sure the latter is actually better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm willing to bet if you poll the Iranian population, you will find that the majority of them would support censorship.
The same thing would happen in China.
Censorship has been with us for as long as there as been communications.
I'm not saying it's alright or that censorship is a good thing.
Freedom of speech is actually a pretty radical ideal and one that isn't universal outside of the western societies.
Even in the US that right is constantly under threat from different sources.
At the end of the day it is our believe in the value of freedom of speech that keeps it alive.
Look at how often this issue comes up on Slashdot and how people are all up in arms about it.
The EFF is constantly busy fighting for it.
Didn't some very wise man once said, "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance."?
If Iran or China is to have freedom of speech, their people must be convinced of its value and necessity.
Until that happens, denying them the technology would lead to them either developing their own or just not connecting to the Internet.
I am not sure the latter is actually better.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28422827</id>
	<title>Re:Like the Nazis</title>
	<author>Sir\_Lewk</author>
	<datestamp>1245687720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's why it's best to not put forth absurd and extreme "what if" scenerios and to always apply common sense.  Judgements shouldn't be made in broad sweeping generalizations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's why it 's best to not put forth absurd and extreme " what if " scenerios and to always apply common sense .
Judgements should n't be made in broad sweeping generalizations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's why it's best to not put forth absurd and extreme "what if" scenerios and to always apply common sense.
Judgements shouldn't be made in broad sweeping generalizations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421369</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421303</id>
	<title>did diebold provide the voting machines?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245682740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>oh yeah, you can't chant "death to america" for 30 years and do business with american companies<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-P</p><p>siemens is german, nokia is finnish</p><p>so dear germans and finns, and euros in general: pillory those fucking companies, in the name of your affinity and fraternity with those simply fighting for their rights in the streets of tehran</p><p>perhaps siemens.com and nokia.com deserve some DDOSing, get their stock to fall with some false rumors, some googlebombing about the truth of their involvement with iranian the regime, some facebook groups called "siemensandnokiasupportthebasij", some wikipedia edits... anything to punish the suits in the glass towers who are otherwise disconnected from what their technology is being used to do</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>oh yeah , you ca n't chant " death to america " for 30 years and do business with american companies ; -Psiemens is german , nokia is finnishso dear germans and finns , and euros in general : pillory those fucking companies , in the name of your affinity and fraternity with those simply fighting for their rights in the streets of tehranperhaps siemens.com and nokia.com deserve some DDOSing , get their stock to fall with some false rumors , some googlebombing about the truth of their involvement with iranian the regime , some facebook groups called " siemensandnokiasupportthebasij " , some wikipedia edits... anything to punish the suits in the glass towers who are otherwise disconnected from what their technology is being used to do</tokentext>
<sentencetext>oh yeah, you can't chant "death to america" for 30 years and do business with american companies ;-Psiemens is german, nokia is finnishso dear germans and finns, and euros in general: pillory those fucking companies, in the name of your affinity and fraternity with those simply fighting for their rights in the streets of tehranperhaps siemens.com and nokia.com deserve some DDOSing, get their stock to fall with some false rumors, some googlebombing about the truth of their involvement with iranian the regime, some facebook groups called "siemensandnokiasupportthebasij", some wikipedia edits... anything to punish the suits in the glass towers who are otherwise disconnected from what their technology is being used to do</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28426589</id>
	<title>Re:technically iran is not dictatorship</title>
	<author>daliman</author>
	<datestamp>1245700920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would say it's closer to an oligarchy/theocracy, with a sham government to placate the people.<ul>
<li>Only candidates approved by non elected officials can stand.</li><li>The same officials can veto any law.</li><li>The same officials can veto election results.</li></ul><p>
Yes, technically they have elections, but that isn't enough to make it a democracy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would say it 's closer to an oligarchy/theocracy , with a sham government to placate the people .
Only candidates approved by non elected officials can stand.The same officials can veto any law.The same officials can veto election results .
Yes , technically they have elections , but that is n't enough to make it a democracy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would say it's closer to an oligarchy/theocracy, with a sham government to placate the people.
Only candidates approved by non elected officials can stand.The same officials can veto any law.The same officials can veto election results.
Yes, technically they have elections, but that isn't enough to make it a democracy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421317</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28427771</id>
	<title>Re:Like the Nazis</title>
	<author>jvkjvk</author>
	<datestamp>1245661380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, what if the company knew what was going to happen with those tools.</p><p>Do you blame them then?  Why or why not?</p><p>What if they consulted on how to use the tools for the "intended purpose", for example helped design the programs to catalogue the death camp prizoners, or gave advice on how to best implement the filtering tech?</p><p>Do you blame them then?  Why or why not?</p><p>At what point <i>does</i> it become reasonable, in your mind, to blame the company?</p><p>Regards.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , what if the company knew what was going to happen with those tools.Do you blame them then ?
Why or why not ? What if they consulted on how to use the tools for the " intended purpose " , for example helped design the programs to catalogue the death camp prizoners , or gave advice on how to best implement the filtering tech ? Do you blame them then ?
Why or why not ? At what point does it become reasonable , in your mind , to blame the company ? Regards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, what if the company knew what was going to happen with those tools.Do you blame them then?
Why or why not?What if they consulted on how to use the tools for the "intended purpose", for example helped design the programs to catalogue the death camp prizoners, or gave advice on how to best implement the filtering tech?Do you blame them then?
Why or why not?At what point does it become reasonable, in your mind, to blame the company?Regards.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420661</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28424395</id>
	<title>Re:More propaganda</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245693060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can't use that to justify selling weapons tech to governments that have no problem using it on their own people.<br>Specific technologies for repression like deep packet inspection should fall under that category. Seriously, sell them the hardware with that capability disabled. It's not that hard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't use that to justify selling weapons tech to governments that have no problem using it on their own people.Specific technologies for repression like deep packet inspection should fall under that category .
Seriously , sell them the hardware with that capability disabled .
It 's not that hard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't use that to justify selling weapons tech to governments that have no problem using it on their own people.Specific technologies for repression like deep packet inspection should fall under that category.
Seriously, sell them the hardware with that capability disabled.
It's not that hard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420893</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421537</id>
	<title>Re:Like the Nazis</title>
	<author>noz</author>
	<datestamp>1245683520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>IBM sold adding machines - they'll count anything - and the Nazis used them to count Jews (and others). That's the Nazi's bad.</p></div></blockquote><p>The difference here is that IBM supported an enemy Government in time of war.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>IBM sold adding machines - they 'll count anything - and the Nazis used them to count Jews ( and others ) .
That 's the Nazi 's bad.The difference here is that IBM supported an enemy Government in time of war .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IBM sold adding machines - they'll count anything - and the Nazis used them to count Jews (and others).
That's the Nazi's bad.The difference here is that IBM supported an enemy Government in time of war.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420661</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421369</id>
	<title>Re:Like the Nazis</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245682920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was going to advocate the same position in my own reply until I realized that taken to the extreme, this position has some problems.  If we say that the tool makers are always guilt free, then companies should be able to sell nuclear weapons or parts for one to anyone they like.  Fine.  Then what happens when those weapons are used?  We can argue that the companies are blameless still and ultimately the guilty part is the country that chose to use the weapons.  At that point, who cares about moralistic arguments?  If millions of people died because a company sold the tools necessary to do that, the company is going to ripped to pieces.  Furthermore, is it right for a company to sell the tools to someone if it knew the tools would be used for something bad?  I don't think it is.  I guess my point is that whether a company is guilty or not depends a lot on whether it knew or could have know that its actions will lead to bad consequences.  It's not fair to blame someone for something that couldn't have been foreseen.  However, purposely enabling an evil deed is another story.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was going to advocate the same position in my own reply until I realized that taken to the extreme , this position has some problems .
If we say that the tool makers are always guilt free , then companies should be able to sell nuclear weapons or parts for one to anyone they like .
Fine. Then what happens when those weapons are used ?
We can argue that the companies are blameless still and ultimately the guilty part is the country that chose to use the weapons .
At that point , who cares about moralistic arguments ?
If millions of people died because a company sold the tools necessary to do that , the company is going to ripped to pieces .
Furthermore , is it right for a company to sell the tools to someone if it knew the tools would be used for something bad ?
I do n't think it is .
I guess my point is that whether a company is guilty or not depends a lot on whether it knew or could have know that its actions will lead to bad consequences .
It 's not fair to blame someone for something that could n't have been foreseen .
However , purposely enabling an evil deed is another story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was going to advocate the same position in my own reply until I realized that taken to the extreme, this position has some problems.
If we say that the tool makers are always guilt free, then companies should be able to sell nuclear weapons or parts for one to anyone they like.
Fine.  Then what happens when those weapons are used?
We can argue that the companies are blameless still and ultimately the guilty part is the country that chose to use the weapons.
At that point, who cares about moralistic arguments?
If millions of people died because a company sold the tools necessary to do that, the company is going to ripped to pieces.
Furthermore, is it right for a company to sell the tools to someone if it knew the tools would be used for something bad?
I don't think it is.
I guess my point is that whether a company is guilty or not depends a lot on whether it knew or could have know that its actions will lead to bad consequences.
It's not fair to blame someone for something that couldn't have been foreseen.
However, purposely enabling an evil deed is another story.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420661</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28422111</id>
	<title>Re:Nokia aren't doing anything wrong</title>
	<author>copponex</author>
	<datestamp>1245685380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's an ocean of difference between selling a product on an open market, and selling a product directly to a dictatorship when you know it's going to be used to suppress the populace. This is known as "unethical behavior," something corporations and the Pentagon know nothing about. It requires a person or a group of people to have a real set of values that they don't violate on a regular basis for power or profit.</p><p>Often these things come back to <a href="http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2000/msg00776.html" title="casi.org.uk">bite one in the ass</a> [casi.org.uk]:</p><p><i>As late as July, 1990, one month before Iraqi troops stormed into Kuwait city, officials at the National Security Council and the State Department were pushing to deliver the second installment of the $1 billion in loan guarantees, despite the looming crisis in the region and evidence that Iraq had used the aid illegally to help finance a secret arms procurement network to obtain technology for its nuclear weapons and ballistic-missile program.<br>Los Angeles Times, February 23, 1992</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's an ocean of difference between selling a product on an open market , and selling a product directly to a dictatorship when you know it 's going to be used to suppress the populace .
This is known as " unethical behavior , " something corporations and the Pentagon know nothing about .
It requires a person or a group of people to have a real set of values that they do n't violate on a regular basis for power or profit.Often these things come back to bite one in the ass [ casi.org.uk ] : As late as July , 1990 , one month before Iraqi troops stormed into Kuwait city , officials at the National Security Council and the State Department were pushing to deliver the second installment of the $ 1 billion in loan guarantees , despite the looming crisis in the region and evidence that Iraq had used the aid illegally to help finance a secret arms procurement network to obtain technology for its nuclear weapons and ballistic-missile program.Los Angeles Times , February 23 , 1992</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's an ocean of difference between selling a product on an open market, and selling a product directly to a dictatorship when you know it's going to be used to suppress the populace.
This is known as "unethical behavior," something corporations and the Pentagon know nothing about.
It requires a person or a group of people to have a real set of values that they don't violate on a regular basis for power or profit.Often these things come back to bite one in the ass [casi.org.uk]:As late as July, 1990, one month before Iraqi troops stormed into Kuwait city, officials at the National Security Council and the State Department were pushing to deliver the second installment of the $1 billion in loan guarantees, despite the looming crisis in the region and evidence that Iraq had used the aid illegally to help finance a secret arms procurement network to obtain technology for its nuclear weapons and ballistic-missile program.Los Angeles Times, February 23, 1992</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420531</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421547</id>
	<title>If a firm makes hammers...</title>
	<author>Hasai</author>
	<datestamp>1245683580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...and someone uses one of those hammers to beat someone else to death, does that make the manufacturer evil?</p><p>Stop blaming the tools, you morons, and put the blame where it belongs: on those who decide to abuse those tools for their own, evil ends.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...and someone uses one of those hammers to beat someone else to death , does that make the manufacturer evil ? Stop blaming the tools , you morons , and put the blame where it belongs : on those who decide to abuse those tools for their own , evil ends .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and someone uses one of those hammers to beat someone else to death, does that make the manufacturer evil?Stop blaming the tools, you morons, and put the blame where it belongs: on those who decide to abuse those tools for their own, evil ends.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28426423</id>
	<title>Re:Hell NO! They'll Probably Use As A Selling Poin</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1245700260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Economic freedon and political freedom are different dimensions.  They often go together, but not always.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Economic freedon and political freedom are different dimensions .
They often go together , but not always .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Economic freedon and political freedom are different dimensions.
They often go together, but not always.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28424093</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421443</id>
	<title>The same companies supplied same tech to the west.</title>
	<author>miffo.swe</author>
	<datestamp>1245683220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The reason we have this tech is that the same stuff is sold in Europe and the US amongst others. Most of Europe is right now implementing deep packet inspection and are about to become just like Iran. If the west starts complaining about it not only does it look bad but first of all it draws attention to widespread surveillance. I do not expect much complaints about Irans KGB/Stasi methods from the EU or the US.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason we have this tech is that the same stuff is sold in Europe and the US amongst others .
Most of Europe is right now implementing deep packet inspection and are about to become just like Iran .
If the west starts complaining about it not only does it look bad but first of all it draws attention to widespread surveillance .
I do not expect much complaints about Irans KGB/Stasi methods from the EU or the US .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason we have this tech is that the same stuff is sold in Europe and the US amongst others.
Most of Europe is right now implementing deep packet inspection and are about to become just like Iran.
If the west starts complaining about it not only does it look bad but first of all it draws attention to widespread surveillance.
I do not expect much complaints about Irans KGB/Stasi methods from the EU or the US.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28423025</id>
	<title>Re:It almost never happens</title>
	<author>Ronald Dumsfeld</author>
	<datestamp>1245688500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Sadly, we've come to accept most modern corporations as pretty much ammoral when it comes to stuff like this, and they're rarely ever held accountable in any meaningful way. The bulk of the population will no more hold this against Nokia/Seimens than they will hold Volkswagon responsible for its early Nazi roots (does it invoke Godwin's Law to mention that?), Yahoo/Google responsible for selling out dissidents in China, etc., etc.</p></div><p>Yes, look at the whole concept of "corporate personhood" and how it works out.</p><p>Look at this as an example, the oil industry in Nigeria, or the Military-Industrial complex. Corporate personhood is a <b> <i>collective psychopath</i><nobr> <wbr></nobr></b>.</p><p>It is unfortunate, but Nokia and Siemens selling to Iran isn't up the sharp end of misdemeanours. If I had to think of one example, I'd say "<i>Union Carbide</i>". After their disaster in India I believe corporate personhood should allow for corporate <b>execution</b>. In reality you can't even hold company officers personally liable for enough responsibility to jail them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sadly , we 've come to accept most modern corporations as pretty much ammoral when it comes to stuff like this , and they 're rarely ever held accountable in any meaningful way .
The bulk of the population will no more hold this against Nokia/Seimens than they will hold Volkswagon responsible for its early Nazi roots ( does it invoke Godwin 's Law to mention that ?
) , Yahoo/Google responsible for selling out dissidents in China , etc. , etc.Yes , look at the whole concept of " corporate personhood " and how it works out.Look at this as an example , the oil industry in Nigeria , or the Military-Industrial complex .
Corporate personhood is a collective psychopath .It is unfortunate , but Nokia and Siemens selling to Iran is n't up the sharp end of misdemeanours .
If I had to think of one example , I 'd say " Union Carbide " .
After their disaster in India I believe corporate personhood should allow for corporate execution .
In reality you ca n't even hold company officers personally liable for enough responsibility to jail them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sadly, we've come to accept most modern corporations as pretty much ammoral when it comes to stuff like this, and they're rarely ever held accountable in any meaningful way.
The bulk of the population will no more hold this against Nokia/Seimens than they will hold Volkswagon responsible for its early Nazi roots (does it invoke Godwin's Law to mention that?
), Yahoo/Google responsible for selling out dissidents in China, etc., etc.Yes, look at the whole concept of "corporate personhood" and how it works out.Look at this as an example, the oil industry in Nigeria, or the Military-Industrial complex.
Corporate personhood is a  collective psychopath .It is unfortunate, but Nokia and Siemens selling to Iran isn't up the sharp end of misdemeanours.
If I had to think of one example, I'd say "Union Carbide".
After their disaster in India I believe corporate personhood should allow for corporate execution.
In reality you can't even hold company officers personally liable for enough responsibility to jail them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420569</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420569</id>
	<title>It almost never happens</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1245679980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sadly, we've come to accept most modern corporations as pretty much ammoral when it comes to stuff like this, and they're rarely ever held accountable in any meaningful way. The bulk of the population will no more hold this against Nokia/Seimens than they will hold Volkswagon responsible for its early Nazi roots (does it invoke Godwin's Law to mention that?), Yahoo/Google responsible for selling out dissidents in China, etc., etc.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sadly , we 've come to accept most modern corporations as pretty much ammoral when it comes to stuff like this , and they 're rarely ever held accountable in any meaningful way .
The bulk of the population will no more hold this against Nokia/Seimens than they will hold Volkswagon responsible for its early Nazi roots ( does it invoke Godwin 's Law to mention that ?
) , Yahoo/Google responsible for selling out dissidents in China , etc. , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sadly, we've come to accept most modern corporations as pretty much ammoral when it comes to stuff like this, and they're rarely ever held accountable in any meaningful way.
The bulk of the population will no more hold this against Nokia/Seimens than they will hold Volkswagon responsible for its early Nazi roots (does it invoke Godwin's Law to mention that?
), Yahoo/Google responsible for selling out dissidents in China, etc., etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28422159</id>
	<title>Re:If a firm makes hammers...</title>
	<author>Verdatum</author>
	<datestamp>1245685560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This guy has the right idea.  It's not even like the technology is difficult to create.  If Nokia/Siemens  didn't make it, someone else would have.  Although the cost of this tech would just be a drop in the bucket, economically speaking, it's better for them to be importing this technology than to be developing it domestically.  Anyone is more than welcome to be upset at Iran or anyone else for censorship, but direct that anger at the censors, and the government that supports the censors.  It feels like the original poster wants to blame these companies because it's easier for a random blogger to influence a company through boycott and PR attacks than it is to influcence a foreign government through traditional political means.  And that's just laziness.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This guy has the right idea .
It 's not even like the technology is difficult to create .
If Nokia/Siemens did n't make it , someone else would have .
Although the cost of this tech would just be a drop in the bucket , economically speaking , it 's better for them to be importing this technology than to be developing it domestically .
Anyone is more than welcome to be upset at Iran or anyone else for censorship , but direct that anger at the censors , and the government that supports the censors .
It feels like the original poster wants to blame these companies because it 's easier for a random blogger to influence a company through boycott and PR attacks than it is to influcence a foreign government through traditional political means .
And that 's just laziness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This guy has the right idea.
It's not even like the technology is difficult to create.
If Nokia/Siemens  didn't make it, someone else would have.
Although the cost of this tech would just be a drop in the bucket, economically speaking, it's better for them to be importing this technology than to be developing it domestically.
Anyone is more than welcome to be upset at Iran or anyone else for censorship, but direct that anger at the censors, and the government that supports the censors.
It feels like the original poster wants to blame these companies because it's easier for a random blogger to influence a company through boycott and PR attacks than it is to influcence a foreign government through traditional political means.
And that's just laziness.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421547</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420489</id>
	<title>Surprise surprise</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245679620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Needless to say, Motorola manufactured chips used in land mines. IBM manufactured some nasty stuff for WWII. There will be no PR fallout from this. Nobody wants to know.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Needless to say , Motorola manufactured chips used in land mines .
IBM manufactured some nasty stuff for WWII .
There will be no PR fallout from this .
Nobody wants to know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Needless to say, Motorola manufactured chips used in land mines.
IBM manufactured some nasty stuff for WWII.
There will be no PR fallout from this.
Nobody wants to know.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421453</id>
	<title>Re:Hell NO! They'll Probably Use As A Selling Poin</title>
	<author>PopeRatzo</author>
	<datestamp>1245683220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course the US is planning for deep packet inspection.</p><p>"Free Market, YAY!!!"</p><p>If one of you "free market" ideologues can explain to me what market force would possibly address high-tech sales to tyrants, I'd love to hear it.</p><p>Whenever I hear someone from the Right talking about how "free markets" support individual and political liberty, I am just amazed.  In fact, the result of any "free market" will always be a corporatocracy or at least a close working relationship between widespread tyrannical governments and the most powerful corporations.  They are made for each other.  Further (and this is a slightly different issue) Capitalism will always result in some form of slavery.</p><p>You won't hear that on the Sunday morning news/talk shows, though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course the US is planning for deep packet inspection .
" Free Market , YAY ! ! !
" If one of you " free market " ideologues can explain to me what market force would possibly address high-tech sales to tyrants , I 'd love to hear it.Whenever I hear someone from the Right talking about how " free markets " support individual and political liberty , I am just amazed .
In fact , the result of any " free market " will always be a corporatocracy or at least a close working relationship between widespread tyrannical governments and the most powerful corporations .
They are made for each other .
Further ( and this is a slightly different issue ) Capitalism will always result in some form of slavery.You wo n't hear that on the Sunday morning news/talk shows , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course the US is planning for deep packet inspection.
"Free Market, YAY!!!
"If one of you "free market" ideologues can explain to me what market force would possibly address high-tech sales to tyrants, I'd love to hear it.Whenever I hear someone from the Right talking about how "free markets" support individual and political liberty, I am just amazed.
In fact, the result of any "free market" will always be a corporatocracy or at least a close working relationship between widespread tyrannical governments and the most powerful corporations.
They are made for each other.
Further (and this is a slightly different issue) Capitalism will always result in some form of slavery.You won't hear that on the Sunday morning news/talk shows, though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420845</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421649</id>
	<title>Way I see it? You're amoral and ignorant.</title>
	<author>kid zeus</author>
	<datestamp>1245683880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>IBM sold the Nazis the tabulating machines as well as customizing the field inputs and tabulation outputs of the punch cards used for recording Jews/Gypsies/homosexuals/dissidents expelled as well as those sent and processed through the concentration camps. The president of the entire company demanded that verbal instructions to his German managers be the rule, to avoid a paper trail. IBM was the sole servicer of machines at all the concentration camp, for FSM's sake. Of course they knew exactly what they were selling. And they sold yet more equipment, customized punch cards and services to Nazi Germany after we were at war with them via their Geneva office which is, at the very least, treason.

Do blame the maker for the use of the tool if the tool was customized for mass killings.

Don't listen to people with no comprehension of moral responsibility or professional (not to mention general human) ethics.

Don't open your digital pie hole if you don't actually know what you're talking about.</htmltext>
<tokenext>IBM sold the Nazis the tabulating machines as well as customizing the field inputs and tabulation outputs of the punch cards used for recording Jews/Gypsies/homosexuals/dissidents expelled as well as those sent and processed through the concentration camps .
The president of the entire company demanded that verbal instructions to his German managers be the rule , to avoid a paper trail .
IBM was the sole servicer of machines at all the concentration camp , for FSM 's sake .
Of course they knew exactly what they were selling .
And they sold yet more equipment , customized punch cards and services to Nazi Germany after we were at war with them via their Geneva office which is , at the very least , treason .
Do blame the maker for the use of the tool if the tool was customized for mass killings .
Do n't listen to people with no comprehension of moral responsibility or professional ( not to mention general human ) ethics .
Do n't open your digital pie hole if you do n't actually know what you 're talking about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IBM sold the Nazis the tabulating machines as well as customizing the field inputs and tabulation outputs of the punch cards used for recording Jews/Gypsies/homosexuals/dissidents expelled as well as those sent and processed through the concentration camps.
The president of the entire company demanded that verbal instructions to his German managers be the rule, to avoid a paper trail.
IBM was the sole servicer of machines at all the concentration camp, for FSM's sake.
Of course they knew exactly what they were selling.
And they sold yet more equipment, customized punch cards and services to Nazi Germany after we were at war with them via their Geneva office which is, at the very least, treason.
Do blame the maker for the use of the tool if the tool was customized for mass killings.
Don't listen to people with no comprehension of moral responsibility or professional (not to mention general human) ethics.
Don't open your digital pie hole if you don't actually know what you're talking about.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420661</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28423219</id>
	<title>Re:Party Talk</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245689100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's the valid use for stopping phone communications?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's the valid use for stopping phone communications ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's the valid use for stopping phone communications?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420793</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28425529</id>
	<title>Wrong.</title>
	<author>ThatsNotPudding</author>
	<datestamp>1245696960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>well technically Iran is a democracy
with democratic elections
and president elected by people..</p></div></blockquote><p>
Only candidates that are approved by the real power in Iran (the Ayatollahs) are allowed to be voted for.  That's why it's so foolish for Western pols (most notibly the GOP) to be touting Mousavi as a Persian Lech Walenza.  You really think he and the rest of those demonstrators are Pro US?  Really?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>well technically Iran is a democracy with democratic elections and president elected by people. . Only candidates that are approved by the real power in Iran ( the Ayatollahs ) are allowed to be voted for .
That 's why it 's so foolish for Western pols ( most notibly the GOP ) to be touting Mousavi as a Persian Lech Walenza .
You really think he and the rest of those demonstrators are Pro US ?
Really ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>well technically Iran is a democracy
with democratic elections
and president elected by people..
Only candidates that are approved by the real power in Iran (the Ayatollahs) are allowed to be voted for.
That's why it's so foolish for Western pols (most notibly the GOP) to be touting Mousavi as a Persian Lech Walenza.
You really think he and the rest of those demonstrators are Pro US?
Really?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421317</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28445511</id>
	<title>Re:technically iran is not dictatorship</title>
	<author>Xerolooper</author>
	<datestamp>1245752340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>well technically Iran is a democracy
with democratic elections
and president elected by people.</p><p>obviously there are problems
and problems with ballot counting,
however Florida also had ballots accounting problem...</p><p>I do not say Iran is a happy place to live
but it is more open than many think.</p><p>do you think manifestations would happen in North Corea ?
do you think people would be able to play WoW or use Twitter in many Burma ?</p></div><p>I guess the difference is after the problems in Florida no one died. In America our elections are usually decided by a couple percent that means that nearly half the population disagrees with the outcome still no one dies over it. Maybe we should make more noise but usually there isn't even a protest. <br> <br>Of course our political parties are very similar you might say opposite sides of the same coin. I guess if loosing meant our livelihood or lives were in danger we might be a little more involved.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>well technically Iran is a democracy with democratic elections and president elected by people.obviously there are problems and problems with ballot counting , however Florida also had ballots accounting problem...I do not say Iran is a happy place to live but it is more open than many think.do you think manifestations would happen in North Corea ?
do you think people would be able to play WoW or use Twitter in many Burma ? I guess the difference is after the problems in Florida no one died .
In America our elections are usually decided by a couple percent that means that nearly half the population disagrees with the outcome still no one dies over it .
Maybe we should make more noise but usually there is n't even a protest .
Of course our political parties are very similar you might say opposite sides of the same coin .
I guess if loosing meant our livelihood or lives were in danger we might be a little more involved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>well technically Iran is a democracy
with democratic elections
and president elected by people.obviously there are problems
and problems with ballot counting,
however Florida also had ballots accounting problem...I do not say Iran is a happy place to live
but it is more open than many think.do you think manifestations would happen in North Corea ?
do you think people would be able to play WoW or use Twitter in many Burma ?I guess the difference is after the problems in Florida no one died.
In America our elections are usually decided by a couple percent that means that nearly half the population disagrees with the outcome still no one dies over it.
Maybe we should make more noise but usually there isn't even a protest.
Of course our political parties are very similar you might say opposite sides of the same coin.
I guess if loosing meant our livelihood or lives were in danger we might be a little more involved.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421317</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28422179</id>
	<title>Re:More propaganda</title>
	<author>jeffasselin</author>
	<datestamp>1245685620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>DPI is very useful for security scanning and network monitoring. Would you make security tools illegal? Like nmap in Germany?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>DPI is very useful for security scanning and network monitoring .
Would you make security tools illegal ?
Like nmap in Germany ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DPI is very useful for security scanning and network monitoring.
Would you make security tools illegal?
Like nmap in Germany?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420741</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28427699</id>
	<title>Re:Nokia aren't doing anything wrong</title>
	<author>jvkjvk</author>
	<datestamp>1245704280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Right, and nothing wrong with selling stun devices to South Africa during Apartied, either.</p><p>After all, what the government decides to do with those devices is entirely their responsibility.</p><p>I'm sorry if I don't equate someone cheating at WOW with the torture and death of innocent people, either.</p><p>If everything was one size fits all you may have a point.  Pity that it's not.  Quit pretending that it is and you may get somewhere.</p><p>Regards.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right , and nothing wrong with selling stun devices to South Africa during Apartied , either.After all , what the government decides to do with those devices is entirely their responsibility.I 'm sorry if I do n't equate someone cheating at WOW with the torture and death of innocent people , either.If everything was one size fits all you may have a point .
Pity that it 's not .
Quit pretending that it is and you may get somewhere.Regards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right, and nothing wrong with selling stun devices to South Africa during Apartied, either.After all, what the government decides to do with those devices is entirely their responsibility.I'm sorry if I don't equate someone cheating at WOW with the torture and death of innocent people, either.If everything was one size fits all you may have a point.
Pity that it's not.
Quit pretending that it is and you may get somewhere.Regards.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420531</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28430189</id>
	<title>It's stupid to complain about this</title>
	<author>mundens</author>
	<datestamp>1245669900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mobile phone systems need to to be able to geographically locate the individual mobile in order to route calls to that mobile.  The basic function of a phone network requires you to be able to accurately locate the closest cell to the mobile phone. That means anyone familiar with the technology and with access to the network can use it to trace individual mobiles regardless of whether the manufacturer helps or not.

ALL police forces, worldwide. use this technology to monitor and locate criminals and espionage, hence the concept of the "one-use phone" for any secure operations.

That the Iranian police consider people fighting for freedom as criminals is no different than anywhere else in the world, including the USA and the UK. Why should Nokia Siemens, or any other other network manufacturer be attacked for providing to Iranian police something they provide to \_any\_ police force, especially something which the police force could easily make themselves anyway given the nature of the technology requires it to be able to geographically locate mobiles?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mobile phone systems need to to be able to geographically locate the individual mobile in order to route calls to that mobile .
The basic function of a phone network requires you to be able to accurately locate the closest cell to the mobile phone .
That means anyone familiar with the technology and with access to the network can use it to trace individual mobiles regardless of whether the manufacturer helps or not .
ALL police forces , worldwide .
use this technology to monitor and locate criminals and espionage , hence the concept of the " one-use phone " for any secure operations .
That the Iranian police consider people fighting for freedom as criminals is no different than anywhere else in the world , including the USA and the UK .
Why should Nokia Siemens , or any other other network manufacturer be attacked for providing to Iranian police something they provide to \ _any \ _ police force , especially something which the police force could easily make themselves anyway given the nature of the technology requires it to be able to geographically locate mobiles ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mobile phone systems need to to be able to geographically locate the individual mobile in order to route calls to that mobile.
The basic function of a phone network requires you to be able to accurately locate the closest cell to the mobile phone.
That means anyone familiar with the technology and with access to the network can use it to trace individual mobiles regardless of whether the manufacturer helps or not.
ALL police forces, worldwide.
use this technology to monitor and locate criminals and espionage, hence the concept of the "one-use phone" for any secure operations.
That the Iranian police consider people fighting for freedom as criminals is no different than anywhere else in the world, including the USA and the UK.
Why should Nokia Siemens, or any other other network manufacturer be attacked for providing to Iranian police something they provide to \_any\_ police force, especially something which the police force could easily make themselves anyway given the nature of the technology requires it to be able to geographically locate mobiles?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421963</id>
	<title>Re:Nokia aren't doing anything wrong</title>
	<author>zix619</author>
	<datestamp>1245684960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Read the article! This is not any material, this is material to censor people asking for their freedom! If yet you don't see anything wrong, I'm sorry for you!
Don't be blinded by misplaced national pride or material interest! This is freedom we talk about! Who knows whose turn would be tomorrow?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Read the article !
This is not any material , this is material to censor people asking for their freedom !
If yet you do n't see anything wrong , I 'm sorry for you !
Do n't be blinded by misplaced national pride or material interest !
This is freedom we talk about !
Who knows whose turn would be tomorrow ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Read the article!
This is not any material, this is material to censor people asking for their freedom!
If yet you don't see anything wrong, I'm sorry for you!
Don't be blinded by misplaced national pride or material interest!
This is freedom we talk about!
Who knows whose turn would be tomorrow?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420531</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28425131</id>
	<title>Re:Hell NO! They'll Probably Use As A Selling Poin</title>
	<author>freezinghot</author>
	<datestamp>1245695640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Want a free market solution to keep tyrants from getting high tech weapons? How about we stop using half our entire government budget to subsidize the military industrial complex. If there is anything that is decidedly not free market, its using Tax dollars to purchase products from select companies, decided almost entirely by lobbying efforts. <a href="http://www.wallstats.com/deathandtaxes/" title="wallstats.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.wallstats.com/deathandtaxes/</a> [wallstats.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Want a free market solution to keep tyrants from getting high tech weapons ?
How about we stop using half our entire government budget to subsidize the military industrial complex .
If there is anything that is decidedly not free market , its using Tax dollars to purchase products from select companies , decided almost entirely by lobbying efforts .
http : //www.wallstats.com/deathandtaxes/ [ wallstats.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Want a free market solution to keep tyrants from getting high tech weapons?
How about we stop using half our entire government budget to subsidize the military industrial complex.
If there is anything that is decidedly not free market, its using Tax dollars to purchase products from select companies, decided almost entirely by lobbying efforts.
http://www.wallstats.com/deathandtaxes/ [wallstats.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421453</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421393</id>
	<title>We had that before, didn't we?</title>
	<author>ptashek</author>
	<datestamp>1245683040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Did the US government ever loose any sleep over training/arming/supporting the very same Taliban they are fighting now? Well, there's your answer. The world changes rapidly and as a result of that, nobody cares anymore for anything else than making more money whatever way they can. Also, where (big) money or (big) politics is involved, such things as "freedom", "free speech" and "justice" are just third class issues.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did the US government ever loose any sleep over training/arming/supporting the very same Taliban they are fighting now ?
Well , there 's your answer .
The world changes rapidly and as a result of that , nobody cares anymore for anything else than making more money whatever way they can .
Also , where ( big ) money or ( big ) politics is involved , such things as " freedom " , " free speech " and " justice " are just third class issues .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did the US government ever loose any sleep over training/arming/supporting the very same Taliban they are fighting now?
Well, there's your answer.
The world changes rapidly and as a result of that, nobody cares anymore for anything else than making more money whatever way they can.
Also, where (big) money or (big) politics is involved, such things as "freedom", "free speech" and "justice" are just third class issues.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421401</id>
	<title>Re:Hell NO! They'll Probably Use As A Selling Poin</title>
	<author>EatHam</author>
	<datestamp>1245683100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not after seeing what a piss poor job it did at actually preventing information leakage.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not after seeing what a piss poor job it did at actually preventing information leakage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not after seeing what a piss poor job it did at actually preventing information leakage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420425</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420537</id>
	<title>Yo! Americam Imperialist Pigs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245679860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Leave Iran to Iran.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Leave Iran to Iran .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Leave Iran to Iran.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421573</id>
	<title>Too bad, they lose!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245683700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, until they get out of the censorship software business I will boycott both Nokia and Siemens. I have been a Nokia phone user for years, and I really like their Nokian tires, but they have just lost me as a future customer, unless and until they get out of this aspect of their business. Shame on them!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , until they get out of the censorship software business I will boycott both Nokia and Siemens .
I have been a Nokia phone user for years , and I really like their Nokian tires , but they have just lost me as a future customer , unless and until they get out of this aspect of their business .
Shame on them !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, until they get out of the censorship software business I will boycott both Nokia and Siemens.
I have been a Nokia phone user for years, and I really like their Nokian tires, but they have just lost me as a future customer, unless and until they get out of this aspect of their business.
Shame on them!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28427787</id>
	<title>Re:Like the Nazis</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245661380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, BAE Systems, and countless others in the past? you say?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like Lockheed Martin , Northrop Grumman , BAE Systems , and countless others in the past ?
you say ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, BAE Systems, and countless others in the past?
you say?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421369</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28422049</id>
	<title>Yahoo</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245685200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just ask <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4221538.stm" title="bbc.co.uk" rel="nofollow">Yahoo</a> [bbc.co.uk] how they feel about "PR damage" from shipping <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shi\_Tao" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">reporters</a> [wikipedia.org] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiang\_Lijun" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">off</a> [wikipedia.org] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li\_Zhi\_(dissident)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">to</a> [wikipedia.org] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wang\_Xiaoning" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">prison</a> [wikipedia.org] in China.<br>(a strongly worded letter from congress just doesn't hurt that much)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just ask Yahoo [ bbc.co.uk ] how they feel about " PR damage " from shipping reporters [ wikipedia.org ] off [ wikipedia.org ] to [ wikipedia.org ] prison [ wikipedia.org ] in China .
( a strongly worded letter from congress just does n't hurt that much )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just ask Yahoo [bbc.co.uk] how they feel about "PR damage" from shipping reporters [wikipedia.org] off [wikipedia.org] to [wikipedia.org] prison [wikipedia.org] in China.
(a strongly worded letter from congress just doesn't hurt that much)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420445</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28422343</id>
	<title>Wake up!</title>
	<author>Kensai7</author>
	<datestamp>1245686160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it weren't Nokia-Siemens it would have been another big corporation... Iran would be still under surveillance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it were n't Nokia-Siemens it would have been another big corporation... Iran would be still under surveillance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it weren't Nokia-Siemens it would have been another big corporation... Iran would be still under surveillance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28423073</id>
	<title>No WAY!</title>
	<author>crhylove</author>
	<datestamp>1245688680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Corporations doing something evil AGAINST humanity?!?!?!  THAT NEVER HAPPENS!!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Corporations doing something evil AGAINST humanity ? ! ? ! ? !
THAT NEVER HAPPENS ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Corporations doing something evil AGAINST humanity?!?!?!
THAT NEVER HAPPENS!!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421513</id>
	<title>Re:it's the kind of world we live in !</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245683460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Didn't some US companies sell poison gas to Iraq during the Reagan presidency ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't some US companies sell poison gas to Iraq during the Reagan presidency ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't some US companies sell poison gas to Iraq during the Reagan presidency ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421023</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420613</id>
	<title>Why the selective outrage, liberals?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245680100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After all, it was only a few days ago that your messiah Obama said that he saw little difference between the two candidates.  Of course, he switched positions within days as he often does when he realizes that his original neophyte reaction is out-of-touch with reality...  And what about our faux allies in the Middle East like Saudi Arabia and Jordan, who don't even humor their people by pretending to have an election?  At least the Iranians tried to pretend to listen to their citizens.  Could you sheep PLEASE do me a favor and stop letting your government lead you into wars so easily?  You all are a bunch of fickle shit-for-brains meat sacks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After all , it was only a few days ago that your messiah Obama said that he saw little difference between the two candidates .
Of course , he switched positions within days as he often does when he realizes that his original neophyte reaction is out-of-touch with reality... And what about our faux allies in the Middle East like Saudi Arabia and Jordan , who do n't even humor their people by pretending to have an election ?
At least the Iranians tried to pretend to listen to their citizens .
Could you sheep PLEASE do me a favor and stop letting your government lead you into wars so easily ?
You all are a bunch of fickle shit-for-brains meat sacks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After all, it was only a few days ago that your messiah Obama said that he saw little difference between the two candidates.
Of course, he switched positions within days as he often does when he realizes that his original neophyte reaction is out-of-touch with reality...  And what about our faux allies in the Middle East like Saudi Arabia and Jordan, who don't even humor their people by pretending to have an election?
At least the Iranians tried to pretend to listen to their citizens.
Could you sheep PLEASE do me a favor and stop letting your government lead you into wars so easily?
You all are a bunch of fickle shit-for-brains meat sacks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420445</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421947</id>
	<title>Re:it's the kind of world we live in !</title>
	<author>teh kurisu</author>
	<datestamp>1245684840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FTA:</p><blockquote><div><p>Nokia Siemens Networks provided equipment to Iran last year under the internationally recognized concept of "lawful intercept," said Mr. Roome. That relates to intercepting data for the purposes of combating terrorism, child pornography, drug trafficking and other criminal activities carried out online, a capability that most if not all telecom companies have, he said.</p></div> </blockquote><p>So look at it this way - the equipment was provided for purposes which, from a western perspective, are morally dubious at worst, and morally justifiable at best (i.e. western governments are doing it too).  That the equipment is now being used for another, morally reprehensible purpose is not a reflection on the worthiness of the equipment itself.  It's a similar argument to the one that P2P proponents would use - that there are legal uses, and that their provision should not be impinged simply because there are also illegal uses.</p><p>The other argument is that Iran has bought this equipment, and it's not up to Nokia Siemens Networks how it is used. A number of Slashdotters argued for the same principle in today's iPhone C64 emulator thread.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>FTA : Nokia Siemens Networks provided equipment to Iran last year under the internationally recognized concept of " lawful intercept , " said Mr. Roome. That relates to intercepting data for the purposes of combating terrorism , child pornography , drug trafficking and other criminal activities carried out online , a capability that most if not all telecom companies have , he said .
So look at it this way - the equipment was provided for purposes which , from a western perspective , are morally dubious at worst , and morally justifiable at best ( i.e .
western governments are doing it too ) .
That the equipment is now being used for another , morally reprehensible purpose is not a reflection on the worthiness of the equipment itself .
It 's a similar argument to the one that P2P proponents would use - that there are legal uses , and that their provision should not be impinged simply because there are also illegal uses.The other argument is that Iran has bought this equipment , and it 's not up to Nokia Siemens Networks how it is used .
A number of Slashdotters argued for the same principle in today 's iPhone C64 emulator thread .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FTA:Nokia Siemens Networks provided equipment to Iran last year under the internationally recognized concept of "lawful intercept," said Mr. Roome. That relates to intercepting data for the purposes of combating terrorism, child pornography, drug trafficking and other criminal activities carried out online, a capability that most if not all telecom companies have, he said.
So look at it this way - the equipment was provided for purposes which, from a western perspective, are morally dubious at worst, and morally justifiable at best (i.e.
western governments are doing it too).
That the equipment is now being used for another, morally reprehensible purpose is not a reflection on the worthiness of the equipment itself.
It's a similar argument to the one that P2P proponents would use - that there are legal uses, and that their provision should not be impinged simply because there are also illegal uses.The other argument is that Iran has bought this equipment, and it's not up to Nokia Siemens Networks how it is used.
A number of Slashdotters argued for the same principle in today's iPhone C64 emulator thread.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420469</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420469</id>
	<title>it's the kind of world we live in !</title>
	<author>po134</author>
	<datestamp>1245679500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>These are capitalist corporations. Their goal is to make money. People are willing to buy censorship technology (just look at any government office). Why do you act shocked that this is happening?</htmltext>
<tokenext>These are capitalist corporations .
Their goal is to make money .
People are willing to buy censorship technology ( just look at any government office ) .
Why do you act shocked that this is happening ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These are capitalist corporations.
Their goal is to make money.
People are willing to buy censorship technology (just look at any government office).
Why do you act shocked that this is happening?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28424027</id>
	<title>Re:Not unless...</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1245691860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't think so, Nokia put the most amazing spin on this that I have ever seen, check it out what their spokesman said:<p><div class="quote"><p>Nokia does have a choice about whether to do business in any country. We believe providing people, wherever they are, with the ability to communicate is preferable to leaving them without the choice to be heard</p></div><p>I think Nokia will be able to defend themselves.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think so , Nokia put the most amazing spin on this that I have ever seen , check it out what their spokesman said : Nokia does have a choice about whether to do business in any country .
We believe providing people , wherever they are , with the ability to communicate is preferable to leaving them without the choice to be heardI think Nokia will be able to defend themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think so, Nokia put the most amazing spin on this that I have ever seen, check it out what their spokesman said:Nokia does have a choice about whether to do business in any country.
We believe providing people, wherever they are, with the ability to communicate is preferable to leaving them without the choice to be heardI think Nokia will be able to defend themselves.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420445</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28428805</id>
	<title>Re:technically iran is not dictatorship</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1245664740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>well technically Iran is a democracy<br>with democratic elections<br>and president elected by people.</p></div><p>Iran is a "democracy" where all candidates are vetted by an unelected body, which can forbid them from participating in the elections for pretty much any reason whatsoever.</p><p>On a side note, General Secretary of the Communist Party of Soviet Union was also an elected position. In fact, all citizens would go and cast their vote with a secret ballot, votes would be counted, etc. The catch was that list of candidates was drawn up by the Party itself.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>well technically Iran is a democracywith democratic electionsand president elected by people.Iran is a " democracy " where all candidates are vetted by an unelected body , which can forbid them from participating in the elections for pretty much any reason whatsoever.On a side note , General Secretary of the Communist Party of Soviet Union was also an elected position .
In fact , all citizens would go and cast their vote with a secret ballot , votes would be counted , etc .
The catch was that list of candidates was drawn up by the Party itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>well technically Iran is a democracywith democratic electionsand president elected by people.Iran is a "democracy" where all candidates are vetted by an unelected body, which can forbid them from participating in the elections for pretty much any reason whatsoever.On a side note, General Secretary of the Communist Party of Soviet Union was also an elected position.
In fact, all citizens would go and cast their vote with a secret ballot, votes would be counted, etc.
The catch was that list of candidates was drawn up by the Party itself.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421317</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421179</id>
	<title>Re:Hell NO! They'll Probably Use As A Selling Poin</title>
	<author>Apatharch</author>
	<datestamp>1245682380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they did, they would have to look elsewhere than Nokia/Siemens:</p><blockquote><div><p>The joint venture exited the business that included the monitoring equipment, what it called "intelligence solutions," at the end of March, by selling it to Perusa Partners Fund 1 LP, a Munich-based investment firm, Mr. Roome said. He said the company determined it was no longer part of its core business.</p></div></blockquote><p>They dumped that division before the shitstorm got started, no doubt hoping to sidestep it in the process.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they did , they would have to look elsewhere than Nokia/Siemens : The joint venture exited the business that included the monitoring equipment , what it called " intelligence solutions , " at the end of March , by selling it to Perusa Partners Fund 1 LP , a Munich-based investment firm , Mr. Roome said .
He said the company determined it was no longer part of its core business.They dumped that division before the shitstorm got started , no doubt hoping to sidestep it in the process .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they did, they would have to look elsewhere than Nokia/Siemens:The joint venture exited the business that included the monitoring equipment, what it called "intelligence solutions," at the end of March, by selling it to Perusa Partners Fund 1 LP, a Munich-based investment firm, Mr. Roome said.
He said the company determined it was no longer part of its core business.They dumped that division before the shitstorm got started, no doubt hoping to sidestep it in the process.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420425</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28422089</id>
	<title>Nothing New</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245685320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nothing new, excerpt from their wikipedia entry</p><p>"Preceding World War II Siemens was involved in funding the rise of the Nazi Party and the secret rearmament of Germany. During the Second World War, Siemens supported the Hitler regime, contributed to the war effort and participated in the "Nazification" of the economy. Siemens had many factories in and around notorious extermination camps such as Auschwitz and used slave labor from concentration camps to build electric switches for military uses. In one example, almost 100,000 men and women from Auschwitz worked in a Siemens factory inside the camp, supplying the electricity to the camp.[8]."</p><p>I try my best to never buy their shit, so far im pretty sure ive been sucessful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nothing new , excerpt from their wikipedia entry " Preceding World War II Siemens was involved in funding the rise of the Nazi Party and the secret rearmament of Germany .
During the Second World War , Siemens supported the Hitler regime , contributed to the war effort and participated in the " Nazification " of the economy .
Siemens had many factories in and around notorious extermination camps such as Auschwitz and used slave labor from concentration camps to build electric switches for military uses .
In one example , almost 100,000 men and women from Auschwitz worked in a Siemens factory inside the camp , supplying the electricity to the camp. [ 8 ] .
" I try my best to never buy their shit , so far im pretty sure ive been sucessful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nothing new, excerpt from their wikipedia entry"Preceding World War II Siemens was involved in funding the rise of the Nazi Party and the secret rearmament of Germany.
During the Second World War, Siemens supported the Hitler regime, contributed to the war effort and participated in the "Nazification" of the economy.
Siemens had many factories in and around notorious extermination camps such as Auschwitz and used slave labor from concentration camps to build electric switches for military uses.
In one example, almost 100,000 men and women from Auschwitz worked in a Siemens factory inside the camp, supplying the electricity to the camp.[8].
"I try my best to never buy their shit, so far im pretty sure ive been sucessful.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420793</id>
	<title>Party Talk</title>
	<author>AB3A</author>
	<datestamp>1245680940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"...so, what do you do?"</p><p>"I sell net censoring software."</p><p>"Really?  Who buys that stuff?"</p><p>"Oh, lots of people.  We have ISP customers from around the world."</p><p>"What do they use it for?"</p><p>"You know, censoring kiddie porn sites, blocking mail spammers, and so on."<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>I think that's a pretty good description of what this is about. People are selling tools. The problem is how those tools are used. There are evil shit-heads all over the world. That does not mean the tools themselves are evil.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...so , what do you do ?
" " I sell net censoring software. " " Really ?
Who buys that stuff ?
" " Oh , lots of people .
We have ISP customers from around the world .
" " What do they use it for ?
" " You know , censoring kiddie porn sites , blocking mail spammers , and so on .
" ...I think that 's a pretty good description of what this is about .
People are selling tools .
The problem is how those tools are used .
There are evil shit-heads all over the world .
That does not mean the tools themselves are evil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...so, what do you do?
""I sell net censoring software.""Really?
Who buys that stuff?
""Oh, lots of people.
We have ISP customers from around the world.
""What do they use it for?
""You know, censoring kiddie porn sites, blocking mail spammers, and so on.
" ...I think that's a pretty good description of what this is about.
People are selling tools.
The problem is how those tools are used.
There are evil shit-heads all over the world.
That does not mean the tools themselves are evil.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420489</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420475</id>
	<title>Sure, I'll start to boycott them like I do with...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245679500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... Cisco...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... after finding out they collude with the Chinese government for censorship and spying.</p><p>Look how much that's slowing them down!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... Cisco... ... after finding out they collude with the Chinese government for censorship and spying.Look how much that 's slowing them down !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... Cisco... ... after finding out they collude with the Chinese government for censorship and spying.Look how much that's slowing them down!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420939</id>
	<title>Technology? It was a class of service change!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245681480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is nothing special about what they did...  It was a class of service change for non government services, pure and simple... any PBX and a good administrator can block, downgrade or restrict outgoing calls per user or by class of service (you know, the restriction class for In-house, local and long distance service...) They just restricted everyone to local calls...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is nothing special about what they did... It was a class of service change for non government services , pure and simple... any PBX and a good administrator can block , downgrade or restrict outgoing calls per user or by class of service ( you know , the restriction class for In-house , local and long distance service... ) They just restricted everyone to local calls.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is nothing special about what they did...  It was a class of service change for non government services, pure and simple... any PBX and a good administrator can block, downgrade or restrict outgoing calls per user or by class of service (you know, the restriction class for In-house, local and long distance service...) They just restricted everyone to local calls...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420425</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28422169</id>
	<title>Re:More propaganda</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245685620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly!  I'm in 100\% total agreement.  So will you come to defend me at my trial and bail me out of jail for selling crack to third graders?  I mean, I sure as hell didn't teach them how to smoke it!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly !
I 'm in 100 \ % total agreement .
So will you come to defend me at my trial and bail me out of jail for selling crack to third graders ?
I mean , I sure as hell did n't teach them how to smoke it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly!
I'm in 100\% total agreement.
So will you come to defend me at my trial and bail me out of jail for selling crack to third graders?
I mean, I sure as hell didn't teach them how to smoke it!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420893</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421189</id>
	<title>Re:it's the kind of world we live in !</title>
	<author>tao</author>
	<datestamp>1245682380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, those pesky bastards in Germany doing business with unfriendly nations, while the glorious Ronald '<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra\_affair" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Iran-Contra</a> [wikipedia.org]' Reagan did not at all organise weapons shipments to Iran.  Not all all.  No sir...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , those pesky bastards in Germany doing business with unfriendly nations , while the glorious Ronald 'Iran-Contra [ wikipedia.org ] ' Reagan did not at all organise weapons shipments to Iran .
Not all all .
No sir.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, those pesky bastards in Germany doing business with unfriendly nations, while the glorious Ronald 'Iran-Contra [wikipedia.org]' Reagan did not at all organise weapons shipments to Iran.
Not all all.
No sir...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421023</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421199</id>
	<title>Just like any other company...</title>
	<author>Xest</author>
	<datestamp>1245682380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not as if they probably only got the contract because American companies such as Cisco are forbidden from selling such equipment to Iran.</p><p>My point is that I do not believe there is a company in the world that would pass up this kind of contract. Do I disagree with it's use? Of course I do.</p><p>But I fail to see why Nokia and Siemens should be demonised anymore than any other company in the world - at the end of the day the only difference here between Nokia/Siemens and any other networking company is that those guys got the contract - it didn't mean others didn't bid and it doesn't mean others like Cisco wouldn't also bid if they had the opportunity to.</p><p>Rather than focus on chastising company x for the fact company x sold something to country y which was used in a bad way we should be chastising big corporations in general for this sort of behaviour. It's a problem that extends far far beyond just Nokia and Siemens and we can't expect Nokia and Siemens to change their ways if no one else will else it puts them at a major disadvantage and is like committing corporate suicide.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not as if they probably only got the contract because American companies such as Cisco are forbidden from selling such equipment to Iran.My point is that I do not believe there is a company in the world that would pass up this kind of contract .
Do I disagree with it 's use ?
Of course I do.But I fail to see why Nokia and Siemens should be demonised anymore than any other company in the world - at the end of the day the only difference here between Nokia/Siemens and any other networking company is that those guys got the contract - it did n't mean others did n't bid and it does n't mean others like Cisco would n't also bid if they had the opportunity to.Rather than focus on chastising company x for the fact company x sold something to country y which was used in a bad way we should be chastising big corporations in general for this sort of behaviour .
It 's a problem that extends far far beyond just Nokia and Siemens and we ca n't expect Nokia and Siemens to change their ways if no one else will else it puts them at a major disadvantage and is like committing corporate suicide .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not as if they probably only got the contract because American companies such as Cisco are forbidden from selling such equipment to Iran.My point is that I do not believe there is a company in the world that would pass up this kind of contract.
Do I disagree with it's use?
Of course I do.But I fail to see why Nokia and Siemens should be demonised anymore than any other company in the world - at the end of the day the only difference here between Nokia/Siemens and any other networking company is that those guys got the contract - it didn't mean others didn't bid and it doesn't mean others like Cisco wouldn't also bid if they had the opportunity to.Rather than focus on chastising company x for the fact company x sold something to country y which was used in a bad way we should be chastising big corporations in general for this sort of behaviour.
It's a problem that extends far far beyond just Nokia and Siemens and we can't expect Nokia and Siemens to change their ways if no one else will else it puts them at a major disadvantage and is like committing corporate suicide.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421093</id>
	<title>Re:Like the Nazis</title>
	<author>kubitus</author>
	<datestamp>1245682020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>and later IBM bought the patents of Konrad Zuse who fathered the binary computer as it is used now.
which included <p>
binary arithmetic, (solving the tabulation versus repetitive adding problem for multiplication)</p><p>
the first assembler/compiler used with his machines.</p><p>
von Neumann structure ( before von Neumann knew how to make a computer )</p><p>
I met the former sales manager of Zuse - he is still alive andf active at age 90!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and later IBM bought the patents of Konrad Zuse who fathered the binary computer as it is used now .
which included binary arithmetic , ( solving the tabulation versus repetitive adding problem for multiplication ) the first assembler/compiler used with his machines .
von Neumann structure ( before von Neumann knew how to make a computer ) I met the former sales manager of Zuse - he is still alive andf active at age 90 !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and later IBM bought the patents of Konrad Zuse who fathered the binary computer as it is used now.
which included 
binary arithmetic, (solving the tabulation versus repetitive adding problem for multiplication)
the first assembler/compiler used with his machines.
von Neumann structure ( before von Neumann knew how to make a computer )
I met the former sales manager of Zuse - he is still alive andf active at age 90!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420661</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28426111</id>
	<title>Re:technically iran is not dictatorship</title>
	<author>StormReaver</author>
	<datestamp>1245699120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>well <b>certainly</b> Iran is a <b>theocracy</b><br>with <b>fake</b> elections<br>and president <b>selected and ruled</b> by <b>the Ayatollah</b>.</p><p>Fixed that for you.  You're welcome.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>well certainly Iran is a theocracywith fake electionsand president selected and ruled by the Ayatollah.Fixed that for you .
You 're welcome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>well certainly Iran is a theocracywith fake electionsand president selected and ruled by the Ayatollah.Fixed that for you.
You're welcome.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421317</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28463327</id>
	<title>Re:Hell NO! They'll Probably Use As A Selling Poin</title>
	<author>badkarmadayaccount</author>
	<datestamp>1245870600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>AK-47 sales to citizens.</htmltext>
<tokenext>AK-47 sales to citizens .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AK-47 sales to citizens.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421453</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28439295</id>
	<title>Re:Hell NO! They'll Probably Use As A Selling Poin</title>
	<author>mike2R</author>
	<datestamp>1245773580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Lasting change won't come about externaly, it must happen internally. Note Afghanistan and Iraq, which we attacked for our own interests. If those had both been civil wars, triggered internally, the countries would probably be well on their way to their own freedom instead of being "iffy" like they are now.</p></div></blockquote><p>Sounds good, but that isn't actually true.  The US occupied, rebuilt, and remade in their own image a number of nations at the end of World War II.  If they were really willing to spend the blood and treasure over another decade or so, the same could be done to Iraq.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lasting change wo n't come about externaly , it must happen internally .
Note Afghanistan and Iraq , which we attacked for our own interests .
If those had both been civil wars , triggered internally , the countries would probably be well on their way to their own freedom instead of being " iffy " like they are now.Sounds good , but that is n't actually true .
The US occupied , rebuilt , and remade in their own image a number of nations at the end of World War II .
If they were really willing to spend the blood and treasure over another decade or so , the same could be done to Iraq .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lasting change won't come about externaly, it must happen internally.
Note Afghanistan and Iraq, which we attacked for our own interests.
If those had both been civil wars, triggered internally, the countries would probably be well on their way to their own freedom instead of being "iffy" like they are now.Sounds good, but that isn't actually true.
The US occupied, rebuilt, and remade in their own image a number of nations at the end of World War II.
If they were really willing to spend the blood and treasure over another decade or so, the same could be done to Iraq.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28424093</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420947</id>
	<title>Re:it's the kind of world we live in !</title>
	<author>XavierItzmann</author>
	<datestamp>1245681480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But since they are Europeans, they happily trade with the enemy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But since they are Europeans , they happily trade with the enemy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But since they are Europeans, they happily trade with the enemy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420469</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28430379</id>
	<title>Re:Like the Nazis</title>
	<author>StikyPad</author>
	<datestamp>1245670500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Right, but the extreme is NOT the logical conclusion.  Companies can't sell nuclear weapons to *anybody* AND there is currently no legitimate use for a nuclear weapon, therefore it's outside the scope of this discussion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right , but the extreme is NOT the logical conclusion .
Companies ca n't sell nuclear weapons to * anybody * AND there is currently no legitimate use for a nuclear weapon , therefore it 's outside the scope of this discussion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right, but the extreme is NOT the logical conclusion.
Companies can't sell nuclear weapons to *anybody* AND there is currently no legitimate use for a nuclear weapon, therefore it's outside the scope of this discussion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421369</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420977</id>
	<title>Bad PR ?</title>
	<author>OrangeMonkey11</author>
	<datestamp>1245681600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>what is bad about allowing a government to hide the killing of it's own citizens;  isn't that what we all want as a civilized society, the ability for the government to hide the atrocities it's doing on it's own citizens without the rest of the world looking on and judging.</htmltext>
<tokenext>what is bad about allowing a government to hide the killing of it 's own citizens ; is n't that what we all want as a civilized society , the ability for the government to hide the atrocities it 's doing on it 's own citizens without the rest of the world looking on and judging .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what is bad about allowing a government to hide the killing of it's own citizens;  isn't that what we all want as a civilized society, the ability for the government to hide the atrocities it's doing on it's own citizens without the rest of the world looking on and judging.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28428187</id>
	<title>Re:Like the Nazis</title>
	<author>roman\_mir</author>
	<datestamp>1245662820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The person most directly responsible for ruining a number of countries about 90 years ago also said this:  </p><p><div class="quote"><p>The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.</p></div><p> - though he was a rare SOB (his dead corps is still on display even now), he was right about this, definitely right.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The person most directly responsible for ruining a number of countries about 90 years ago also said this : The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them .
- though he was a rare SOB ( his dead corps is still on display even now ) , he was right about this , definitely right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The person most directly responsible for ruining a number of countries about 90 years ago also said this:  The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.
- though he was a rare SOB (his dead corps is still on display even now), he was right about this, definitely right.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420661</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420951</id>
	<title>Re:More propaganda</title>
	<author>AndrewNeo</author>
	<datestamp>1245681540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It couldn't be determined whether the equipment from Nokia Siemens Networks is used specifically for deep packet inspection.</p></div><p>So they need to perform deep packet inspection on their deep packet inspectors?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It could n't be determined whether the equipment from Nokia Siemens Networks is used specifically for deep packet inspection.So they need to perform deep packet inspection on their deep packet inspectors ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It couldn't be determined whether the equipment from Nokia Siemens Networks is used specifically for deep packet inspection.So they need to perform deep packet inspection on their deep packet inspectors?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420497</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420883</id>
	<title>Hoax</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245681240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This story has to be a hoax. Siemens and Nokia are European companies. Everyone knows that Eurpoeans are morally superior to Americans.</p><p>I call bullshit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This story has to be a hoax .
Siemens and Nokia are European companies .
Everyone knows that Eurpoeans are morally superior to Americans.I call bullshit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This story has to be a hoax.
Siemens and Nokia are European companies.
Everyone knows that Eurpoeans are morally superior to Americans.I call bullshit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28422041</id>
	<title>Re:it's the kind of world we live in !</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245685200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nokia have sold filtering appliances<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/firewalls for a very long time.</p><p>So , if the software that you can buy from them, runs on IBM hardware, then IBM is at fault?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nokia have sold filtering appliances /firewalls for a very long time.So , if the software that you can buy from them , runs on IBM hardware , then IBM is at fault ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nokia have sold filtering appliances /firewalls for a very long time.So , if the software that you can buy from them, runs on IBM hardware, then IBM is at fault?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421023</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28422635</id>
	<title>Why blame tech provider?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245687060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lots of companies provide technologies to other countries like Pakistan and they use it against India to kill innocent people (see recent mumbai incident). What about good old USA? Your own government use technology to spy on you. Terrorist use cell phones and the Internet for communication. Google, Yahoo and others help China to do the same. Do you blame all the companies out there for misuses?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lots of companies provide technologies to other countries like Pakistan and they use it against India to kill innocent people ( see recent mumbai incident ) .
What about good old USA ?
Your own government use technology to spy on you .
Terrorist use cell phones and the Internet for communication .
Google , Yahoo and others help China to do the same .
Do you blame all the companies out there for misuses ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lots of companies provide technologies to other countries like Pakistan and they use it against India to kill innocent people (see recent mumbai incident).
What about good old USA?
Your own government use technology to spy on you.
Terrorist use cell phones and the Internet for communication.
Google, Yahoo and others help China to do the same.
Do you blame all the companies out there for misuses?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420531</id>
	<title>Nokia aren't doing anything wrong</title>
	<author>petrus4</author>
	<datestamp>1245679800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All they're doing is selling the Iranian government some mobile telecommunications infrastructure.  What the government decide to do with said infrastructure is entirely their responsibility.</p><p>Sophistry, I hear you say?  Only about to the same degree as that moron who was arguing with me here, that the author of the World of Warcraft Glider bot should not be sued by Blizzard; because he wasn't doing anything against the rules himself.  All he was doing was creating a macro generation program; what other people did with it was entirely their own responsibility.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All they 're doing is selling the Iranian government some mobile telecommunications infrastructure .
What the government decide to do with said infrastructure is entirely their responsibility.Sophistry , I hear you say ?
Only about to the same degree as that moron who was arguing with me here , that the author of the World of Warcraft Glider bot should not be sued by Blizzard ; because he was n't doing anything against the rules himself .
All he was doing was creating a macro generation program ; what other people did with it was entirely their own responsibility .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All they're doing is selling the Iranian government some mobile telecommunications infrastructure.
What the government decide to do with said infrastructure is entirely their responsibility.Sophistry, I hear you say?
Only about to the same degree as that moron who was arguing with me here, that the author of the World of Warcraft Glider bot should not be sued by Blizzard; because he wasn't doing anything against the rules himself.
All he was doing was creating a macro generation program; what other people did with it was entirely their own responsibility.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28422065</id>
	<title>so what?</title>
	<author>Tom</author>
	<datestamp>1245685260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Funny how we react differently to other technology. We say that P2P is not only for copyright infringement, but also for other uses. We say that hacker tools are also used by security researchers and consultants. Whenever the politicians or the mainstream press try to demonize a technology, we are the first to show that it's not that simple.</p><p>But with technology that hits one of <b>our</b> sweet spots - censorship - we turn around 180 degrees? And wish the companies PR backlash? Why? Are we doing anyone a favour? Should not the anger about censorship be focussed on those who engage and support censorship, and not the technology?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny how we react differently to other technology .
We say that P2P is not only for copyright infringement , but also for other uses .
We say that hacker tools are also used by security researchers and consultants .
Whenever the politicians or the mainstream press try to demonize a technology , we are the first to show that it 's not that simple.But with technology that hits one of our sweet spots - censorship - we turn around 180 degrees ?
And wish the companies PR backlash ?
Why ? Are we doing anyone a favour ?
Should not the anger about censorship be focussed on those who engage and support censorship , and not the technology ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny how we react differently to other technology.
We say that P2P is not only for copyright infringement, but also for other uses.
We say that hacker tools are also used by security researchers and consultants.
Whenever the politicians or the mainstream press try to demonize a technology, we are the first to show that it's not that simple.But with technology that hits one of our sweet spots - censorship - we turn around 180 degrees?
And wish the companies PR backlash?
Why? Are we doing anyone a favour?
Should not the anger about censorship be focussed on those who engage and support censorship, and not the technology?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28426701</id>
	<title>Re:Hell NO! They'll Probably Use As A Selling Poin</title>
	<author>funkboy</author>
	<datestamp>1245701340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Not after seeing what a piss poor job it did at actually preventing information leakage.</p></div><p>Thas a lot more to do with the technology's implementation than the technology itsself.</p><p>Network security training isn't exactly something the West has been exporting to the Islamic Republic's government in copius quantities.  It's like the fighter pilots that defected after the revolution:  most Iranian security professionals are intellectuals and want little to do with their government.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not after seeing what a piss poor job it did at actually preventing information leakage.Thas a lot more to do with the technology 's implementation than the technology itsself.Network security training is n't exactly something the West has been exporting to the Islamic Republic 's government in copius quantities .
It 's like the fighter pilots that defected after the revolution : most Iranian security professionals are intellectuals and want little to do with their government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not after seeing what a piss poor job it did at actually preventing information leakage.Thas a lot more to do with the technology's implementation than the technology itsself.Network security training isn't exactly something the West has been exporting to the Islamic Republic's government in copius quantities.
It's like the fighter pilots that defected after the revolution:  most Iranian security professionals are intellectuals and want little to do with their government.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421401</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421877</id>
	<title>Re:it's the kind of world we live in !</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245684660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Iran-Contra affair</a> [wikipedia.org]?<br>And isn't Iran an enemy created by the US? I vaguely remember that the US installed toppled a democratically elected leader to install <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United\_States-Iran\_relations#1953\_Iranian\_coup\_d.27.C3.A9tat" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">a pro-American dictator</a> [wikipedia.org], who was removed from power by a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian\_Revolution" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">revolution</a> [wikipedia.org], which came as a total surprise for the US, who thought it could force Western ideals on a nation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about the Iran-Contra affair [ wikipedia.org ] ? And is n't Iran an enemy created by the US ?
I vaguely remember that the US installed toppled a democratically elected leader to install a pro-American dictator [ wikipedia.org ] , who was removed from power by a revolution [ wikipedia.org ] , which came as a total surprise for the US , who thought it could force Western ideals on a nation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about the Iran-Contra affair [wikipedia.org]?And isn't Iran an enemy created by the US?
I vaguely remember that the US installed toppled a democratically elected leader to install a pro-American dictator [wikipedia.org], who was removed from power by a revolution [wikipedia.org], which came as a total surprise for the US, who thought it could force Western ideals on a nation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420947</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28435665</id>
	<title>Re:Party Talk</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245787500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While the intended purpose of the technology is closely tied to its use do not make the mistake of entwining the philosophical connotations of right and wrong to that particular technology without a context. A technology may be designed such that a wrong use is easy, but it still requires an actor to use the tool inappropriately. Take a scalpel for example, a very short and sharp knife, deadly in the wrong hands, but in another pair of hands it can heal. It's all in the context of use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While the intended purpose of the technology is closely tied to its use do not make the mistake of entwining the philosophical connotations of right and wrong to that particular technology without a context .
A technology may be designed such that a wrong use is easy , but it still requires an actor to use the tool inappropriately .
Take a scalpel for example , a very short and sharp knife , deadly in the wrong hands , but in another pair of hands it can heal .
It 's all in the context of use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While the intended purpose of the technology is closely tied to its use do not make the mistake of entwining the philosophical connotations of right and wrong to that particular technology without a context.
A technology may be designed such that a wrong use is easy, but it still requires an actor to use the tool inappropriately.
Take a scalpel for example, a very short and sharp knife, deadly in the wrong hands, but in another pair of hands it can heal.
It's all in the context of use.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28422067</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28433107</id>
	<title>Re:Like the Nazis</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245681960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a middle ground</p><p>If you know the tool will be used for bad, don't sell<br>If you know the tool will be used for good, sell</p><p>If you don't know what the tool will be used for then<br>a) If you have no strong reason to believe it will be used for bad, sell<br>b) you have strong reason to believe it will be used for bad, don't sell</p><p>It is simple really</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a middle groundIf you know the tool will be used for bad , do n't sellIf you know the tool will be used for good , sellIf you do n't know what the tool will be used for thena ) If you have no strong reason to believe it will be used for bad , sellb ) you have strong reason to believe it will be used for bad , do n't sellIt is simple really</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a middle groundIf you know the tool will be used for bad, don't sellIf you know the tool will be used for good, sellIf you don't know what the tool will be used for thena) If you have no strong reason to believe it will be used for bad, sellb) you have strong reason to believe it will be used for bad, don't sellIt is simple really</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421369</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28422003</id>
	<title>Re:Hell NO! They'll Probably Use As A Selling Poin</title>
	<author>andy1307</author>
	<datestamp>1245685080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>here comes the obligatory AC CCP troll with the "things are the same in the US" BS....</htmltext>
<tokenext>here comes the obligatory AC CCP troll with the " things are the same in the US " BS... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>here comes the obligatory AC CCP troll with the "things are the same in the US" BS....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420845</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28425157</id>
	<title>Re:More propaganda</title>
	<author>Bigjeff5</author>
	<datestamp>1245695700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>is there any *good* use for that equipment?</p></div><p>It's the same technology used for Qality of Service in any large network, as well as monitoring and preventing network attacks.  I would say there are far more positive uses than negative.</p><p>It's also not amazing technology either, networks operate via protocols, which by definition must be known in order for communication to occur.  If the protocol is known, the data inside the protocol can be extracted and inspected.  Routing actually works by reading the first few frames of an IP packet, which contain source and destination information, and sending the packet on the appropriate route.  DPI is nothing more than having the router (or any device attached to the network) move beyond the first few frames and look at the encapsulated data itself.</p><p>Any high end router is capable of contextual packet prioritization (all the way down to blockage) and redirection.  It is used in school networks, corporate networks, library networks, etc.  It is REQUIRED for any sort of quality network management.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>is there any * good * use for that equipment ? It 's the same technology used for Qality of Service in any large network , as well as monitoring and preventing network attacks .
I would say there are far more positive uses than negative.It 's also not amazing technology either , networks operate via protocols , which by definition must be known in order for communication to occur .
If the protocol is known , the data inside the protocol can be extracted and inspected .
Routing actually works by reading the first few frames of an IP packet , which contain source and destination information , and sending the packet on the appropriate route .
DPI is nothing more than having the router ( or any device attached to the network ) move beyond the first few frames and look at the encapsulated data itself.Any high end router is capable of contextual packet prioritization ( all the way down to blockage ) and redirection .
It is used in school networks , corporate networks , library networks , etc .
It is REQUIRED for any sort of quality network management .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is there any *good* use for that equipment?It's the same technology used for Qality of Service in any large network, as well as monitoring and preventing network attacks.
I would say there are far more positive uses than negative.It's also not amazing technology either, networks operate via protocols, which by definition must be known in order for communication to occur.
If the protocol is known, the data inside the protocol can be extracted and inspected.
Routing actually works by reading the first few frames of an IP packet, which contain source and destination information, and sending the packet on the appropriate route.
DPI is nothing more than having the router (or any device attached to the network) move beyond the first few frames and look at the encapsulated data itself.Any high end router is capable of contextual packet prioritization (all the way down to blockage) and redirection.
It is used in school networks, corporate networks, library networks, etc.
It is REQUIRED for any sort of quality network management.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420741</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421023</id>
	<title>Re:it's the kind of world we live in !</title>
	<author>Zontar\_Thing\_From\_Ve</author>
	<datestamp>1245681780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>These are capitalist corporations. Their goal is to make money. People are willing to buy censorship technology (just look at any government office). Why do you act shocked that this is happening?</p></div><p>Good point.  Unfortunately if Nokia and Siemens didn't sell it, somebody else would.  Nokia surprises me, but not Siemens.  The Germans have always loved money and they have no ethical problems with doing business with unfriendly states.  I can remember back when Ronald Reagan was president that there were issues with German companies that made illegal or quasi-illegal deals with various unfriendly nations just to make a little money, so this kind of thing has gone on for some time.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>These are capitalist corporations .
Their goal is to make money .
People are willing to buy censorship technology ( just look at any government office ) .
Why do you act shocked that this is happening ? Good point .
Unfortunately if Nokia and Siemens did n't sell it , somebody else would .
Nokia surprises me , but not Siemens .
The Germans have always loved money and they have no ethical problems with doing business with unfriendly states .
I can remember back when Ronald Reagan was president that there were issues with German companies that made illegal or quasi-illegal deals with various unfriendly nations just to make a little money , so this kind of thing has gone on for some time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These are capitalist corporations.
Their goal is to make money.
People are willing to buy censorship technology (just look at any government office).
Why do you act shocked that this is happening?Good point.
Unfortunately if Nokia and Siemens didn't sell it, somebody else would.
Nokia surprises me, but not Siemens.
The Germans have always loved money and they have no ethical problems with doing business with unfriendly states.
I can remember back when Ronald Reagan was president that there were issues with German companies that made illegal or quasi-illegal deals with various unfriendly nations just to make a little money, so this kind of thing has gone on for some time.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420469</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420495</id>
	<title>move along</title>
	<author>HaymarketRiot</author>
	<datestamp>1245679620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>People, in general, don't know or care enough about the situation in Iran to warrant any kind of significant response to this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>People , in general , do n't know or care enough about the situation in Iran to warrant any kind of significant response to this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People, in general, don't know or care enough about the situation in Iran to warrant any kind of significant response to this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421883</id>
	<title>Re:Let Their Big Friend in the Sky Help Them</title>
	<author>cathars1s</author>
	<datestamp>1245684720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wasn't aware Edison stole the soul-saving machine from Tesla as well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was n't aware Edison stole the soul-saving machine from Tesla as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wasn't aware Edison stole the soul-saving machine from Tesla as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420589</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420515</id>
	<title>And weapons...</title>
	<author>torrija</author>
	<datestamp>1245679740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>first we should stop selling them weapons.</htmltext>
<tokenext>first we should stop selling them weapons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>first we should stop selling them weapons.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420741</id>
	<title>Re:More propaganda</title>
	<author>R2.0</author>
	<datestamp>1245680700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are using those phrases out of context (although the second one is BS).  The equipment they sold them is for deep packet inspection - is there any *good* use for that equipment?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are using those phrases out of context ( although the second one is BS ) .
The equipment they sold them is for deep packet inspection - is there any * good * use for that equipment ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are using those phrases out of context (although the second one is BS).
The equipment they sold them is for deep packet inspection - is there any *good* use for that equipment?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420497</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421317</id>
	<title>technically iran is not dictatorship</title>
	<author>Atreide</author>
	<datestamp>1245682800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>well technically Iran is a democracy<br>with democratic elections<br>and president elected by people.</p><p>obviously there are problems<br>and problems with ballot counting,<br>however Florida also had ballots accounting problem...</p><p>I do not say Iran is a happy place to live<br>but it is more open than many think.</p><p>do you think manifestations would happen in North Corea ?<br>do you think people would be able to play WoW or use Twitter in many Burma ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>well technically Iran is a democracywith democratic electionsand president elected by people.obviously there are problemsand problems with ballot counting,however Florida also had ballots accounting problem...I do not say Iran is a happy place to livebut it is more open than many think.do you think manifestations would happen in North Corea ? do you think people would be able to play WoW or use Twitter in many Burma ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>well technically Iran is a democracywith democratic electionsand president elected by people.obviously there are problemsand problems with ballot counting,however Florida also had ballots accounting problem...I do not say Iran is a happy place to livebut it is more open than many think.do you think manifestations would happen in North Corea ?do you think people would be able to play WoW or use Twitter in many Burma ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421527</id>
	<title>Re:Let Their Big Friend in the Sky Help Them</title>
	<author>moose\_hp</author>
	<datestamp>1245683460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>[...] Louis Pasteur [...]</p></div><p><div class="quote"><p>Years ago, a student in Paris, on his way to the university, hopped on the train and found an empty seat next to an elderly man. As the train moved off, the student noticed that the old man was praying the rosary. Watching him for a while out of the corner of his eye, he finally blurted out, "Excuse me, sir, but I couldn't help but notice what you are doing, and I wonder if you are aware how superstitious and old-fashioned it is." "Oh, really?" replied the old man, "Tell me more." "I have to get off at the next stop," replied the student, "but just give me your name and address, and I will send you some books that will explain what I mean." As the train came to a halt, the man wrote his name and address on a scrap of paper and handed it to the student, who stuffed it in his pocket and hurried off. Later in the day, the student remembered the scrap of paper, took it from his pocket, and opened it. Reading the name scribbled on it, he was dumbfounded: "Louis Pasteur." To his dismay, he realized that he had been talking to a famous scientist, known the world over for his achievements in the field of bacteriology.</p> </div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ ... ] Louis Pasteur [ ... ] Years ago , a student in Paris , on his way to the university , hopped on the train and found an empty seat next to an elderly man .
As the train moved off , the student noticed that the old man was praying the rosary .
Watching him for a while out of the corner of his eye , he finally blurted out , " Excuse me , sir , but I could n't help but notice what you are doing , and I wonder if you are aware how superstitious and old-fashioned it is .
" " Oh , really ?
" replied the old man , " Tell me more .
" " I have to get off at the next stop , " replied the student , " but just give me your name and address , and I will send you some books that will explain what I mean .
" As the train came to a halt , the man wrote his name and address on a scrap of paper and handed it to the student , who stuffed it in his pocket and hurried off .
Later in the day , the student remembered the scrap of paper , took it from his pocket , and opened it .
Reading the name scribbled on it , he was dumbfounded : " Louis Pasteur .
" To his dismay , he realized that he had been talking to a famous scientist , known the world over for his achievements in the field of bacteriology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[...] Louis Pasteur [...]Years ago, a student in Paris, on his way to the university, hopped on the train and found an empty seat next to an elderly man.
As the train moved off, the student noticed that the old man was praying the rosary.
Watching him for a while out of the corner of his eye, he finally blurted out, "Excuse me, sir, but I couldn't help but notice what you are doing, and I wonder if you are aware how superstitious and old-fashioned it is.
" "Oh, really?
" replied the old man, "Tell me more.
" "I have to get off at the next stop," replied the student, "but just give me your name and address, and I will send you some books that will explain what I mean.
" As the train came to a halt, the man wrote his name and address on a scrap of paper and handed it to the student, who stuffed it in his pocket and hurried off.
Later in the day, the student remembered the scrap of paper, took it from his pocket, and opened it.
Reading the name scribbled on it, he was dumbfounded: "Louis Pasteur.
" To his dismay, he realized that he had been talking to a famous scientist, known the world over for his achievements in the field of bacteriology. 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420589</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420445</id>
	<title>Not unless...</title>
	<author>Hyppy</author>
	<datestamp>1245679380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>There won't be any PR damage, unless people make a huge stink out of it.<br>It's not like the world will wake up and think of them as "evil" unless they're told to think of them that way.<br>This is a good time for another couple companies to step in and blast away.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There wo n't be any PR damage , unless people make a huge stink out of it.It 's not like the world will wake up and think of them as " evil " unless they 're told to think of them that way.This is a good time for another couple companies to step in and blast away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There won't be any PR damage, unless people make a huge stink out of it.It's not like the world will wake up and think of them as "evil" unless they're told to think of them that way.This is a good time for another couple companies to step in and blast away.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28423447</id>
	<title>TFA is awfully naive</title>
	<author>Runaway1956</author>
	<datestamp>1245689820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are scores of articles on the news, in just the past 6 months, about FREE DEMOCRATIC NATIONS implementing censorship.  The fact that Iran censors something that those same nations think should be freely broadcast changes nothing.  The UK, the US, Australia, and Germany lead the list, with thousands upon thousands of sites that they want censored.</p><p>World attention is focused on Iran's censorship at the moment, but give it a few weeks, and 99\% of the world's population will have their heads in the sand again, oblivious to the fact that their own government is quietly encroaching on their own rights.</p><p>Ignorance, hypocrisy, and stupidity all rolled up into one.</p><p>But, think of the children.</p><p>Good God, this whole mess makes me sick.</p><p>Don't get me wrong, people, I abhor child pornography.  It would make me very happy to never see one single image of CP on the darkwebs again.  But, in the process of getting those people off the web, almost all of us are willing to abdicate our own rights.  Ten, fifteen, twenty years from now, what we see happening in Iran may well happen again in the United States, or Canada, or perhaps even in an EU-wide election.  Simply because we are quietly surrendering our rights to the meatheads who want to control us.</p><p>Sorry, people, but I can't get on the bandwagon condemning Iran's government, when almost every idiot around me, almost every idiot on the internet, is happy to see our own governments moving in the same direction.</p><p>At the same time, I have the utmost respect for those activists who have quashed legislation in Australia and other places in recent months.  Even though I suspect that those laws will return next month, or next year, to be adopted by a lackadaisical population.</p><p>Oppression.  It's not just an Iranian or a Korean problem.  Wake up, everyone.  If you don't like what you see in Iran, WRITE YOUR CONGRESSMAN (or minister, or whatever name you use for the same thing) AND TELL THEM ABOUT IT!!!  Check pending legislation in your own home state and country.  Send a dozen letters, to anyone and everyone who has any voice, or any influence with the voices.  Tell them that you don't want to be the next Iran.</p><p>Censorship is censorship - even in those rare instances when I think I might approve of it being used against some select group, the censorship is still a tool of government used to oppress a group it disapproves of.</p><p>Get off your asses, and make your voices heard where it counts.  In your own government!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are scores of articles on the news , in just the past 6 months , about FREE DEMOCRATIC NATIONS implementing censorship .
The fact that Iran censors something that those same nations think should be freely broadcast changes nothing .
The UK , the US , Australia , and Germany lead the list , with thousands upon thousands of sites that they want censored.World attention is focused on Iran 's censorship at the moment , but give it a few weeks , and 99 \ % of the world 's population will have their heads in the sand again , oblivious to the fact that their own government is quietly encroaching on their own rights.Ignorance , hypocrisy , and stupidity all rolled up into one.But , think of the children.Good God , this whole mess makes me sick.Do n't get me wrong , people , I abhor child pornography .
It would make me very happy to never see one single image of CP on the darkwebs again .
But , in the process of getting those people off the web , almost all of us are willing to abdicate our own rights .
Ten , fifteen , twenty years from now , what we see happening in Iran may well happen again in the United States , or Canada , or perhaps even in an EU-wide election .
Simply because we are quietly surrendering our rights to the meatheads who want to control us.Sorry , people , but I ca n't get on the bandwagon condemning Iran 's government , when almost every idiot around me , almost every idiot on the internet , is happy to see our own governments moving in the same direction.At the same time , I have the utmost respect for those activists who have quashed legislation in Australia and other places in recent months .
Even though I suspect that those laws will return next month , or next year , to be adopted by a lackadaisical population.Oppression .
It 's not just an Iranian or a Korean problem .
Wake up , everyone .
If you do n't like what you see in Iran , WRITE YOUR CONGRESSMAN ( or minister , or whatever name you use for the same thing ) AND TELL THEM ABOUT IT ! ! !
Check pending legislation in your own home state and country .
Send a dozen letters , to anyone and everyone who has any voice , or any influence with the voices .
Tell them that you do n't want to be the next Iran.Censorship is censorship - even in those rare instances when I think I might approve of it being used against some select group , the censorship is still a tool of government used to oppress a group it disapproves of.Get off your asses , and make your voices heard where it counts .
In your own government !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are scores of articles on the news, in just the past 6 months, about FREE DEMOCRATIC NATIONS implementing censorship.
The fact that Iran censors something that those same nations think should be freely broadcast changes nothing.
The UK, the US, Australia, and Germany lead the list, with thousands upon thousands of sites that they want censored.World attention is focused on Iran's censorship at the moment, but give it a few weeks, and 99\% of the world's population will have their heads in the sand again, oblivious to the fact that their own government is quietly encroaching on their own rights.Ignorance, hypocrisy, and stupidity all rolled up into one.But, think of the children.Good God, this whole mess makes me sick.Don't get me wrong, people, I abhor child pornography.
It would make me very happy to never see one single image of CP on the darkwebs again.
But, in the process of getting those people off the web, almost all of us are willing to abdicate our own rights.
Ten, fifteen, twenty years from now, what we see happening in Iran may well happen again in the United States, or Canada, or perhaps even in an EU-wide election.
Simply because we are quietly surrendering our rights to the meatheads who want to control us.Sorry, people, but I can't get on the bandwagon condemning Iran's government, when almost every idiot around me, almost every idiot on the internet, is happy to see our own governments moving in the same direction.At the same time, I have the utmost respect for those activists who have quashed legislation in Australia and other places in recent months.
Even though I suspect that those laws will return next month, or next year, to be adopted by a lackadaisical population.Oppression.
It's not just an Iranian or a Korean problem.
Wake up, everyone.
If you don't like what you see in Iran, WRITE YOUR CONGRESSMAN (or minister, or whatever name you use for the same thing) AND TELL THEM ABOUT IT!!!
Check pending legislation in your own home state and country.
Send a dozen letters, to anyone and everyone who has any voice, or any influence with the voices.
Tell them that you don't want to be the next Iran.Censorship is censorship - even in those rare instances when I think I might approve of it being used against some select group, the censorship is still a tool of government used to oppress a group it disapproves of.Get off your asses, and make your voices heard where it counts.
In your own government!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28422799</id>
	<title>Can you say 'Lawful Interception'?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245687660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Full disclosure: I work for NSN.</p><p>The system in question is explicitly designed to provide access to Lawful Interception functions of various communication technologies (fixed-line, mobile, internet). The emphasis here is firmly placed on the 'Lawful Interception' part - the state of Iran has a lawful right of interception in the same way as the other states have the right. We're talking violent drunken abusive husband threatening battered wife by telephone and being monitored by the police to assist in the legal due process. That's a positive case. Suppression of free speech following dodgy elections in Iran is the negative case. The technology should not be seen as the villain here.</p><p>Anyway, NSN won the business under a competitive tender. Had it not made the sale the state of Iran would have purchased the equivalent from somebody else...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Full disclosure : I work for NSN.The system in question is explicitly designed to provide access to Lawful Interception functions of various communication technologies ( fixed-line , mobile , internet ) .
The emphasis here is firmly placed on the 'Lawful Interception ' part - the state of Iran has a lawful right of interception in the same way as the other states have the right .
We 're talking violent drunken abusive husband threatening battered wife by telephone and being monitored by the police to assist in the legal due process .
That 's a positive case .
Suppression of free speech following dodgy elections in Iran is the negative case .
The technology should not be seen as the villain here.Anyway , NSN won the business under a competitive tender .
Had it not made the sale the state of Iran would have purchased the equivalent from somebody else.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Full disclosure: I work for NSN.The system in question is explicitly designed to provide access to Lawful Interception functions of various communication technologies (fixed-line, mobile, internet).
The emphasis here is firmly placed on the 'Lawful Interception' part - the state of Iran has a lawful right of interception in the same way as the other states have the right.
We're talking violent drunken abusive husband threatening battered wife by telephone and being monitored by the police to assist in the legal due process.
That's a positive case.
Suppression of free speech following dodgy elections in Iran is the negative case.
The technology should not be seen as the villain here.Anyway, NSN won the business under a competitive tender.
Had it not made the sale the state of Iran would have purchased the equivalent from somebody else...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28427871</id>
	<title>SNL</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245661680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>SNL needs to do a spoof ad about this.  "Nokia.  Because despots deserve control."  or whatever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>SNL needs to do a spoof ad about this .
" Nokia. Because despots deserve control .
" or whatever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SNL needs to do a spoof ad about this.
"Nokia.  Because despots deserve control.
"  or whatever.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28437265</id>
	<title>Like the saying goes...</title>
	<author>Omniskio</author>
	<datestamp>1245763080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Censoring technology doesn't censor people, people censor people!"</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Censoring technology does n't censor people , people censor people !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Censoring technology doesn't censor people, people censor people!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420893</id>
	<title>Re:More propaganda</title>
	<author>frodo from middle ea</author>
	<datestamp>1245681240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seriously, Why blame the technology ? I mean don't we use the same argument when defending bittorrent?<p> It's not the technology it's the people who put it to use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , Why blame the technology ?
I mean do n't we use the same argument when defending bittorrent ?
It 's not the technology it 's the people who put it to use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, Why blame the technology ?
I mean don't we use the same argument when defending bittorrent?
It's not the technology it's the people who put it to use.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420497</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420749</id>
	<title>Re:More propaganda</title>
	<author>Sockatume</author>
	<datestamp>1245680760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm sure that Iran would rather Nokia had never sold them network infrastructure in the first place, the way it's turned out.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure that Iran would rather Nokia had never sold them network infrastructure in the first place , the way it 's turned out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure that Iran would rather Nokia had never sold them network infrastructure in the first place, the way it's turned out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420497</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28424263</id>
	<title>Re:Like the Nazis</title>
	<author>Artifakt</author>
	<datestamp>1245692640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>US law does assume some restrictions - like prohibiting gun dealers from selling to people who are known to be mentally ill or have prior felony convictions. Blaming Nokia or Seimens could be reasonable in principle, IF there was a general consensus that the government of Iran was the equivalent of a mentally ill person or a criminal. I don't see how we could claim to know, in advance of this election, that Iran would try to cook the books this way, so criminal could be a stretch. The US has also had a tendency to label a whole bunch of leaders we don't like as mental (Pre-war Iraq, North Korea, Cuba, etc.). We've probably thrown that term around too much to make it stick here either. The waters are just muddied enough that I wouldn't feel comfortable blaming the companies here. It does seem at least possible that there's things said between the companies and the government of Iran that could change this though.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; This is why I'd like to see the US government take the ethical high ground. If it doesn't continue to label every dictator it disagrees with a nutjob, maybe its power of moral suasion might become great enough to get more companies to "not be evil", in the sense Google claims to mean those words.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>US law does assume some restrictions - like prohibiting gun dealers from selling to people who are known to be mentally ill or have prior felony convictions .
Blaming Nokia or Seimens could be reasonable in principle , IF there was a general consensus that the government of Iran was the equivalent of a mentally ill person or a criminal .
I do n't see how we could claim to know , in advance of this election , that Iran would try to cook the books this way , so criminal could be a stretch .
The US has also had a tendency to label a whole bunch of leaders we do n't like as mental ( Pre-war Iraq , North Korea , Cuba , etc. ) .
We 've probably thrown that term around too much to make it stick here either .
The waters are just muddied enough that I would n't feel comfortable blaming the companies here .
It does seem at least possible that there 's things said between the companies and the government of Iran that could change this though .
        This is why I 'd like to see the US government take the ethical high ground .
If it does n't continue to label every dictator it disagrees with a nutjob , maybe its power of moral suasion might become great enough to get more companies to " not be evil " , in the sense Google claims to mean those words .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>US law does assume some restrictions - like prohibiting gun dealers from selling to people who are known to be mentally ill or have prior felony convictions.
Blaming Nokia or Seimens could be reasonable in principle, IF there was a general consensus that the government of Iran was the equivalent of a mentally ill person or a criminal.
I don't see how we could claim to know, in advance of this election, that Iran would try to cook the books this way, so criminal could be a stretch.
The US has also had a tendency to label a whole bunch of leaders we don't like as mental (Pre-war Iraq, North Korea, Cuba, etc.).
We've probably thrown that term around too much to make it stick here either.
The waters are just muddied enough that I wouldn't feel comfortable blaming the companies here.
It does seem at least possible that there's things said between the companies and the government of Iran that could change this though.
        This is why I'd like to see the US government take the ethical high ground.
If it doesn't continue to label every dictator it disagrees with a nutjob, maybe its power of moral suasion might become great enough to get more companies to "not be evil", in the sense Google claims to mean those words.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421369</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421029</id>
	<title>No</title>
	<author>jandersen</author>
	<datestamp>1245681840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Do you believe that the public relation damage to these companies can persuade them from selling this kind of technology to other dictatorial regimes?</p></div><p>Of course not.</p><p>And once again it is time for people to make up their minds - isn't it a basic tenet of Capitalism that the only thing that should concern the employees of a company is to maximize profit? That, in a word, if selling drugs to teenagers, weapons to mercenaries or technology to dictators gives the best profit, then it is your moral duty to do so?</p><p>Ok, ok, so maybe I exaggerate a bit, but I do get tired of hearing these so called "freedom advocates" on one hand tell us how they hate government, any and all government, while on the other hand they feel compelled to tell others off for not being "moral".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you believe that the public relation damage to these companies can persuade them from selling this kind of technology to other dictatorial regimes ? Of course not.And once again it is time for people to make up their minds - is n't it a basic tenet of Capitalism that the only thing that should concern the employees of a company is to maximize profit ?
That , in a word , if selling drugs to teenagers , weapons to mercenaries or technology to dictators gives the best profit , then it is your moral duty to do so ? Ok , ok , so maybe I exaggerate a bit , but I do get tired of hearing these so called " freedom advocates " on one hand tell us how they hate government , any and all government , while on the other hand they feel compelled to tell others off for not being " moral " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you believe that the public relation damage to these companies can persuade them from selling this kind of technology to other dictatorial regimes?Of course not.And once again it is time for people to make up their minds - isn't it a basic tenet of Capitalism that the only thing that should concern the employees of a company is to maximize profit?
That, in a word, if selling drugs to teenagers, weapons to mercenaries or technology to dictators gives the best profit, then it is your moral duty to do so?Ok, ok, so maybe I exaggerate a bit, but I do get tired of hearing these so called "freedom advocates" on one hand tell us how they hate government, any and all government, while on the other hand they feel compelled to tell others off for not being "moral".
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28425609</id>
	<title>Re:Hell NO! They'll Probably Use As A Selling Poin</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245697140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just read a conspiracy theory. Nokia was the main reason why Finnish legislators ran through a law which enables companies, universities, housing cooperative etc. etc. to spy users activity on net. Law broadly talks about "header information" but doesn't describe which header (IP, TCP, HTTP etc.). And what's the most evil about it, companies doesn't even have to have court order for this. Law is aptly named LexNokia in Finnish local news.</p><p>Now NSN is selling spieng equipment/software/whatever to Iran. Some sources says that this is beta test to polish out small bugs and such. After Iran the technology is supposed to be sold all over the world and most certainly to Finnish companies willing to spy on their employees.</p><p>This is continum to the rumours why digi TV was brought so hastily to Finland. Nokia had manufactured a heck load of digi TV boxes in store and it needed buyer for those. Nokia wrestled this current digi format to Finland using it's relationships to the government, sold it's stores empty and quit digibox business.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just read a conspiracy theory .
Nokia was the main reason why Finnish legislators ran through a law which enables companies , universities , housing cooperative etc .
etc. to spy users activity on net .
Law broadly talks about " header information " but does n't describe which header ( IP , TCP , HTTP etc. ) .
And what 's the most evil about it , companies does n't even have to have court order for this .
Law is aptly named LexNokia in Finnish local news.Now NSN is selling spieng equipment/software/whatever to Iran .
Some sources says that this is beta test to polish out small bugs and such .
After Iran the technology is supposed to be sold all over the world and most certainly to Finnish companies willing to spy on their employees.This is continum to the rumours why digi TV was brought so hastily to Finland .
Nokia had manufactured a heck load of digi TV boxes in store and it needed buyer for those .
Nokia wrestled this current digi format to Finland using it 's relationships to the government , sold it 's stores empty and quit digibox business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just read a conspiracy theory.
Nokia was the main reason why Finnish legislators ran through a law which enables companies, universities, housing cooperative etc.
etc. to spy users activity on net.
Law broadly talks about "header information" but doesn't describe which header (IP, TCP, HTTP etc.).
And what's the most evil about it, companies doesn't even have to have court order for this.
Law is aptly named LexNokia in Finnish local news.Now NSN is selling spieng equipment/software/whatever to Iran.
Some sources says that this is beta test to polish out small bugs and such.
After Iran the technology is supposed to be sold all over the world and most certainly to Finnish companies willing to spy on their employees.This is continum to the rumours why digi TV was brought so hastily to Finland.
Nokia had manufactured a heck load of digi TV boxes in store and it needed buyer for those.
Nokia wrestled this current digi format to Finland using it's relationships to the government, sold it's stores empty and quit digibox business.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420425</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28424093</id>
	<title>Re:Hell NO! They'll Probably Use As A Selling Poin</title>
	<author>Bigjeff5</author>
	<datestamp>1245692040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll bite.</p><p>"Free market" forces don't deal with Tyrants, and they shouldn't.  That is the responsibility of the oppressed.  Lasting change won't come about externaly, it must happen internally.  Note Afghanistan and Iraq, which we attacked for our own interests.  If those had both been civil wars, triggered internally, the countries would probably be well on their way to their own freedom instead of being "iffy" like they are now.</p><p>Oppressed countries don't have free markets, they have tyrants stealing the majority of what they produce to further oppress the people.  If a tyrant allowed the markets in his country to be open and free, guess what would happen.  That's right, they'd have vastly greater liberty!  You probably wouldn't be able to call the leader a "tyrant" or a "despot" either.  It would be more like "benevolent ruler", because freedom to trade requires a few things, like freedom of speech (in a practical sense, not a bill of rights sense), freedom to travel, etc.  These breed other freedoms that these rely on, and pretty soon the government, regardless of what kind of government it is, becomes a smaller and smaller part of life.</p><p>Free markets on a global scale don't take into account the internal market of a country, other than in the sense that there are avenues of trade that simply will not exist into or out of an oppressed country.  That doesn't mean there will be NO avenues of trade, just fewer and they will be controlled by the government.</p><p>To flip the whole thing around, you can't have complete liberty if you don't have the freedom to trade.  If you aren't free to trade to whoever you want, whenever you want, then you aren't completely free.</p><p>That said, complete freedom produces incivility and is counter productive.  If it were possible to give everyone in the world 100\% liberty, you'd have a perfect world for all of about 10 seconds, probably less.  It would immediately degenerate into anarchy, which only provides freedom for those who can take it by force.  In a sense, even they aren't free.</p><p>Ideally the governments role should be to maximise the individual liberties of its citizens.  This requires restrictions on interactions between people, but only for the purposes preventing the imposition of another's will on the individual.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>In fact, the result of any "free market" will always be a corporatocracy or at least a close working relationship between widespread tyrannical governments and the most powerful corporations.</p></div><p>It's not a free market if the government prevents individuals from competing.  Assuming the "tyrannical government" is not preventing individuals from getting together and competing with the large corporation, in a free market system the corporation topples when becomes less efficient than what a smaller group of individuals can produce.  This can take some time, but it always happens.</p><p>Look at the banking and insurance industry, that big crash? That was the market self adjusting, attempting to eliminate the "most powerful corporations" when they pushed the market too far.  And what did socialism do? It went in and rescued them, taking billions of dollars from the citizens to shore up the corporations.  The market can't eliminate a corporation if the government props them up!</p><p><div class="quote"><p> Further (and this is a slightly different issue) Capitalism will always result in some form of slavery.</p></div><p>If you want to see slavery (which occurs based on the morals head of society, and has nothing to do with the market) on a mass scale, go take a look at the USSR and their Communism.  You were told where to work, when to work, what you got, and any attempt to change this made you a criminal.  You'd sure as hell better stay in line, or the KGB will come take you away.  China was the same way when they attempted to go pure Communist, but had to re-introduce captitalism or face collapse.  If Communism, the only alternative socio-economic ideology, is so great, why does the Chinese government have to block access to information about the outside world?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll bite .
" Free market " forces do n't deal with Tyrants , and they should n't .
That is the responsibility of the oppressed .
Lasting change wo n't come about externaly , it must happen internally .
Note Afghanistan and Iraq , which we attacked for our own interests .
If those had both been civil wars , triggered internally , the countries would probably be well on their way to their own freedom instead of being " iffy " like they are now.Oppressed countries do n't have free markets , they have tyrants stealing the majority of what they produce to further oppress the people .
If a tyrant allowed the markets in his country to be open and free , guess what would happen .
That 's right , they 'd have vastly greater liberty !
You probably would n't be able to call the leader a " tyrant " or a " despot " either .
It would be more like " benevolent ruler " , because freedom to trade requires a few things , like freedom of speech ( in a practical sense , not a bill of rights sense ) , freedom to travel , etc .
These breed other freedoms that these rely on , and pretty soon the government , regardless of what kind of government it is , becomes a smaller and smaller part of life.Free markets on a global scale do n't take into account the internal market of a country , other than in the sense that there are avenues of trade that simply will not exist into or out of an oppressed country .
That does n't mean there will be NO avenues of trade , just fewer and they will be controlled by the government.To flip the whole thing around , you ca n't have complete liberty if you do n't have the freedom to trade .
If you are n't free to trade to whoever you want , whenever you want , then you are n't completely free.That said , complete freedom produces incivility and is counter productive .
If it were possible to give everyone in the world 100 \ % liberty , you 'd have a perfect world for all of about 10 seconds , probably less .
It would immediately degenerate into anarchy , which only provides freedom for those who can take it by force .
In a sense , even they are n't free.Ideally the governments role should be to maximise the individual liberties of its citizens .
This requires restrictions on interactions between people , but only for the purposes preventing the imposition of another 's will on the individual.In fact , the result of any " free market " will always be a corporatocracy or at least a close working relationship between widespread tyrannical governments and the most powerful corporations.It 's not a free market if the government prevents individuals from competing .
Assuming the " tyrannical government " is not preventing individuals from getting together and competing with the large corporation , in a free market system the corporation topples when becomes less efficient than what a smaller group of individuals can produce .
This can take some time , but it always happens.Look at the banking and insurance industry , that big crash ?
That was the market self adjusting , attempting to eliminate the " most powerful corporations " when they pushed the market too far .
And what did socialism do ?
It went in and rescued them , taking billions of dollars from the citizens to shore up the corporations .
The market ca n't eliminate a corporation if the government props them up !
Further ( and this is a slightly different issue ) Capitalism will always result in some form of slavery.If you want to see slavery ( which occurs based on the morals head of society , and has nothing to do with the market ) on a mass scale , go take a look at the USSR and their Communism .
You were told where to work , when to work , what you got , and any attempt to change this made you a criminal .
You 'd sure as hell better stay in line , or the KGB will come take you away .
China was the same way when they attempted to go pure Communist , but had to re-introduce captitalism or face collapse .
If Communism , the only alternative socio-economic ideology , is so great , why does the Chinese government have to block access to information about the outside world ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll bite.
"Free market" forces don't deal with Tyrants, and they shouldn't.
That is the responsibility of the oppressed.
Lasting change won't come about externaly, it must happen internally.
Note Afghanistan and Iraq, which we attacked for our own interests.
If those had both been civil wars, triggered internally, the countries would probably be well on their way to their own freedom instead of being "iffy" like they are now.Oppressed countries don't have free markets, they have tyrants stealing the majority of what they produce to further oppress the people.
If a tyrant allowed the markets in his country to be open and free, guess what would happen.
That's right, they'd have vastly greater liberty!
You probably wouldn't be able to call the leader a "tyrant" or a "despot" either.
It would be more like "benevolent ruler", because freedom to trade requires a few things, like freedom of speech (in a practical sense, not a bill of rights sense), freedom to travel, etc.
These breed other freedoms that these rely on, and pretty soon the government, regardless of what kind of government it is, becomes a smaller and smaller part of life.Free markets on a global scale don't take into account the internal market of a country, other than in the sense that there are avenues of trade that simply will not exist into or out of an oppressed country.
That doesn't mean there will be NO avenues of trade, just fewer and they will be controlled by the government.To flip the whole thing around, you can't have complete liberty if you don't have the freedom to trade.
If you aren't free to trade to whoever you want, whenever you want, then you aren't completely free.That said, complete freedom produces incivility and is counter productive.
If it were possible to give everyone in the world 100\% liberty, you'd have a perfect world for all of about 10 seconds, probably less.
It would immediately degenerate into anarchy, which only provides freedom for those who can take it by force.
In a sense, even they aren't free.Ideally the governments role should be to maximise the individual liberties of its citizens.
This requires restrictions on interactions between people, but only for the purposes preventing the imposition of another's will on the individual.In fact, the result of any "free market" will always be a corporatocracy or at least a close working relationship between widespread tyrannical governments and the most powerful corporations.It's not a free market if the government prevents individuals from competing.
Assuming the "tyrannical government" is not preventing individuals from getting together and competing with the large corporation, in a free market system the corporation topples when becomes less efficient than what a smaller group of individuals can produce.
This can take some time, but it always happens.Look at the banking and insurance industry, that big crash?
That was the market self adjusting, attempting to eliminate the "most powerful corporations" when they pushed the market too far.
And what did socialism do?
It went in and rescued them, taking billions of dollars from the citizens to shore up the corporations.
The market can't eliminate a corporation if the government props them up!
Further (and this is a slightly different issue) Capitalism will always result in some form of slavery.If you want to see slavery (which occurs based on the morals head of society, and has nothing to do with the market) on a mass scale, go take a look at the USSR and their Communism.
You were told where to work, when to work, what you got, and any attempt to change this made you a criminal.
You'd sure as hell better stay in line, or the KGB will come take you away.
China was the same way when they attempted to go pure Communist, but had to re-introduce captitalism or face collapse.
If Communism, the only alternative socio-economic ideology, is so great, why does the Chinese government have to block access to information about the outside world?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421453</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28426195</id>
	<title>Re:More propaganda</title>
	<author>jfanning</author>
	<datestamp>1245699480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is no deep packet inspection and it is a total beat up. All telecom network equipment supports the ability to wiretap calls, and that is all the NSN network equipment can do as well.</p><p><a href="http://blogs.nokiasiemensnetworks.com/news/2009/06/22/provision-of-lawful-intercept-capability-in-iran/" title="nokiasiemensnetworks.com" rel="nofollow">http://blogs.nokiasiemensnetworks.com/news/2009/06/22/provision-of-lawful-intercept-capability-in-iran/</a> [nokiasiemensnetworks.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no deep packet inspection and it is a total beat up .
All telecom network equipment supports the ability to wiretap calls , and that is all the NSN network equipment can do as well.http : //blogs.nokiasiemensnetworks.com/news/2009/06/22/provision-of-lawful-intercept-capability-in-iran/ [ nokiasiemensnetworks.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no deep packet inspection and it is a total beat up.
All telecom network equipment supports the ability to wiretap calls, and that is all the NSN network equipment can do as well.http://blogs.nokiasiemensnetworks.com/news/2009/06/22/provision-of-lawful-intercept-capability-in-iran/ [nokiasiemensnetworks.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420497</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420845</id>
	<title>Re:Hell NO! They'll Probably Use As A Selling Poin</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245681120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course democracies, like the U.S., would never consider buying deep packet inspection to spy on their own citizens.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course democracies , like the U.S. , would never consider buying deep packet inspection to spy on their own citizens .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course democracies, like the U.S., would never consider buying deep packet inspection to spy on their own citizens.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420425</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421951</id>
	<title>Re:Not unless...</title>
	<author>floop</author>
	<datestamp>1245684960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>An Israeli company produces the underlying software of the only product they could be talking about, <a href="http://www.checkpoint.com/corporate/contact\_list.html" title="checkpoint.com" rel="nofollow">Checkpoint</a> [checkpoint.com].  Maybe that would make a stink with the people that bought it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>An Israeli company produces the underlying software of the only product they could be talking about , Checkpoint [ checkpoint.com ] .
Maybe that would make a stink with the people that bought it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An Israeli company produces the underlying software of the only product they could be talking about, Checkpoint [checkpoint.com].
Maybe that would make a stink with the people that bought it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420445</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28438547</id>
	<title>Re:technically iran is not dictatorship</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245770580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>well technically Iran is a democracy<br>with democratic elections<br>and president elected by people.</p></div><p>Not true since it is the ayatollahs that decides who can run for president, and they have the ultimate power anyway. And in this case they didn't care about the votes, but declared Ahadinejad as the winner even though other candidates got more votes.</p><p>So it is a dictatorship, (a theocracy) that \_pretends\_ to be a democracy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>well technically Iran is a democracywith democratic electionsand president elected by people.Not true since it is the ayatollahs that decides who can run for president , and they have the ultimate power anyway .
And in this case they did n't care about the votes , but declared Ahadinejad as the winner even though other candidates got more votes.So it is a dictatorship , ( a theocracy ) that \ _pretends \ _ to be a democracy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>well technically Iran is a democracywith democratic electionsand president elected by people.Not true since it is the ayatollahs that decides who can run for president, and they have the ultimate power anyway.
And in this case they didn't care about the votes, but declared Ahadinejad as the winner even though other candidates got more votes.So it is a dictatorship, (a theocracy) that \_pretends\_ to be a democracy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421317</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420589</id>
	<title>Let Their Big Friend in the Sky Help Them</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245680040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone who professes to that an imaginary being is responsible for everything is insane and doesn't deserve any benefit of science.  Jonas Salk, Louis Pasteur, Thomas Edison, Galileo Galilei, and the other great minds have saved more souls and advanced humanity further than any Mullah, Pastor, or Priest of any faith.  The Mad Mullahs of Iran don't deserve cell phones or any other bit of technology.<br>Yeah, it's a rant, but I'm just tired of religious nut jobs of any type forcing their superstitions on anyone else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone who professes to that an imaginary being is responsible for everything is insane and does n't deserve any benefit of science .
Jonas Salk , Louis Pasteur , Thomas Edison , Galileo Galilei , and the other great minds have saved more souls and advanced humanity further than any Mullah , Pastor , or Priest of any faith .
The Mad Mullahs of Iran do n't deserve cell phones or any other bit of technology.Yeah , it 's a rant , but I 'm just tired of religious nut jobs of any type forcing their superstitions on anyone else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone who professes to that an imaginary being is responsible for everything is insane and doesn't deserve any benefit of science.
Jonas Salk, Louis Pasteur, Thomas Edison, Galileo Galilei, and the other great minds have saved more souls and advanced humanity further than any Mullah, Pastor, or Priest of any faith.
The Mad Mullahs of Iran don't deserve cell phones or any other bit of technology.Yeah, it's a rant, but I'm just tired of religious nut jobs of any type forcing their superstitions on anyone else.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28429739</id>
	<title>Better Idea</title>
	<author>Prien715</author>
	<datestamp>1245668040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Restrict the sale of technology to that which has legitimate legal uses.</p><p>If you make an anti-AIDs medication, that works, but kills the user 15 days after use, it's not useful to sell. Nuclear weapons?  Is there a legal use for nuclear weapons?  Nope.</p><p>Courts commonly uses this test to determine the legality of technology.  Bittorrent?  Lots of illegal downloaders, but Blizzard uses it as do a lot of Linux distros.  Pass.</p><p>Further, if the developer of a product discovers some risk *cough* death *cough* that can arise from use of their product *cough* cigarettes *cough*, and fail to properly disclose it, they can be sued as well.  *cough*</p><p>Seriously, I ought to quit smoking;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Restrict the sale of technology to that which has legitimate legal uses.If you make an anti-AIDs medication , that works , but kills the user 15 days after use , it 's not useful to sell .
Nuclear weapons ?
Is there a legal use for nuclear weapons ?
Nope.Courts commonly uses this test to determine the legality of technology .
Bittorrent ? Lots of illegal downloaders , but Blizzard uses it as do a lot of Linux distros .
Pass.Further , if the developer of a product discovers some risk * cough * death * cough * that can arise from use of their product * cough * cigarettes * cough * , and fail to properly disclose it , they can be sued as well .
* cough * Seriously , I ought to quit smoking ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Restrict the sale of technology to that which has legitimate legal uses.If you make an anti-AIDs medication, that works, but kills the user 15 days after use, it's not useful to sell.
Nuclear weapons?
Is there a legal use for nuclear weapons?
Nope.Courts commonly uses this test to determine the legality of technology.
Bittorrent?  Lots of illegal downloaders, but Blizzard uses it as do a lot of Linux distros.
Pass.Further, if the developer of a product discovers some risk *cough* death *cough* that can arise from use of their product *cough* cigarettes *cough*, and fail to properly disclose it, they can be sued as well.
*cough*Seriously, I ought to quit smoking;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421369</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28423721</id>
	<title>Re:Like the Nazis</title>
	<author>nametaken</author>
	<datestamp>1245690720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's this commonly accepted practice among techies, and indeed much of academia, where we try so hard to make guidelines that apply to 100\% of all situations.</p><p>You're both right.  Yes, he's right, blame Nazis instead of IBM.  No, you're right, it doesn't make sense to take that rule "to the extreme" and sell nukes to just anyone.  Somewhere in between those two examples, real life happens and we have to make real life decisions.  It's an issue of taking the context into account, and I'm philosophically OK with that.</p><p>It doesn't work for law making, but if we're talking about that kind of thing instead of personal judgments, then you have to walk the treacherous path of intents and prudence.<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's this commonly accepted practice among techies , and indeed much of academia , where we try so hard to make guidelines that apply to 100 \ % of all situations.You 're both right .
Yes , he 's right , blame Nazis instead of IBM .
No , you 're right , it does n't make sense to take that rule " to the extreme " and sell nukes to just anyone .
Somewhere in between those two examples , real life happens and we have to make real life decisions .
It 's an issue of taking the context into account , and I 'm philosophically OK with that.It does n't work for law making , but if we 're talking about that kind of thing instead of personal judgments , then you have to walk the treacherous path of intents and prudence .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's this commonly accepted practice among techies, and indeed much of academia, where we try so hard to make guidelines that apply to 100\% of all situations.You're both right.
Yes, he's right, blame Nazis instead of IBM.
No, you're right, it doesn't make sense to take that rule "to the extreme" and sell nukes to just anyone.
Somewhere in between those two examples, real life happens and we have to make real life decisions.
It's an issue of taking the context into account, and I'm philosophically OK with that.It doesn't work for law making, but if we're talking about that kind of thing instead of personal judgments, then you have to walk the treacherous path of intents and prudence.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421369</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28433935</id>
	<title>boycott nokia seimens facebook page</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245686880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>there is a facebook group to boyocott nokia and seimens</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>there is a facebook group to boyocott nokia and seimens</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there is a facebook group to boyocott nokia and seimens</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420425</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1245205_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420497
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420893
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28424395
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1245205_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420425
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421401
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28426701
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1245205_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420661
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28427771
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1245205_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420425
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420845
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28422003
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1245205_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420445
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28424027
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1245205_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420661
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421369
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28430379
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1245205_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420469
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421023
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421189
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1245205_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420661
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421537
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1245205_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420425
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420845
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28424093
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28426423
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1245205_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420469
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421023
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28422041
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1245205_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421317
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28426111
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1245205_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420661
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420955
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1245205_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28422111
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1245205_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420793
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28422067
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28435665
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1245205_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420497
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420893
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28422047
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1245205_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420661
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28422081
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1245205_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420425
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420845
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28463327
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1245205_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421963
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1245205_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28422159
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1245205_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421317
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28428805
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1245205_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421317
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28425529
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1245205_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421317
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28426589
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1245205_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420661
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28424647
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1245205_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420661
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421369
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28424263
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1245205_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420425
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420939
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1245205_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420469
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421901
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1245205_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421317
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28438547
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1245205_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420445
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421621
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1245205_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420425
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28433935
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1245205_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420497
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28426195
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1245205_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420445
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28422049
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1245205_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421883
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1245205_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420793
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28424547
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1245205_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420425
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420845
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28424093
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28439295
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1245205_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420661
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421093
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1245205_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420445
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420613
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1245205_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420661
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421369
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28427613
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1245205_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420661
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421879
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1245205_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420661
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421369
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28433107
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1245205_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420445
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421951
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1245205_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420661
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421369
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28422827
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1245205_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420469
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420947
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421877
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1245205_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420469
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421947
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1245205_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420661
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421369
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28423721
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1245205_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420425
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421179
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1245205_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420497
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420749
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1245205_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420445
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28422005
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1245205_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420661
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421649
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1245205_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420425
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420845
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28425131
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1245205_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420661
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421369
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28427787
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1245205_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420469
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420947
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421907
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1245205_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420793
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28423219
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1245205_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421527
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1245205_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420425
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28431605
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1245205_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420425
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420845
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28425487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28429311
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28431995
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1245205_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420497
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421135
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1245205_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420497
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420893
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28422169
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1245205_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420425
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28425609
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1245205_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28430097
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1245205_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420469
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421023
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421513
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1245205_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420497
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420741
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28422179
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1245205_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420661
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28428187
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1245205_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420661
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28423841
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1245205_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420497
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420741
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28425157
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1245205_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28427699
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1245205_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420497
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420951
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1245205_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421317
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28445511
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1245205_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420569
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28423025
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1245205_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420661
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421369
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28429739
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1245205.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421303
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1245205.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420531
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421963
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28427699
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28422111
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1245205.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420495
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1245205.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420425
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28431605
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421401
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28426701
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421179
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420845
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28422003
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421453
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28424093
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28426423
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28439295
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28425487
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28429311
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28431995
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28425131
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28463327
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28425609
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28433935
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420939
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1245205.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420589
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421883
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28430097
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421527
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1245205.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420489
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420793
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28423219
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28424547
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28422067
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28435665
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1245205.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420469
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420947
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421877
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421907
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421901
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421947
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421023
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421189
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421513
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28422041
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1245205.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420475
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1245205.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421547
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28422159
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1245205.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420445
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421621
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28422005
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28424027
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421951
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28422049
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420613
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1245205.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420861
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1245205.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420661
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421649
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28428187
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28423841
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421537
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421879
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420955
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28422081
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421093
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421369
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28423721
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28429739
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28430379
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28422827
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28427613
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28427787
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28424263
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28433107
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28424647
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28427771
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1245205.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28422065
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1245205.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421317
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28445511
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28425529
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28438547
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28428805
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28426589
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28426111
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1245205.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421387
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1245205.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420497
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420951
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420749
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420893
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28422047
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28424395
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28422169
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420741
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28425157
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28422179
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28421135
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28426195
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1245205.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28420569
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1245205.28423025
</commentlist>
</conversation>
