<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_06_1429208</id>
	<title>The Mathletes and the Miley Photoshop</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1246893900000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Frequent Slashdot contributor <a href="mailto:bennett@peacefire.org">Bennett Haselton</a>'s essay this week is about
<i>"A Tennessee man is arrested for possessing a picture of Miley Cyrus's face superimposed on a nude woman's body.  In a survey that I posted on the Web, a majority of respondents said the man violated the law -- except for respondents who say they were good at math in school, who as a group answered the survey differently from everyone else."</i>
Continue on to see how.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Frequent Slashdot contributor Bennett Haselton 's essay this week is about " A Tennessee man is arrested for possessing a picture of Miley Cyrus 's face superimposed on a nude woman 's body .
In a survey that I posted on the Web , a majority of respondents said the man violated the law -- except for respondents who say they were good at math in school , who as a group answered the survey differently from everyone else .
" Continue on to see how .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Frequent Slashdot contributor Bennett Haselton's essay this week is about
"A Tennessee man is arrested for possessing a picture of Miley Cyrus's face superimposed on a nude woman's body.
In a survey that I posted on the Web, a majority of respondents said the man violated the law -- except for respondents who say they were good at math in school, who as a group answered the survey differently from everyone else.
"
Continue on to see how.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28596015</id>
	<title>When you have the face of a small child</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246902420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"When you have the face of a small child affixed to a nude body of a mature woman"</p><p>Hmmm<br>What if it was fixed beside the mature ladie's face giving a two headed monster?<br>What if it was attached to the elbow?  The knee?  Completely replacing her crotch?  One copy over each breast like a bikini (so what if you made a real bikini with miley faces and a lady with big breasts wore it?).<br>What if it was attached to the body of a nude mature male?<br>How about a mature nude obese woman?<br>How about a mature very ill woman?<br>How about a *very* mature nude woman (in her 90s?)</p><p>I've seen a lot of frankensteins.  My reaction to them was not sexual-- it was more of a novelty.</p><p>Funny story, a friend of ours always talked about his girlfriend, "X" and yet we never met her.  We finally asserted that "X" was really him.  Finally he brought a picture of him and her to magic the gathering night to *prove* that he had a girlfriend.  While he played his first game, I scanned the picture and frankenstiened his head onto her body.  When someone new showed up, we mentioned that he had brought the picture-- and showed it to the newcomer who broke out laughing-- which prompted him to look at his picture to see why it was so funny.  It was the most amazing exasperated, surprised, amused reaction.  Hysterical.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" When you have the face of a small child affixed to a nude body of a mature woman " HmmmWhat if it was fixed beside the mature ladie 's face giving a two headed monster ? What if it was attached to the elbow ?
The knee ?
Completely replacing her crotch ?
One copy over each breast like a bikini ( so what if you made a real bikini with miley faces and a lady with big breasts wore it ?
) .What if it was attached to the body of a nude mature male ? How about a mature nude obese woman ? How about a mature very ill woman ? How about a * very * mature nude woman ( in her 90s ?
) I 've seen a lot of frankensteins .
My reaction to them was not sexual-- it was more of a novelty.Funny story , a friend of ours always talked about his girlfriend , " X " and yet we never met her .
We finally asserted that " X " was really him .
Finally he brought a picture of him and her to magic the gathering night to * prove * that he had a girlfriend .
While he played his first game , I scanned the picture and frankenstiened his head onto her body .
When someone new showed up , we mentioned that he had brought the picture-- and showed it to the newcomer who broke out laughing-- which prompted him to look at his picture to see why it was so funny .
It was the most amazing exasperated , surprised , amused reaction .
Hysterical .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"When you have the face of a small child affixed to a nude body of a mature woman"HmmmWhat if it was fixed beside the mature ladie's face giving a two headed monster?What if it was attached to the elbow?
The knee?
Completely replacing her crotch?
One copy over each breast like a bikini (so what if you made a real bikini with miley faces and a lady with big breasts wore it?
).What if it was attached to the body of a nude mature male?How about a mature nude obese woman?How about a mature very ill woman?How about a *very* mature nude woman (in her 90s?
)I've seen a lot of frankensteins.
My reaction to them was not sexual-- it was more of a novelty.Funny story, a friend of ours always talked about his girlfriend, "X" and yet we never met her.
We finally asserted that "X" was really him.
Finally he brought a picture of him and her to magic the gathering night to *prove* that he had a girlfriend.
While he played his first game, I scanned the picture and frankenstiened his head onto her body.
When someone new showed up, we mentioned that he had brought the picture-- and showed it to the newcomer who broke out laughing-- which prompted him to look at his picture to see why it was so funny.
It was the most amazing exasperated, surprised, amused reaction.
Hysterical.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28596841</id>
	<title>Re:Fix your tags</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1246905660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Only if he distributes the image. Then he is subject to copyright infringement, misrepresentation, defamation, and possibly other <b>civil</b> causes of action. But I don't see how the act of photoshopping itself can be considered illegal, any more than painting a portrait can be illegal.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Only if he distributes the image .
Then he is subject to copyright infringement , misrepresentation , defamation , and possibly other civil causes of action .
But I do n't see how the act of photoshopping itself can be considered illegal , any more than painting a portrait can be illegal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only if he distributes the image.
Then he is subject to copyright infringement, misrepresentation, defamation, and possibly other civil causes of action.
But I don't see how the act of photoshopping itself can be considered illegal, any more than painting a portrait can be illegal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595523</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28602387</id>
	<title>Re:Meh</title>
	<author>grege1</author>
	<datestamp>1246888860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not to mention that he dismisses the wrong answer Mathletes as overestimating their abilities in Maths. Logic of preconceived opinion.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to mention that he dismisses the wrong answer Mathletes as overestimating their abilities in Maths .
Logic of preconceived opinion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to mention that he dismisses the wrong answer Mathletes as overestimating their abilities in Maths.
Logic of preconceived opinion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595007</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28596341</id>
	<title>Re:Tough one</title>
	<author>stonewallred</author>
	<datestamp>1246903680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><strong>"the state is not required to prove the actual identity or age of the minor."</strong>

How can they prove it is child porn then? Seems if you are charged with possession of kiddie porn, then the state needs to be able to prove it is a kiddie.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" the state is not required to prove the actual identity or age of the minor .
" How can they prove it is child porn then ?
Seems if you are charged with possession of kiddie porn , then the state needs to be able to prove it is a kiddie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"the state is not required to prove the actual identity or age of the minor.
"

How can they prove it is child porn then?
Seems if you are charged with possession of kiddie porn, then the state needs to be able to prove it is a kiddie.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595641</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595363</id>
	<title>Re:Tough one</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246899600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>There certainly is a conflict. Absolutely we should have the freedom to do what we want behind closed doors, so long as no one is harmed. This should hold true, no matter how twisted it is. However, if you were to see your child as the face on whoever's imposed porn, even absolute truths can become blurred.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There certainly is a conflict .
Absolutely we should have the freedom to do what we want behind closed doors , so long as no one is harmed .
This should hold true , no matter how twisted it is .
However , if you were to see your child as the face on whoever 's imposed porn , even absolute truths can become blurred .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There certainly is a conflict.
Absolutely we should have the freedom to do what we want behind closed doors, so long as no one is harmed.
This should hold true, no matter how twisted it is.
However, if you were to see your child as the face on whoever's imposed porn, even absolute truths can become blurred.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595039</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28594933</id>
	<title>Fix your tags</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246897740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think those quotes are what you really want.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think those quotes are what you really want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think those quotes are what you really want.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595223</id>
	<title>Re:Great formatting in this article</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246898940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No kidding!  Didn't the guy have preview button?  Or did he preview it, then decide it was too much work to fix it...as smart as he is, he didn't know that the " key works way better than [blockquote]?  It's also less typing.<p>
Other than that, very intelligent.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No kidding !
Did n't the guy have preview button ?
Or did he preview it , then decide it was too much work to fix it...as smart as he is , he did n't know that the " key works way better than [ blockquote ] ?
It 's also less typing .
Other than that , very intelligent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No kidding!
Didn't the guy have preview button?
Or did he preview it, then decide it was too much work to fix it...as smart as he is, he didn't know that the " key works way better than [blockquote]?
It's also less typing.
Other than that, very intelligent.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28594957</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595477</id>
	<title>TOOT TOOT</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246900260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Aaaalllll aboard! All aboard! All aboard the rape train -- next stop Miley Cyrus's tight teen pussy. Get it while it's young!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Aaaalllll aboard !
All aboard !
All aboard the rape train -- next stop Miley Cyrus 's tight teen pussy .
Get it while it 's young !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aaaalllll aboard!
All aboard!
All aboard the rape train -- next stop Miley Cyrus's tight teen pussy.
Get it while it's young!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595303</id>
	<title>Summary of the article:</title>
	<author>Absolut187</author>
	<datestamp>1246899240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dumb people have trouble with logic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dumb people have trouble with logic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dumb people have trouble with logic.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28600569</id>
	<title>Re:Patently Offensive</title>
	<author>Ontheotherhand</author>
	<datestamp>1246879020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The explanation is as follows:
first you get voted into power. then you try and flex your power muscles. oooohhh, that criminal stuff is so old hat, and sorting it out is, like, really hard. (social deprivation, education, rehabilitation, drugs and all that) but wait, we can still feel powerful passing some legislation for lots of other bollocks stuff that appeals to the hard of thinking. and better still, the cops are hot for it, cos it is a lot easier than catching the old hat criminals, who dont give a shit about the system anyhow. and better still, they can be banged up for a really long time, unlike the normal criminals, who seem to get community service or whatever, what with the jails being so full and all.....
I guess it is a form of cancer, where if the body doesnt have enough real disease to fight, it turns on itself. Britain has turned on itself, and the prognosis is not good. and hell yes i blame the politicians.
hmm, stream of conciousness. where did i leave those tranquilisers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The explanation is as follows : first you get voted into power .
then you try and flex your power muscles .
oooohhh , that criminal stuff is so old hat , and sorting it out is , like , really hard .
( social deprivation , education , rehabilitation , drugs and all that ) but wait , we can still feel powerful passing some legislation for lots of other bollocks stuff that appeals to the hard of thinking .
and better still , the cops are hot for it , cos it is a lot easier than catching the old hat criminals , who dont give a shit about the system anyhow .
and better still , they can be banged up for a really long time , unlike the normal criminals , who seem to get community service or whatever , what with the jails being so full and all.... . I guess it is a form of cancer , where if the body doesnt have enough real disease to fight , it turns on itself .
Britain has turned on itself , and the prognosis is not good .
and hell yes i blame the politicians .
hmm , stream of conciousness .
where did i leave those tranquilisers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The explanation is as follows:
first you get voted into power.
then you try and flex your power muscles.
oooohhh, that criminal stuff is so old hat, and sorting it out is, like, really hard.
(social deprivation, education, rehabilitation, drugs and all that) but wait, we can still feel powerful passing some legislation for lots of other bollocks stuff that appeals to the hard of thinking.
and better still, the cops are hot for it, cos it is a lot easier than catching the old hat criminals, who dont give a shit about the system anyhow.
and better still, they can be banged up for a really long time, unlike the normal criminals, who seem to get community service or whatever, what with the jails being so full and all.....
I guess it is a form of cancer, where if the body doesnt have enough real disease to fight, it turns on itself.
Britain has turned on itself, and the prognosis is not good.
and hell yes i blame the politicians.
hmm, stream of conciousness.
where did i leave those tranquilisers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595861</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28600237</id>
	<title>Re:Meh</title>
	<author>hypoxia23</author>
	<datestamp>1246877220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In a trial there are two separate jobs.  The judge determines what the law is.  The "finder of fact" (frequently a jury but sometimes a judge) determines what factually happened.  To protect against a judge's mistake, appellate courts review the judges determinations of what "the law" is without any deference.  In contrast, factual determinations typically cannot be changed by an appellate court without an overwhelmingly good reason.  Therefore, in order to get the law interpreted in the way you wish, you typically need to convince a judge and possibly an appellate panel and possibly a supreme court.  While it is true that the law only means what the courts say it means, convincing judges up the scale is easier said than done.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In a trial there are two separate jobs .
The judge determines what the law is .
The " finder of fact " ( frequently a jury but sometimes a judge ) determines what factually happened .
To protect against a judge 's mistake , appellate courts review the judges determinations of what " the law " is without any deference .
In contrast , factual determinations typically can not be changed by an appellate court without an overwhelmingly good reason .
Therefore , in order to get the law interpreted in the way you wish , you typically need to convince a judge and possibly an appellate panel and possibly a supreme court .
While it is true that the law only means what the courts say it means , convincing judges up the scale is easier said than done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In a trial there are two separate jobs.
The judge determines what the law is.
The "finder of fact" (frequently a jury but sometimes a judge) determines what factually happened.
To protect against a judge's mistake, appellate courts review the judges determinations of what "the law" is without any deference.
In contrast, factual determinations typically cannot be changed by an appellate court without an overwhelmingly good reason.
Therefore, in order to get the law interpreted in the way you wish, you typically need to convince a judge and possibly an appellate panel and possibly a supreme court.
While it is true that the law only means what the courts say it means, convincing judges up the scale is easier said than done.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28596387</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28596569</id>
	<title>Analysis error</title>
	<author>Todd Knarr</author>
	<datestamp>1246904520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think Mr. Hasselton made a fundamental error in his analysis. When you ask people to self-rate how good they are at a subject, you first need to read <a href="http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf" title="apa.org">Unskilled and Unaware of It</a> [apa.org]. The research can be summed up simply: people who are <i>not</i> very good at X are more likely to rate themselves highly than people who truly are good at X.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think Mr. Hasselton made a fundamental error in his analysis .
When you ask people to self-rate how good they are at a subject , you first need to read Unskilled and Unaware of It [ apa.org ] .
The research can be summed up simply : people who are not very good at X are more likely to rate themselves highly than people who truly are good at X .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think Mr. Hasselton made a fundamental error in his analysis.
When you ask people to self-rate how good they are at a subject, you first need to read Unskilled and Unaware of It [apa.org].
The research can be summed up simply: people who are not very good at X are more likely to rate themselves highly than people who truly are good at X.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28598571</id>
	<title>slashertisement</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246912980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This seems like the most elaborate slashertisement (for <a href="http://www.mturk.com/" title="mturk.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.mturk.com/</a> [mturk.com] ) ever posted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This seems like the most elaborate slashertisement ( for http : //www.mturk.com/ [ mturk.com ] ) ever posted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This seems like the most elaborate slashertisement (for http://www.mturk.com/ [mturk.com] ) ever posted.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595487</id>
	<title>Re:How did you phrase the mechanical turk question</title>
	<author>Brett Johnson</author>
	<datestamp>1246900260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The survey was linked to in the original post.
You can see it <a href="http://www.peacefire.org/miley-photo-manipulation-survey.html" title="peacefire.org">here</a> [peacefire.org].
<br> <br>
He presented only the line from the statute, and the DA's 1-line argument, not his own interpretation.  In my opinion, he actually provided too little context to make an informed decision, not too much.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The survey was linked to in the original post .
You can see it here [ peacefire.org ] .
He presented only the line from the statute , and the DA 's 1-line argument , not his own interpretation .
In my opinion , he actually provided too little context to make an informed decision , not too much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The survey was linked to in the original post.
You can see it here [peacefire.org].
He presented only the line from the statute, and the DA's 1-line argument, not his own interpretation.
In my opinion, he actually provided too little context to make an informed decision, not too much.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595025</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28601865</id>
	<title>Re:Tough one</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1246885740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>There will come a day when computers can render people in an ultra photo-realistic sexual manner. Will these computer generated images be deemed "illegal" and "immoral"? QUICK, they are such a threat to society! Men act out their fantasies and we can't have that! Let's ignore why they want to do that in the first place -- and tempt them with the real thing since the virtual thing is "illegal."</i></p><p>Indeed - and they're already calling for that. The UK already passed a law on "realistic" fictional child porn (1994), and now even unrealistic images such as those in Second Life is being cited for a ban on all sorts of unrealistic images, whether it's people using an avatar that looks "childlike" (despite being played by an adult), or even adults doing cyber-S&amp;M.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There will come a day when computers can render people in an ultra photo-realistic sexual manner .
Will these computer generated images be deemed " illegal " and " immoral " ?
QUICK , they are such a threat to society !
Men act out their fantasies and we ca n't have that !
Let 's ignore why they want to do that in the first place -- and tempt them with the real thing since the virtual thing is " illegal .
" Indeed - and they 're already calling for that .
The UK already passed a law on " realistic " fictional child porn ( 1994 ) , and now even unrealistic images such as those in Second Life is being cited for a ban on all sorts of unrealistic images , whether it 's people using an avatar that looks " childlike " ( despite being played by an adult ) , or even adults doing cyber-S&amp;M .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There will come a day when computers can render people in an ultra photo-realistic sexual manner.
Will these computer generated images be deemed "illegal" and "immoral"?
QUICK, they are such a threat to society!
Men act out their fantasies and we can't have that!
Let's ignore why they want to do that in the first place -- and tempt them with the real thing since the virtual thing is "illegal.
"Indeed - and they're already calling for that.
The UK already passed a law on "realistic" fictional child porn (1994), and now even unrealistic images such as those in Second Life is being cited for a ban on all sorts of unrealistic images, whether it's people using an avatar that looks "childlike" (despite being played by an adult), or even adults doing cyber-S&amp;M.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28597437</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595641</id>
	<title>Re:Tough one</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246900980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>even though it seems wrong to side with someone who whacks off to that type of shit</p></div></blockquote><p>Suppose that I am \_imagining\_ the face of a little kid super imposed on to the body of a naked adult [or a tentacale rape monster, or whatever upsets the largest number of people].  Suppose that in the near future, technology can read my thoughts through the walls of my home, and further suppose that I am not wearing my tin foil hat.</p><p>If I am thinking about little-kid/adult hybrid mutants and jacking off, and somebody catches me thinking about it, should that be a crime?</p><p>The court case here is essentially isomorphic to the situation I have described -- this case suggests that it is a thought crime to think about a kids face posted onto an adults body in a sexual way.</p><p>Here is what the US supreme court decided:</p><blockquote><div><p>Cases like Campbell's present a unique legal issue. The U.S. Supreme Court in 2002 ruled that "virtual child pornography," in which no children were actually harmed, is protected speech and does not constitute a crime.</p></div></blockquote><p>But the TN law says this:</p><blockquote><div><p>For instance, Tennessee's laws state that in prosecuting the offense of sexual exploitation of a minor, "the state is not required to prove the actual identity or age of the minor."</p></div></blockquote><p>Scary stuff.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>even though it seems wrong to side with someone who whacks off to that type of shitSuppose that I am \ _imagining \ _ the face of a little kid super imposed on to the body of a naked adult [ or a tentacale rape monster , or whatever upsets the largest number of people ] .
Suppose that in the near future , technology can read my thoughts through the walls of my home , and further suppose that I am not wearing my tin foil hat.If I am thinking about little-kid/adult hybrid mutants and jacking off , and somebody catches me thinking about it , should that be a crime ? The court case here is essentially isomorphic to the situation I have described -- this case suggests that it is a thought crime to think about a kids face posted onto an adults body in a sexual way.Here is what the US supreme court decided : Cases like Campbell 's present a unique legal issue .
The U.S. Supreme Court in 2002 ruled that " virtual child pornography , " in which no children were actually harmed , is protected speech and does not constitute a crime.But the TN law says this : For instance , Tennessee 's laws state that in prosecuting the offense of sexual exploitation of a minor , " the state is not required to prove the actual identity or age of the minor .
" Scary stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>even though it seems wrong to side with someone who whacks off to that type of shitSuppose that I am \_imagining\_ the face of a little kid super imposed on to the body of a naked adult [or a tentacale rape monster, or whatever upsets the largest number of people].
Suppose that in the near future, technology can read my thoughts through the walls of my home, and further suppose that I am not wearing my tin foil hat.If I am thinking about little-kid/adult hybrid mutants and jacking off, and somebody catches me thinking about it, should that be a crime?The court case here is essentially isomorphic to the situation I have described -- this case suggests that it is a thought crime to think about a kids face posted onto an adults body in a sexual way.Here is what the US supreme court decided:Cases like Campbell's present a unique legal issue.
The U.S. Supreme Court in 2002 ruled that "virtual child pornography," in which no children were actually harmed, is protected speech and does not constitute a crime.But the TN law says this:For instance, Tennessee's laws state that in prosecuting the offense of sexual exploitation of a minor, "the state is not required to prove the actual identity or age of the minor.
"Scary stuff.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595039</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28599627</id>
	<title>Re:I would have guessed otherwise</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246874400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In Ontario, the film censors reject any portrayal of a woman actually enjoying sex. This is to collude with the feminist opinion that all sex is rape. In one poster for a movie about a woman in an illicit affair, the woman's face was photoshopped to shut her mouth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In Ontario , the film censors reject any portrayal of a woman actually enjoying sex .
This is to collude with the feminist opinion that all sex is rape .
In one poster for a movie about a woman in an illicit affair , the woman 's face was photoshopped to shut her mouth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Ontario, the film censors reject any portrayal of a woman actually enjoying sex.
This is to collude with the feminist opinion that all sex is rape.
In one poster for a movie about a woman in an illicit affair, the woman's face was photoshopped to shut her mouth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28594937</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28594899</id>
	<title>Sorry</title>
	<author>baldass\_newbie</author>
	<datestamp>1246897620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The incessant use of blockquotes makes this story unreasonable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The incessant use of blockquotes makes this story unreasonable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The incessant use of blockquotes makes this story unreasonable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595497</id>
	<title>Re:Tough one</title>
	<author>Aladrin</author>
	<datestamp>1246900320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm guessing you're good at math, huh?</p><p>I am too, and I totally agree with what you said.  It's censorship, not 'saving the children'.</p><p>I can see how it might scar a child for life to see someone has posted their head on a naked body for 'fun', though...  So I can see how they might think it -should- be illegal.  As much as I hate the 'think of the children' crap, children really do need more protection than adults, since they are still forming their basic personalities.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm guessing you 're good at math , huh ? I am too , and I totally agree with what you said .
It 's censorship , not 'saving the children'.I can see how it might scar a child for life to see someone has posted their head on a naked body for 'fun ' , though... So I can see how they might think it -should- be illegal .
As much as I hate the 'think of the children ' crap , children really do need more protection than adults , since they are still forming their basic personalities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm guessing you're good at math, huh?I am too, and I totally agree with what you said.
It's censorship, not 'saving the children'.I can see how it might scar a child for life to see someone has posted their head on a naked body for 'fun', though...  So I can see how they might think it -should- be illegal.
As much as I hate the 'think of the children' crap, children really do need more protection than adults, since they are still forming their basic personalities.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595039</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28597227</id>
	<title>Assumptions</title>
	<author>TheLink</author>
	<datestamp>1246907280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt; He's making assumptions he can't support<br><br>There's no proof of the mathematical ability either.<br><br>People who think they are good at math aren't necessarily actually good.<br><br>And people who know they aren't good at math, and thus say they aren't good might still see the world rather differently from the people who score 500 in the SAT Math.<br><br>I believe 500 is considered an average score despite SAT not involving calculus, statistics, probability etc. So someone who scores 800 in SAT might be well aware that he's crap at calculus and the other areas of mathematics.<br><br>When the average is abysmal, "way above average" might not be "good", but still see the world rather differently.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; He 's making assumptions he ca n't supportThere 's no proof of the mathematical ability either.People who think they are good at math are n't necessarily actually good.And people who know they are n't good at math , and thus say they are n't good might still see the world rather differently from the people who score 500 in the SAT Math.I believe 500 is considered an average score despite SAT not involving calculus , statistics , probability etc .
So someone who scores 800 in SAT might be well aware that he 's crap at calculus and the other areas of mathematics.When the average is abysmal , " way above average " might not be " good " , but still see the world rather differently .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; He's making assumptions he can't supportThere's no proof of the mathematical ability either.People who think they are good at math aren't necessarily actually good.And people who know they aren't good at math, and thus say they aren't good might still see the world rather differently from the people who score 500 in the SAT Math.I believe 500 is considered an average score despite SAT not involving calculus, statistics, probability etc.
So someone who scores 800 in SAT might be well aware that he's crap at calculus and the other areas of mathematics.When the average is abysmal, "way above average" might not be "good", but still see the world rather differently.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28596171</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28596485</id>
	<title>His poll was too squishy</title>
	<author>ianchaos</author>
	<datestamp>1246904220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Having people categorize themselves on an objective technical skill such as math is at least slightly more reliable than having people self judge on such a subjective skill as writing.</p><p>Many people I went to college with were certain their one act plays could win awards and that their sonnets would outlive them. I certainly wouldn't trust many of them when it comes to something as nuanced as the American legal system.</p><p>A better breakdown of the populace would have been to separate out people based on the level of education achieved, or perhaps by specific college degree, or even split out people with legal backgrounds from the average layperson.   This would remove all the "touchy, feely" issues his current survey has.</p><p>With that said, this Tennessee man may be a danger to society, and his actions really creep me out, but I don't believe that he broke the law as it is currently written.</p><p>For what it is worth, on his poll I would have fit this profile<br>Writing skills &gt; Math Skills</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Having people categorize themselves on an objective technical skill such as math is at least slightly more reliable than having people self judge on such a subjective skill as writing.Many people I went to college with were certain their one act plays could win awards and that their sonnets would outlive them .
I certainly would n't trust many of them when it comes to something as nuanced as the American legal system.A better breakdown of the populace would have been to separate out people based on the level of education achieved , or perhaps by specific college degree , or even split out people with legal backgrounds from the average layperson .
This would remove all the " touchy , feely " issues his current survey has.With that said , this Tennessee man may be a danger to society , and his actions really creep me out , but I do n't believe that he broke the law as it is currently written.For what it is worth , on his poll I would have fit this profileWriting skills &gt; Math Skills</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having people categorize themselves on an objective technical skill such as math is at least slightly more reliable than having people self judge on such a subjective skill as writing.Many people I went to college with were certain their one act plays could win awards and that their sonnets would outlive them.
I certainly wouldn't trust many of them when it comes to something as nuanced as the American legal system.A better breakdown of the populace would have been to separate out people based on the level of education achieved, or perhaps by specific college degree, or even split out people with legal backgrounds from the average layperson.
This would remove all the "touchy, feely" issues his current survey has.With that said, this Tennessee man may be a danger to society, and his actions really creep me out, but I don't believe that he broke the law as it is currently written.For what it is worth, on his poll I would have fit this profileWriting skills &gt; Math Skills</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595977</id>
	<title>the cult of high iq</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1246902240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>a traditional iq test mainly tests abstract topographic manipulation/ spatial reasoning/ matehmatics/ etc. but it doesn't test the concept of, for lack of a better word: social iq. there is unfortunately a cult of high iq, high math skills reasoning, that posits this ability above all else is most important in this world and points to the strongest mind. bullshit</p><p>the truth of course is that social iq is far more important in this world than high traditional iq/ strong spatial reasoning skills/ etc. the average mensa member will be working for the guy with 100 iq who happens to have a much higher social iq than the mensa member. the ability to do great math just simply isn't as valuable in this world. its not a matter of what society values. that's taking your prejudice before observed truths. did you consider that perhaps what society values just might be what is actually most important in this world? and that by holding math skills to be less important, that is actually the proper objective attitude for a rich, just, happy society?</p><p>i assert it is a matter of objective economic truth that the ability to do 3 variable calculus just isn't as important as charisma, in terms of outright usefulness to getting anything valuable done in this world. i don't think barack obama can do linear algebra. does this mean someone who can is somehow better qualified to tackle difficult geopolitical questions? i would actually assert the opposite: anyone with high math skills is a red flag for low social skills, and therefore should be disqualified from making observations on issues in the domain of social intelligence, like politics and the legality of pedophile-related material</p><p>i would explain this attitude of mine in a very quick and dirty analogy: the difference between the average mind and the high math iq mind is not the difference between a 50 watt bulb and a 100 watt bulb. it is the difference between someone where their 100 watt bulb lights up the whole room (high social iq: the integrated, expansive, comprehensive mind) and the 100 watt flashlight that can only shine one bright corner while the rest of the room is dimly lit (the focused, concentrated, mathematical mind... at the expense of other social skills). not that there aren't genuinely dim 50 watt bulbs in this world: low math and low social iq, nor that there aren't genuine 200 watt high math/ high social iq rare individuals either. i'm talking the majority of people</p><p>so when we hear mathletes wouldn't realize that any type of pedophilia-related activity is a red flag for the person doing that photographic manipulation, those of us who have the prejudice that high iq people are somehow superior in their reasoning skills find support for the notion that everyone else must be wrong, that photoshop manipulator is innocent. i assert that, since those with high math skills often have low social skills, the reverse is true</p><p>here's an analogy: make believe you try to explain someone with low traditional iq the concept of derivatives in calculus. but they just don't get it, they are mystified, while you get it easily. but this same person can grasp social situations far more easily than the guy who can do derivatives easily. and so on the question of pedophilia, something clearly in the realm of social iq, the derivatives clueless fellow has social reasoning abilities that are superior to that of the mathlete's</p><p>when you cannot easily grasp why photoshopped manipulations of minors or fantasy drawings of naked minors is wrong, i ask you to consider the possibility that your thinking, that photoshops/ drawings are harmless, is deficient in the realm of social iq. deficient in the same way that the guy with low traditional iq can't grasp linear algebra. that considering how and why it might be wrong just leaves you drawing a blank... this is like the low math iq guy trying to grasp derivates. i ask you to consider the possibility that some people lack certain social iq points that renders their opinion on certain subjects deficient. and to explain</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>a traditional iq test mainly tests abstract topographic manipulation/ spatial reasoning/ matehmatics/ etc .
but it does n't test the concept of , for lack of a better word : social iq .
there is unfortunately a cult of high iq , high math skills reasoning , that posits this ability above all else is most important in this world and points to the strongest mind .
bullshitthe truth of course is that social iq is far more important in this world than high traditional iq/ strong spatial reasoning skills/ etc .
the average mensa member will be working for the guy with 100 iq who happens to have a much higher social iq than the mensa member .
the ability to do great math just simply is n't as valuable in this world .
its not a matter of what society values .
that 's taking your prejudice before observed truths .
did you consider that perhaps what society values just might be what is actually most important in this world ?
and that by holding math skills to be less important , that is actually the proper objective attitude for a rich , just , happy society ? i assert it is a matter of objective economic truth that the ability to do 3 variable calculus just is n't as important as charisma , in terms of outright usefulness to getting anything valuable done in this world .
i do n't think barack obama can do linear algebra .
does this mean someone who can is somehow better qualified to tackle difficult geopolitical questions ?
i would actually assert the opposite : anyone with high math skills is a red flag for low social skills , and therefore should be disqualified from making observations on issues in the domain of social intelligence , like politics and the legality of pedophile-related materiali would explain this attitude of mine in a very quick and dirty analogy : the difference between the average mind and the high math iq mind is not the difference between a 50 watt bulb and a 100 watt bulb .
it is the difference between someone where their 100 watt bulb lights up the whole room ( high social iq : the integrated , expansive , comprehensive mind ) and the 100 watt flashlight that can only shine one bright corner while the rest of the room is dimly lit ( the focused , concentrated , mathematical mind... at the expense of other social skills ) .
not that there are n't genuinely dim 50 watt bulbs in this world : low math and low social iq , nor that there are n't genuine 200 watt high math/ high social iq rare individuals either .
i 'm talking the majority of peopleso when we hear mathletes would n't realize that any type of pedophilia-related activity is a red flag for the person doing that photographic manipulation , those of us who have the prejudice that high iq people are somehow superior in their reasoning skills find support for the notion that everyone else must be wrong , that photoshop manipulator is innocent .
i assert that , since those with high math skills often have low social skills , the reverse is truehere 's an analogy : make believe you try to explain someone with low traditional iq the concept of derivatives in calculus .
but they just do n't get it , they are mystified , while you get it easily .
but this same person can grasp social situations far more easily than the guy who can do derivatives easily .
and so on the question of pedophilia , something clearly in the realm of social iq , the derivatives clueless fellow has social reasoning abilities that are superior to that of the mathlete'swhen you can not easily grasp why photoshopped manipulations of minors or fantasy drawings of naked minors is wrong , i ask you to consider the possibility that your thinking , that photoshops/ drawings are harmless , is deficient in the realm of social iq .
deficient in the same way that the guy with low traditional iq ca n't grasp linear algebra .
that considering how and why it might be wrong just leaves you drawing a blank... this is like the low math iq guy trying to grasp derivates .
i ask you to consider the possibility that some people lack certain social iq points that renders their opinion on certain subjects deficient .
and to explain</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a traditional iq test mainly tests abstract topographic manipulation/ spatial reasoning/ matehmatics/ etc.
but it doesn't test the concept of, for lack of a better word: social iq.
there is unfortunately a cult of high iq, high math skills reasoning, that posits this ability above all else is most important in this world and points to the strongest mind.
bullshitthe truth of course is that social iq is far more important in this world than high traditional iq/ strong spatial reasoning skills/ etc.
the average mensa member will be working for the guy with 100 iq who happens to have a much higher social iq than the mensa member.
the ability to do great math just simply isn't as valuable in this world.
its not a matter of what society values.
that's taking your prejudice before observed truths.
did you consider that perhaps what society values just might be what is actually most important in this world?
and that by holding math skills to be less important, that is actually the proper objective attitude for a rich, just, happy society?i assert it is a matter of objective economic truth that the ability to do 3 variable calculus just isn't as important as charisma, in terms of outright usefulness to getting anything valuable done in this world.
i don't think barack obama can do linear algebra.
does this mean someone who can is somehow better qualified to tackle difficult geopolitical questions?
i would actually assert the opposite: anyone with high math skills is a red flag for low social skills, and therefore should be disqualified from making observations on issues in the domain of social intelligence, like politics and the legality of pedophile-related materiali would explain this attitude of mine in a very quick and dirty analogy: the difference between the average mind and the high math iq mind is not the difference between a 50 watt bulb and a 100 watt bulb.
it is the difference between someone where their 100 watt bulb lights up the whole room (high social iq: the integrated, expansive, comprehensive mind) and the 100 watt flashlight that can only shine one bright corner while the rest of the room is dimly lit (the focused, concentrated, mathematical mind... at the expense of other social skills).
not that there aren't genuinely dim 50 watt bulbs in this world: low math and low social iq, nor that there aren't genuine 200 watt high math/ high social iq rare individuals either.
i'm talking the majority of peopleso when we hear mathletes wouldn't realize that any type of pedophilia-related activity is a red flag for the person doing that photographic manipulation, those of us who have the prejudice that high iq people are somehow superior in their reasoning skills find support for the notion that everyone else must be wrong, that photoshop manipulator is innocent.
i assert that, since those with high math skills often have low social skills, the reverse is truehere's an analogy: make believe you try to explain someone with low traditional iq the concept of derivatives in calculus.
but they just don't get it, they are mystified, while you get it easily.
but this same person can grasp social situations far more easily than the guy who can do derivatives easily.
and so on the question of pedophilia, something clearly in the realm of social iq, the derivatives clueless fellow has social reasoning abilities that are superior to that of the mathlete'swhen you cannot easily grasp why photoshopped manipulations of minors or fantasy drawings of naked minors is wrong, i ask you to consider the possibility that your thinking, that photoshops/ drawings are harmless, is deficient in the realm of social iq.
deficient in the same way that the guy with low traditional iq can't grasp linear algebra.
that considering how and why it might be wrong just leaves you drawing a blank... this is like the low math iq guy trying to grasp derivates.
i ask you to consider the possibility that some people lack certain social iq points that renders their opinion on certain subjects deficient.
and to explain</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28598167</id>
	<title>Obvious conclusion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246911240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Math Nerds like to wank to Miley more than English Nerds. Non-nerds just like to wank.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Math Nerds like to wank to Miley more than English Nerds .
Non-nerds just like to wank .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Math Nerds like to wank to Miley more than English Nerds.
Non-nerds just like to wank.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28600099</id>
	<title>Too easy</title>
	<author>Fuzzums</author>
	<datestamp>1246876560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obviously mathematicians are perverts<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obviously mathematicians are perverts ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obviously mathematicians are perverts ;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28596811</id>
	<title>Re:Tough one</title>
	<author>imgod2u</author>
	<datestamp>1246905540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since when has law been concerned or should be concerned or should be anywhere near "how would you feel"? Isn't the first thing they should teach in law school "forget how you feel, work through the logistics of it, starting from the Constitution"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since when has law been concerned or should be concerned or should be anywhere near " how would you feel " ?
Is n't the first thing they should teach in law school " forget how you feel , work through the logistics of it , starting from the Constitution " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since when has law been concerned or should be concerned or should be anywhere near "how would you feel"?
Isn't the first thing they should teach in law school "forget how you feel, work through the logistics of it, starting from the Constitution"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595363</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28594915</id>
	<title>you lost me at hello</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246897680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm good at math, but not so much at reading. You lost me after the first paragraph.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm good at math , but not so much at reading .
You lost me after the first paragraph .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm good at math, but not so much at reading.
You lost me after the first paragraph.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28596145</id>
	<title>Re:Meh</title>
	<author>DoofusOfDeath</author>
	<datestamp>1246903020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>While not applicable to this, other laws that deal with similar grey area of law allow for one party to define the crime where the perpetrator might not reasonably be able to determine the legality ahead of time.</p></div></blockquote><p>So is there a valid defense that prosecution under such laws is <i>ex post facto</i>?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>While not applicable to this , other laws that deal with similar grey area of law allow for one party to define the crime where the perpetrator might not reasonably be able to determine the legality ahead of time.So is there a valid defense that prosecution under such laws is ex post facto ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While not applicable to this, other laws that deal with similar grey area of law allow for one party to define the crime where the perpetrator might not reasonably be able to determine the legality ahead of time.So is there a valid defense that prosecution under such laws is ex post facto?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595315</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28604545</id>
	<title>Re:Utterly meaningless--made of statistical FAIL.</title>
	<author>tgv</author>
	<datestamp>1246909020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That, and the fact that he fails to publish his method of analysis. What was his hypothesis exactly? He didn't seem to have one in advance, so it seems rather post-hoc. And I don't see where he got his p.01 from, because my intuition tells me 44\% vs 56\% from a group of 27 respondents cannot be that significant (binomial test). He should have tested the interaction, but the page he refers to has no way to test that, so I think we can take the results with the well-known grain of salt.</p><p>We know the bit about lies, damned lies and statistics, of course, but bad statistics...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That , and the fact that he fails to publish his method of analysis .
What was his hypothesis exactly ?
He did n't seem to have one in advance , so it seems rather post-hoc .
And I do n't see where he got his p.01 from , because my intuition tells me 44 \ % vs 56 \ % from a group of 27 respondents can not be that significant ( binomial test ) .
He should have tested the interaction , but the page he refers to has no way to test that , so I think we can take the results with the well-known grain of salt.We know the bit about lies , damned lies and statistics , of course , but bad statistics.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That, and the fact that he fails to publish his method of analysis.
What was his hypothesis exactly?
He didn't seem to have one in advance, so it seems rather post-hoc.
And I don't see where he got his p.01 from, because my intuition tells me 44\% vs 56\% from a group of 27 respondents cannot be that significant (binomial test).
He should have tested the interaction, but the page he refers to has no way to test that, so I think we can take the results with the well-known grain of salt.We know the bit about lies, damned lies and statistics, of course, but bad statistics...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595631</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28598637</id>
	<title>Why is this modded funny?</title>
	<author>mujadaddy</author>
	<datestamp>1246913400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Inquiring minds want to know.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Inquiring minds want to know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Inquiring minds want to know.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28594947</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28641529</id>
	<title>Re:This just in:</title>
	<author>harryjohnston</author>
	<datestamp>1247130660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Here's the cogent argument: Miley Cyrus is a minor, her actual picture is being used to simulate her in a sexual position. By using her actual head, it's entirely possible that it fit the legal definition. What's more, in matters of legal opinion, the DA is more likely to know the law than some guy who goes off on Slashdot about it.</p></div><p>If it was indeed her <i>actual</i> head, that might fit the legal definition, though I think a murder prosecution would be more appropriate.  As it is actually just a photograph of her head, your argument is not at all cogent.</p><p>Remember, the law in question requires that a minor must be engaged in simulated sexual activity.  A photograph engaged in simulated sexual activity, even if it is a photograph of a minor, does not meet this definition.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's the cogent argument : Miley Cyrus is a minor , her actual picture is being used to simulate her in a sexual position .
By using her actual head , it 's entirely possible that it fit the legal definition .
What 's more , in matters of legal opinion , the DA is more likely to know the law than some guy who goes off on Slashdot about it.If it was indeed her actual head , that might fit the legal definition , though I think a murder prosecution would be more appropriate .
As it is actually just a photograph of her head , your argument is not at all cogent.Remember , the law in question requires that a minor must be engaged in simulated sexual activity .
A photograph engaged in simulated sexual activity , even if it is a photograph of a minor , does not meet this definition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's the cogent argument: Miley Cyrus is a minor, her actual picture is being used to simulate her in a sexual position.
By using her actual head, it's entirely possible that it fit the legal definition.
What's more, in matters of legal opinion, the DA is more likely to know the law than some guy who goes off on Slashdot about it.If it was indeed her actual head, that might fit the legal definition, though I think a murder prosecution would be more appropriate.
As it is actually just a photograph of her head, your argument is not at all cogent.Remember, the law in question requires that a minor must be engaged in simulated sexual activity.
A photograph engaged in simulated sexual activity, even if it is a photograph of a minor, does not meet this definition.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28596171</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28598001</id>
	<title>Re:Double Plus Good...</title>
	<author>TechForensics</author>
	<datestamp>1246910520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So, if someone was to take the prosecutor's face and photoshop it onto a picture of a dead body, that photoshop artist would be arrested for murder? </p></div><p>Nope, necrophilia.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , if someone was to take the prosecutor 's face and photoshop it onto a picture of a dead body , that photoshop artist would be arrested for murder ?
Nope , necrophilia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, if someone was to take the prosecutor's face and photoshop it onto a picture of a dead body, that photoshop artist would be arrested for murder?
Nope, necrophilia.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595389</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28594939</id>
	<title>This just in:</title>
	<author>fuzzyfuzzyfungus</author>
	<datestamp>1246897800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Rationality is still atypical, and still associated with mathematical ability...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Rationality is still atypical , and still associated with mathematical ability.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rationality is still atypical, and still associated with mathematical ability...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28601619</id>
	<title>Re:Tough one</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1246884600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So pass a law to do with <i>publication</i>.</p><p><i>Before you argue that this is still a protected right, please consider this. If the accused in this case had swapped the children's heads onto clothed adult bodies doing nothing particularly sexual, and then swapped those images into ads for cigarettes, <b>and those images had actually been used</b>, he could have been prosecuted on any of several counts. </i></p><p>Yes, and if he'd have taken an axe and used it to chop off a child's head, he could have been prosecuted on any of several counts. But he didn't, so your point is irrelevant.</p><p>The bolded bit is the crucial bit - he didn't do that. There is no law against possession of such an image. In fact, I doubt that even publication is okay(?) - AIUI, the laws regulate commercial advertising. I doubt anyone would have a problem against laws on using people's images without their consent in advertising - this is obviously an issue of model rights, and has bugger all to do with the issue of criminalising possession of images as "child porn".</p><p><i>Even if sexually related speech should have all the protections of other speech, sexual aspects shouldn't give such speech more protection than we would give to philosophical, scientific, or political speech.</i></p><p>Well that's a nice straw man - who is saying we should give more protections?</p><p><i>Even if doing something with photoshop or old fashioned scissors isn't over the line, we need the law to look at what happens if such images go public and determine where the line really is.</i></p><p>Model rights? Defamation? Regulation of commercial advertising?</p><p>There are plenty of sensible laws. Criminalising possession is not one of them, especially classifying it as something as demonised as "child porn". And if nothing else, it's an insult to the children who are abused out there - suggesting that their horror is no different to someone doing a photoshop job to your image, when you're a figure in the public eye, who's made millions from their fame.</p><p>Indeed, if you read <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miley\_Cyrus#Entrepreneurship" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miley\_Cyrus#Entrepreneurship</a> [wikipedia.org] , you'll see that she's happy to publish erotic images of herself, to push her career. But when someone photoshops an image of her in private, unpublished, that's equivalent to abusing her? I don't think so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So pass a law to do with publication.Before you argue that this is still a protected right , please consider this .
If the accused in this case had swapped the children 's heads onto clothed adult bodies doing nothing particularly sexual , and then swapped those images into ads for cigarettes , and those images had actually been used , he could have been prosecuted on any of several counts .
Yes , and if he 'd have taken an axe and used it to chop off a child 's head , he could have been prosecuted on any of several counts .
But he did n't , so your point is irrelevant.The bolded bit is the crucial bit - he did n't do that .
There is no law against possession of such an image .
In fact , I doubt that even publication is okay ( ?
) - AIUI , the laws regulate commercial advertising .
I doubt anyone would have a problem against laws on using people 's images without their consent in advertising - this is obviously an issue of model rights , and has bugger all to do with the issue of criminalising possession of images as " child porn " .Even if sexually related speech should have all the protections of other speech , sexual aspects should n't give such speech more protection than we would give to philosophical , scientific , or political speech.Well that 's a nice straw man - who is saying we should give more protections ? Even if doing something with photoshop or old fashioned scissors is n't over the line , we need the law to look at what happens if such images go public and determine where the line really is.Model rights ?
Defamation ? Regulation of commercial advertising ? There are plenty of sensible laws .
Criminalising possession is not one of them , especially classifying it as something as demonised as " child porn " .
And if nothing else , it 's an insult to the children who are abused out there - suggesting that their horror is no different to someone doing a photoshop job to your image , when you 're a figure in the public eye , who 's made millions from their fame.Indeed , if you read http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miley \ _Cyrus # Entrepreneurship [ wikipedia.org ] , you 'll see that she 's happy to publish erotic images of herself , to push her career .
But when someone photoshops an image of her in private , unpublished , that 's equivalent to abusing her ?
I do n't think so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So pass a law to do with publication.Before you argue that this is still a protected right, please consider this.
If the accused in this case had swapped the children's heads onto clothed adult bodies doing nothing particularly sexual, and then swapped those images into ads for cigarettes, and those images had actually been used, he could have been prosecuted on any of several counts.
Yes, and if he'd have taken an axe and used it to chop off a child's head, he could have been prosecuted on any of several counts.
But he didn't, so your point is irrelevant.The bolded bit is the crucial bit - he didn't do that.
There is no law against possession of such an image.
In fact, I doubt that even publication is okay(?
) - AIUI, the laws regulate commercial advertising.
I doubt anyone would have a problem against laws on using people's images without their consent in advertising - this is obviously an issue of model rights, and has bugger all to do with the issue of criminalising possession of images as "child porn".Even if sexually related speech should have all the protections of other speech, sexual aspects shouldn't give such speech more protection than we would give to philosophical, scientific, or political speech.Well that's a nice straw man - who is saying we should give more protections?Even if doing something with photoshop or old fashioned scissors isn't over the line, we need the law to look at what happens if such images go public and determine where the line really is.Model rights?
Defamation? Regulation of commercial advertising?There are plenty of sensible laws.
Criminalising possession is not one of them, especially classifying it as something as demonised as "child porn".
And if nothing else, it's an insult to the children who are abused out there - suggesting that their horror is no different to someone doing a photoshop job to your image, when you're a figure in the public eye, who's made millions from their fame.Indeed, if you read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miley\_Cyrus#Entrepreneurship [wikipedia.org] , you'll see that she's happy to publish erotic images of herself, to push her career.
But when someone photoshops an image of her in private, unpublished, that's equivalent to abusing her?
I don't think so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595893</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595683</id>
	<title>Re:Meh</title>
	<author>Junior J. Junior III</author>
	<datestamp>1246901160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Good work.  So far as the people who gave the "wrong" answer are concerned, you've proven that math nerds are also sex perverts.</p></div><p>Based on anecdotal empirical survey, they pretty much are from what I can tell.</p><p>Not pedophiles, mind you, but definitely kinkier than the average person.  Even kinkier than librarians, which is saying something.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Good work .
So far as the people who gave the " wrong " answer are concerned , you 've proven that math nerds are also sex perverts.Based on anecdotal empirical survey , they pretty much are from what I can tell.Not pedophiles , mind you , but definitely kinkier than the average person .
Even kinkier than librarians , which is saying something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good work.
So far as the people who gave the "wrong" answer are concerned, you've proven that math nerds are also sex perverts.Based on anecdotal empirical survey, they pretty much are from what I can tell.Not pedophiles, mind you, but definitely kinkier than the average person.
Even kinkier than librarians, which is saying something.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595007</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28596155</id>
	<title>Re:50\%</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246903080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>if you asked everyone if they have above or below average abilities on any random topic, people always partition themselves into two groups, almost exactly evenly.</p></div><p>Except for driving skills. 95\% of people are above average drivers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>if you asked everyone if they have above or below average abilities on any random topic , people always partition themselves into two groups , almost exactly evenly.Except for driving skills .
95 \ % of people are above average drivers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if you asked everyone if they have above or below average abilities on any random topic, people always partition themselves into two groups, almost exactly evenly.Except for driving skills.
95\% of people are above average drivers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595279</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595733</id>
	<title>Parent to confuse everyone in Tennessee</title>
	<author>DevConcepts</author>
	<datestamp>1246901340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's Tennessee people! Look at their laws... <br>
It is illegal to use a lasso to catch a fish. <br>
It is legal to gather and consume road-kill. <br>
It is illegal for a woman to call a man for a date. (Dyersburg)<br>
You may not have more than five inoperable vehicles on a piece of property. (Fayette County)<br>
Illegal for a woman to drive a car unless there is a man either running or walking in front of it waving a red flag to warn approaching motorists and pedestrians. (Memphis)<br>
To play pinball, one must be 18 years old. (Nashville)<br>
You can't shoot any game other than whales from a moving automobile.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's Tennessee people !
Look at their laws.. . It is illegal to use a lasso to catch a fish .
It is legal to gather and consume road-kill .
It is illegal for a woman to call a man for a date .
( Dyersburg ) You may not have more than five inoperable vehicles on a piece of property .
( Fayette County ) Illegal for a woman to drive a car unless there is a man either running or walking in front of it waving a red flag to warn approaching motorists and pedestrians .
( Memphis ) To play pinball , one must be 18 years old .
( Nashville ) You ca n't shoot any game other than whales from a moving automobile .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's Tennessee people!
Look at their laws... 
It is illegal to use a lasso to catch a fish.
It is legal to gather and consume road-kill.
It is illegal for a woman to call a man for a date.
(Dyersburg)
You may not have more than five inoperable vehicles on a piece of property.
(Fayette County)
Illegal for a woman to drive a car unless there is a man either running or walking in front of it waving a red flag to warn approaching motorists and pedestrians.
(Memphis)
To play pinball, one must be 18 years old.
(Nashville)
You can't shoot any game other than whales from a moving automobile.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28601515</id>
	<title>Re:This just in:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246884000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Another point of data.</p><p>I was in advanced 6th grade through college.  I got high Cs and Bs in all my classes until Calculus at which point I got an A+.  I'm now a professional artist.   I can completely identify with the parent's sentiment.  There is a huge difference between something like geometry and calculus.  In geometry I always felt like I simply was being tested on how well I memorized complex and arbitrary equations.  In calculus I was rewarded for finding an answer to a problem.  It wasn't simply a question of remembering what the formula for the area of a trapezoid was.  It was a applying that knowledge in ways to find creative solutions.</p><p>Any class in which a calculator would be the superior instrument is a poor math class in my opinion. "Graph f(x)"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... really? You want me to do this? Why? I could do this on my calculator in like 5 seconds.   If you want me to be able to recognize the general shape fine... that's useful for ensuring your equation is correct in the calculator but plotting and hand graphing is just asking for making a mistake on some small detail somewhere not testing my comprehension of the material.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Another point of data.I was in advanced 6th grade through college .
I got high Cs and Bs in all my classes until Calculus at which point I got an A + .
I 'm now a professional artist .
I can completely identify with the parent 's sentiment .
There is a huge difference between something like geometry and calculus .
In geometry I always felt like I simply was being tested on how well I memorized complex and arbitrary equations .
In calculus I was rewarded for finding an answer to a problem .
It was n't simply a question of remembering what the formula for the area of a trapezoid was .
It was a applying that knowledge in ways to find creative solutions.Any class in which a calculator would be the superior instrument is a poor math class in my opinion .
" Graph f ( x ) " ... really ? You want me to do this ?
Why ? I could do this on my calculator in like 5 seconds .
If you want me to be able to recognize the general shape fine... that 's useful for ensuring your equation is correct in the calculator but plotting and hand graphing is just asking for making a mistake on some small detail somewhere not testing my comprehension of the material .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another point of data.I was in advanced 6th grade through college.
I got high Cs and Bs in all my classes until Calculus at which point I got an A+.
I'm now a professional artist.
I can completely identify with the parent's sentiment.
There is a huge difference between something like geometry and calculus.
In geometry I always felt like I simply was being tested on how well I memorized complex and arbitrary equations.
In calculus I was rewarded for finding an answer to a problem.
It wasn't simply a question of remembering what the formula for the area of a trapezoid was.
It was a applying that knowledge in ways to find creative solutions.Any class in which a calculator would be the superior instrument is a poor math class in my opinion.
"Graph f(x)" ... really? You want me to do this?
Why? I could do this on my calculator in like 5 seconds.
If you want me to be able to recognize the general shape fine... that's useful for ensuring your equation is correct in the calculator but plotting and hand graphing is just asking for making a mistake on some small detail somewhere not testing my comprehension of the material.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595351</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595791</id>
	<title>Take me to court</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246901460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ascii representation of an underage girl, lying down, being ejaculated on upon her head:</p><p><tt>q===o ~ ~ ~  O-|:-[   </tt></p><p>Remember kids, thought crimes are wrong! Freedom is overrated! I demand the authorities come apprehend me for my "simulated sexual activity" and anyone else who is aroused by said combination of characters*.</p><p>*Author's note: Child pornography is a horrible beast. It hurts people in unimaginable ways. If you really want to think of the children, go focus on the ACTUAL people who are out there RIGHT NOW abusing and molesting CHILDREN.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ascii representation of an underage girl , lying down , being ejaculated on upon her head : q = = = o ~ ~ ~ O- | : - [ Remember kids , thought crimes are wrong !
Freedom is overrated !
I demand the authorities come apprehend me for my " simulated sexual activity " and anyone else who is aroused by said combination of characters * .
* Author 's note : Child pornography is a horrible beast .
It hurts people in unimaginable ways .
If you really want to think of the children , go focus on the ACTUAL people who are out there RIGHT NOW abusing and molesting CHILDREN .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ascii representation of an underage girl, lying down, being ejaculated on upon her head:q===o ~ ~ ~  O-|:-[   Remember kids, thought crimes are wrong!
Freedom is overrated!
I demand the authorities come apprehend me for my "simulated sexual activity" and anyone else who is aroused by said combination of characters*.
*Author's note: Child pornography is a horrible beast.
It hurts people in unimaginable ways.
If you really want to think of the children, go focus on the ACTUAL people who are out there RIGHT NOW abusing and molesting CHILDREN.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595893</id>
	<title>Re:Tough one</title>
	<author>Artifakt</author>
	<datestamp>1246901880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The counter argument is that the photoshopped (or in this case literally cut and pasted) image does harm real children, just not necessarily the same level of harm as forcing one to actually participate in a sex act. There were two children whose heads were used, and while Miley is famous, the other one was 'just some kid'.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; If those photos get out, both of them face some possible harm to reputations, but in particular, there is probably less chance that the 'just some kid' will have any help from society if, a year from now, somebody prints of a bunch of copies and pastes them up all over her school with no explanation, or some nutcase sees them on the Internet, recognizes her, and is delusional enough to think she really did whatever her head was spliced into and starts stalking her. Damaging someone's reputation or recklessly endangering them are still harms. The real law has to look at how likely such risks are before they dismiss the idea that harm occurred.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; If you want to argue that the chances are very low in this case, or that the overall damage done to the children is a lot less than forcible participation in making such photos would normally be, you may well be right, but look at the law on reckless endangerment. One person can leave a car parked on the top of a hill in neutral and no handbrake set, pointed right at a schoolyard. Another person can forget to lock the gate on his backyard swimming pool and go on vacation. One feels much more significant than the other, but the law in most places counts both as reckless.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; In this case, it could well get into a debate about just how obviously the images are composites, and the accused may be better off if his skill level is low. Whether any of these images have 'leaked' by some action of the accused will also likely matter. It's pretty soon to be sure they haven't been posted to Usenet or something, after all.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Before you argue that this is still a protected right, please consider this. If the accused in this case had swapped the children's heads onto clothed adult bodies doing nothing particularly sexual, and then swapped those images into ads for cigarettes, <b>and those images had actually been used</b>, he could have been prosecuted on any of several counts. The law could have easily construed that using a child's face in advertising cigarettes was targeting the ads at minors, there would be the problems with model releases, in Miley's case at least it would have been fraud to represent her as supporting a product and trying to cash in on her name that way, and there are probably other laws that apply.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; If there's problems in such laws, remember those laws are not Obscenity Law, they relate to other aspects of normally protected speech that have nothing to do with sex and/or minors. Those laws get applied all the time to recognized political, religious or commercial speech, and come up in libel, slander, and fraud cases. Even if sexually related speech should have all the protections of other speech, sexual aspects shouldn't give such speech <b>more</b> protection than we would give to philosophical, scientific, or political speech. This is why I don't think we really want a rule that no actual sex involving the children means we just assume no other harm should even be considered. Even if doing something with photoshop or old fashioned scissors isn't over the line, we need the law to look at what happens if such images go public and determine where the line really is. For now, the accused seems clearly to have committed at least some elements of several crimes, and at the least, a grand jury needs to determine if there are overall grounds to proceed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The counter argument is that the photoshopped ( or in this case literally cut and pasted ) image does harm real children , just not necessarily the same level of harm as forcing one to actually participate in a sex act .
There were two children whose heads were used , and while Miley is famous , the other one was 'just some kid' .
      If those photos get out , both of them face some possible harm to reputations , but in particular , there is probably less chance that the 'just some kid ' will have any help from society if , a year from now , somebody prints of a bunch of copies and pastes them up all over her school with no explanation , or some nutcase sees them on the Internet , recognizes her , and is delusional enough to think she really did whatever her head was spliced into and starts stalking her .
Damaging someone 's reputation or recklessly endangering them are still harms .
The real law has to look at how likely such risks are before they dismiss the idea that harm occurred .
        If you want to argue that the chances are very low in this case , or that the overall damage done to the children is a lot less than forcible participation in making such photos would normally be , you may well be right , but look at the law on reckless endangerment .
One person can leave a car parked on the top of a hill in neutral and no handbrake set , pointed right at a schoolyard .
Another person can forget to lock the gate on his backyard swimming pool and go on vacation .
One feels much more significant than the other , but the law in most places counts both as reckless .
        In this case , it could well get into a debate about just how obviously the images are composites , and the accused may be better off if his skill level is low .
Whether any of these images have 'leaked ' by some action of the accused will also likely matter .
It 's pretty soon to be sure they have n't been posted to Usenet or something , after all .
      Before you argue that this is still a protected right , please consider this .
If the accused in this case had swapped the children 's heads onto clothed adult bodies doing nothing particularly sexual , and then swapped those images into ads for cigarettes , and those images had actually been used , he could have been prosecuted on any of several counts .
The law could have easily construed that using a child 's face in advertising cigarettes was targeting the ads at minors , there would be the problems with model releases , in Miley 's case at least it would have been fraud to represent her as supporting a product and trying to cash in on her name that way , and there are probably other laws that apply .
      If there 's problems in such laws , remember those laws are not Obscenity Law , they relate to other aspects of normally protected speech that have nothing to do with sex and/or minors .
Those laws get applied all the time to recognized political , religious or commercial speech , and come up in libel , slander , and fraud cases .
Even if sexually related speech should have all the protections of other speech , sexual aspects should n't give such speech more protection than we would give to philosophical , scientific , or political speech .
This is why I do n't think we really want a rule that no actual sex involving the children means we just assume no other harm should even be considered .
Even if doing something with photoshop or old fashioned scissors is n't over the line , we need the law to look at what happens if such images go public and determine where the line really is .
For now , the accused seems clearly to have committed at least some elements of several crimes , and at the least , a grand jury needs to determine if there are overall grounds to proceed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The counter argument is that the photoshopped (or in this case literally cut and pasted) image does harm real children, just not necessarily the same level of harm as forcing one to actually participate in a sex act.
There were two children whose heads were used, and while Miley is famous, the other one was 'just some kid'.
      If those photos get out, both of them face some possible harm to reputations, but in particular, there is probably less chance that the 'just some kid' will have any help from society if, a year from now, somebody prints of a bunch of copies and pastes them up all over her school with no explanation, or some nutcase sees them on the Internet, recognizes her, and is delusional enough to think she really did whatever her head was spliced into and starts stalking her.
Damaging someone's reputation or recklessly endangering them are still harms.
The real law has to look at how likely such risks are before they dismiss the idea that harm occurred.
        If you want to argue that the chances are very low in this case, or that the overall damage done to the children is a lot less than forcible participation in making such photos would normally be, you may well be right, but look at the law on reckless endangerment.
One person can leave a car parked on the top of a hill in neutral and no handbrake set, pointed right at a schoolyard.
Another person can forget to lock the gate on his backyard swimming pool and go on vacation.
One feels much more significant than the other, but the law in most places counts both as reckless.
        In this case, it could well get into a debate about just how obviously the images are composites, and the accused may be better off if his skill level is low.
Whether any of these images have 'leaked' by some action of the accused will also likely matter.
It's pretty soon to be sure they haven't been posted to Usenet or something, after all.
      Before you argue that this is still a protected right, please consider this.
If the accused in this case had swapped the children's heads onto clothed adult bodies doing nothing particularly sexual, and then swapped those images into ads for cigarettes, and those images had actually been used, he could have been prosecuted on any of several counts.
The law could have easily construed that using a child's face in advertising cigarettes was targeting the ads at minors, there would be the problems with model releases, in Miley's case at least it would have been fraud to represent her as supporting a product and trying to cash in on her name that way, and there are probably other laws that apply.
      If there's problems in such laws, remember those laws are not Obscenity Law, they relate to other aspects of normally protected speech that have nothing to do with sex and/or minors.
Those laws get applied all the time to recognized political, religious or commercial speech, and come up in libel, slander, and fraud cases.
Even if sexually related speech should have all the protections of other speech, sexual aspects shouldn't give such speech more protection than we would give to philosophical, scientific, or political speech.
This is why I don't think we really want a rule that no actual sex involving the children means we just assume no other harm should even be considered.
Even if doing something with photoshop or old fashioned scissors isn't over the line, we need the law to look at what happens if such images go public and determine where the line really is.
For now, the accused seems clearly to have committed at least some elements of several crimes, and at the least, a grand jury needs to determine if there are overall grounds to proceed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595039</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28596925</id>
	<title>Not simulated enough</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246906020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What if you had some software that could take a picture of an adult and generate a probable picture of what that adult looked like as a child.  Then used that picture in the porn?  It would be a simulated minor engaged in a simulated sexual activity.<br>Even better: what if he used this software on a picture of himself and then pasted his own simulated child image onto the porn?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What if you had some software that could take a picture of an adult and generate a probable picture of what that adult looked like as a child .
Then used that picture in the porn ?
It would be a simulated minor engaged in a simulated sexual activity.Even better : what if he used this software on a picture of himself and then pasted his own simulated child image onto the porn ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if you had some software that could take a picture of an adult and generate a probable picture of what that adult looked like as a child.
Then used that picture in the porn?
It would be a simulated minor engaged in a simulated sexual activity.Even better: what if he used this software on a picture of himself and then pasted his own simulated child image onto the porn?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28596019</id>
	<title>Hot days, ice cream and violent crime</title>
	<author>MisterFuRR</author>
	<datestamp>1246902420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While its an interesting premise, and underscores the average americans need to learn the basics ( reading, writing, and arithmatic) well beyond what <a href="http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/index.htm/" title="johntaylorgatto.com" rel="nofollow">Henry Ford envisioned for them</a> [johntaylorgatto.com] when he helped pen the public school system -- sadly, this whole survey seems as contrived as the classic problem of <a href="http://spookyaction.blogspot.com/2007/02/statistics-show-eating-ice-cream-causes\_23.html" title="blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">Hot Days, Ice Cream, and Violent crime</a> [blogspot.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While its an interesting premise , and underscores the average americans need to learn the basics ( reading , writing , and arithmatic ) well beyond what Henry Ford envisioned for them [ johntaylorgatto.com ] when he helped pen the public school system -- sadly , this whole survey seems as contrived as the classic problem of Hot Days , Ice Cream , and Violent crime [ blogspot.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While its an interesting premise, and underscores the average americans need to learn the basics ( reading, writing, and arithmatic) well beyond what Henry Ford envisioned for them [johntaylorgatto.com] when he helped pen the public school system -- sadly, this whole survey seems as contrived as the classic problem of Hot Days, Ice Cream, and Violent crime [blogspot.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595045</id>
	<title>Austistic Spectrum</title>
	<author>drsmack1</author>
	<datestamp>1246898160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Autistic spectrum people often have a problem with understanding societal norms - what is next; "Fresh Pizza is Hot"?<br> <br>

Ask those same people about having THEIR face superimposed on a nude child's body and see how their answers change.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Autistic spectrum people often have a problem with understanding societal norms - what is next ; " Fresh Pizza is Hot " ?
Ask those same people about having THEIR face superimposed on a nude child 's body and see how their answers change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Autistic spectrum people often have a problem with understanding societal norms - what is next; "Fresh Pizza is Hot"?
Ask those same people about having THEIR face superimposed on a nude child's body and see how their answers change.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28596581</id>
	<title>Re:This just in:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246904580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, the point of this is to make the "good" people (i.e. people who are good at math, Us) different from the "bad" people (i.e. ignorant fools who can't do math, The Other.)  The good people agree with me, and the bad people...I've given it some thought, and their opinion is not only wrong, but head-scratchingly incoherent.  By casting The Other as incoherent, we are saved the trouble of actually thinking, and can instead reassure ourselves that we are correct and don't need to examine any of our beliefs.  I mean, look at this: <i>I've tried, and I can't think of any coherent point that could be made in order to argue that the Miley photoshopper really did violate the Tennessee law.</i>  What kind of debater can't take up either side of a position?  Even if you don't agree with it, an intellectual can at least see the other side's points.<p>Implicit in this is the racism of the elite white people, as culture tells us that Latinos and African-Americans aren't as good at math as other groups in society.  Thus, this is a socially acceptable way to express racism, as well as classism (white-on-white racism actually.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , the point of this is to make the " good " people ( i.e .
people who are good at math , Us ) different from the " bad " people ( i.e .
ignorant fools who ca n't do math , The Other .
) The good people agree with me , and the bad people...I 've given it some thought , and their opinion is not only wrong , but head-scratchingly incoherent .
By casting The Other as incoherent , we are saved the trouble of actually thinking , and can instead reassure ourselves that we are correct and do n't need to examine any of our beliefs .
I mean , look at this : I 've tried , and I ca n't think of any coherent point that could be made in order to argue that the Miley photoshopper really did violate the Tennessee law .
What kind of debater ca n't take up either side of a position ?
Even if you do n't agree with it , an intellectual can at least see the other side 's points.Implicit in this is the racism of the elite white people , as culture tells us that Latinos and African-Americans are n't as good at math as other groups in society .
Thus , this is a socially acceptable way to express racism , as well as classism ( white-on-white racism actually .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, the point of this is to make the "good" people (i.e.
people who are good at math, Us) different from the "bad" people (i.e.
ignorant fools who can't do math, The Other.
)  The good people agree with me, and the bad people...I've given it some thought, and their opinion is not only wrong, but head-scratchingly incoherent.
By casting The Other as incoherent, we are saved the trouble of actually thinking, and can instead reassure ourselves that we are correct and don't need to examine any of our beliefs.
I mean, look at this: I've tried, and I can't think of any coherent point that could be made in order to argue that the Miley photoshopper really did violate the Tennessee law.
What kind of debater can't take up either side of a position?
Even if you don't agree with it, an intellectual can at least see the other side's points.Implicit in this is the racism of the elite white people, as culture tells us that Latinos and African-Americans aren't as good at math as other groups in society.
Thus, this is a socially acceptable way to express racism, as well as classism (white-on-white racism actually.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28596171</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595295</id>
	<title>Rigging</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1246899180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is not an statistical pure sample... is specifically people that wanted to take that survey. Also, is not people good at math, is people that think (or answer) that is good at math. Could perfectly be people that dont care about answers, said that they are great at math without being so and that they dont care about that topic when they do (maybe with a closer example, i.e. what if that was done with their daughter photo?),</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is not an statistical pure sample... is specifically people that wanted to take that survey .
Also , is not people good at math , is people that think ( or answer ) that is good at math .
Could perfectly be people that dont care about answers , said that they are great at math without being so and that they dont care about that topic when they do ( maybe with a closer example , i.e .
what if that was done with their daughter photo ?
) ,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is not an statistical pure sample... is specifically people that wanted to take that survey.
Also, is not people good at math, is people that think (or answer) that is good at math.
Could perfectly be people that dont care about answers, said that they are great at math without being so and that they dont care about that topic when they do (maybe with a closer example, i.e.
what if that was done with their daughter photo?
),</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28594947</id>
	<title>Pic?</title>
	<author>Cereal Box</author>
	<datestamp>1246897800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So... the picture is located where?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So... the picture is located where ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So... the picture is located where?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28596443</id>
	<title>Re:Tough one</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246904040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But didn't South Park also indicate imaginary things are real? So, perhaps the mere thought of a crime is powerful enough to make it happen in some alternate universe, hence, it should be a crime.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But did n't South Park also indicate imaginary things are real ?
So , perhaps the mere thought of a crime is powerful enough to make it happen in some alternate universe , hence , it should be a crime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But didn't South Park also indicate imaginary things are real?
So, perhaps the mere thought of a crime is powerful enough to make it happen in some alternate universe, hence, it should be a crime.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595039</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28597241</id>
	<title>Re:What does it matter</title>
	<author>imgod2u</author>
	<datestamp>1246907400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That sounds like guilty-before-proven-innocent mentality. You have no idea what this guy will do in the future. Whether he'll keep it a fantasy or try to make it reality. The law doesn't punish based on "probably because of my gut feeling and prejudice". The law punishes based on "here's proven fact he was planning to break the law or already has".</p><p>If he had a history of sexual misconduct, like attempted molestation, sexual harassment, etc. ANYTHING to show that he wasn't capable of controlling himself or had disregard for the law, THEN, you might have a case.</p><p>We don't -- at least we shouldn't -- punish anyone for thought-crimes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That sounds like guilty-before-proven-innocent mentality .
You have no idea what this guy will do in the future .
Whether he 'll keep it a fantasy or try to make it reality .
The law does n't punish based on " probably because of my gut feeling and prejudice " .
The law punishes based on " here 's proven fact he was planning to break the law or already has " .If he had a history of sexual misconduct , like attempted molestation , sexual harassment , etc .
ANYTHING to show that he was n't capable of controlling himself or had disregard for the law , THEN , you might have a case.We do n't -- at least we should n't -- punish anyone for thought-crimes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That sounds like guilty-before-proven-innocent mentality.
You have no idea what this guy will do in the future.
Whether he'll keep it a fantasy or try to make it reality.
The law doesn't punish based on "probably because of my gut feeling and prejudice".
The law punishes based on "here's proven fact he was planning to break the law or already has".If he had a history of sexual misconduct, like attempted molestation, sexual harassment, etc.
ANYTHING to show that he wasn't capable of controlling himself or had disregard for the law, THEN, you might have a case.We don't -- at least we shouldn't -- punish anyone for thought-crimes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595885</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28601857</id>
	<title>Re:Austistic Spectrum</title>
	<author>ignavus</author>
	<datestamp>1246885680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Ask those same people about having THEIR face superimposed on a nude...'s body and see how their answers change.</p></div><p>Provided I don't have to look at it, I really don't care. You can make up whatever images you like on your computer about me. I only care if you try to show them to me - or publish them - and they happen to be gross.</p><p>Of course, if you photoshop my head onto the statue of David, *I* might publish it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ask those same people about having THEIR face superimposed on a nude... 's body and see how their answers change.Provided I do n't have to look at it , I really do n't care .
You can make up whatever images you like on your computer about me .
I only care if you try to show them to me - or publish them - and they happen to be gross.Of course , if you photoshop my head onto the statue of David , * I * might publish it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ask those same people about having THEIR face superimposed on a nude...'s body and see how their answers change.Provided I don't have to look at it, I really don't care.
You can make up whatever images you like on your computer about me.
I only care if you try to show them to me - or publish them - and they happen to be gross.Of course, if you photoshop my head onto the statue of David, *I* might publish it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595045</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595237</id>
	<title>Re:Austistic Spectrum</title>
	<author>MasseKid</author>
	<datestamp>1246899000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I couldn't give less of a shit if someone wants to photoshop my face for thier own personal gratification.  If they attempt to distribute it, well then I'm sorry but my likeness is protected and I will sue.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I could n't give less of a shit if someone wants to photoshop my face for thier own personal gratification .
If they attempt to distribute it , well then I 'm sorry but my likeness is protected and I will sue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I couldn't give less of a shit if someone wants to photoshop my face for thier own personal gratification.
If they attempt to distribute it, well then I'm sorry but my likeness is protected and I will sue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595045</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28599449</id>
	<title>Another question that needs to be answered:</title>
	<author>GargamelSpaceman</author>
	<datestamp>1246873680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are people who think they are good at math better or worse at math on average than people who don't think they are good at math?</p><p>The naive think they know it all, whilst those who have an idea what they are talking about may underestimate their own abilities.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are people who think they are good at math better or worse at math on average than people who do n't think they are good at math ? The naive think they know it all , whilst those who have an idea what they are talking about may underestimate their own abilities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are people who think they are good at math better or worse at math on average than people who don't think they are good at math?The naive think they know it all, whilst those who have an idea what they are talking about may underestimate their own abilities.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28597515</id>
	<title>Re:Other people just don't get it</title>
	<author>howe.chris</author>
	<datestamp>1246908420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Flamebait?  Really?  80\% of my feelings are hurt.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Flamebait ?
Really ? 80 \ % of my feelings are hurt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Flamebait?
Really?  80\% of my feelings are hurt.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28596829</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28594957</id>
	<title>Great formatting in this article</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246897800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I</p><p><div class="quote"><p>love</p></div><p>what you've</p><p><div class="quote"><p>done with the</p></div><p>place. Makes it a</p><p><div class="quote"><p>real treat to read</p></div><p>the story!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ilovewhat you'vedone with theplace .
Makes it areal treat to readthe story !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ilovewhat you'vedone with theplace.
Makes it areal treat to readthe story!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28597573</id>
	<title>Re:Tough one</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246908600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't forget that 16 is legal age of consent in many states and in some it's legal age for marriage (which would tend to include sex) without parental consent.</p><p>Which makes you wonder what the legislators were thinking when they passed those laws... Those dirty old bastages</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't forget that 16 is legal age of consent in many states and in some it 's legal age for marriage ( which would tend to include sex ) without parental consent.Which makes you wonder what the legislators were thinking when they passed those laws... Those dirty old bastages</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't forget that 16 is legal age of consent in many states and in some it's legal age for marriage (which would tend to include sex) without parental consent.Which makes you wonder what the legislators were thinking when they passed those laws... Those dirty old bastages</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595715</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28599021</id>
	<title>Re:Double Plus Good...</title>
	<author>bhamlin</author>
	<datestamp>1246872000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>take the prosecutor's face and photoshop it onto a picture of a dead body, that photoshop artist would be arrested for murder?</p></div><p>In your case, however, the original photo is that of a dead body.  It in and of itself is not illegal.  A photo of a minor is.  I think what the noise is about is that someone's trying to say that a pornographic image can be made into a pedographic by pasting the head of a minor onto it.  What if you put Miley's head on a dead naked body?  Pedo-necrophilia?  Could be, in that state.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>take the prosecutor 's face and photoshop it onto a picture of a dead body , that photoshop artist would be arrested for murder ? In your case , however , the original photo is that of a dead body .
It in and of itself is not illegal .
A photo of a minor is .
I think what the noise is about is that someone 's trying to say that a pornographic image can be made into a pedographic by pasting the head of a minor onto it .
What if you put Miley 's head on a dead naked body ?
Pedo-necrophilia ? Could be , in that state .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>take the prosecutor's face and photoshop it onto a picture of a dead body, that photoshop artist would be arrested for murder?In your case, however, the original photo is that of a dead body.
It in and of itself is not illegal.
A photo of a minor is.
I think what the noise is about is that someone's trying to say that a pornographic image can be made into a pedographic by pasting the head of a minor onto it.
What if you put Miley's head on a dead naked body?
Pedo-necrophilia?  Could be, in that state.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595389</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28597261</id>
	<title>Re:Ug.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246907520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Self-selected tiny sample set with self-reported aptitudes used to make blanket statements, with no attempt to get a rational cross-section (which he acknowledges and then says it's not a problem despite lack of any evidence supporting that conjecture),</p> </div><p>He claimed that people with an aptitude for math were more likely to believe then Mr. Man didn't violate the law then those without such aptitude.  By making a comparitive claim rather than a claim about the population as a whole, the bias you mention is largely irrelevant</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Self-selected tiny sample set with self-reported aptitudes used to make blanket statements , with no attempt to get a rational cross-section ( which he acknowledges and then says it 's not a problem despite lack of any evidence supporting that conjecture ) , He claimed that people with an aptitude for math were more likely to believe then Mr. Man did n't violate the law then those without such aptitude .
By making a comparitive claim rather than a claim about the population as a whole , the bias you mention is largely irrelevant</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Self-selected tiny sample set with self-reported aptitudes used to make blanket statements, with no attempt to get a rational cross-section (which he acknowledges and then says it's not a problem despite lack of any evidence supporting that conjecture), He claimed that people with an aptitude for math were more likely to believe then Mr. Man didn't violate the law then those without such aptitude.
By making a comparitive claim rather than a claim about the population as a whole, the bias you mention is largely irrelevant
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595335</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595007</id>
	<title>Meh</title>
	<author>snarfies</author>
	<datestamp>1246898040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good work.  So far as the people who gave the "wrong" answer are concerned, you've proven that math nerds are also sex perverts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good work .
So far as the people who gave the " wrong " answer are concerned , you 've proven that math nerds are also sex perverts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good work.
So far as the people who gave the "wrong" answer are concerned, you've proven that math nerds are also sex perverts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28611373</id>
	<title>25 cents of your time?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246994040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How much time did each mechanical turk user spend on the survey? For 25 cents, I don't think you're going to get an especially large chunk of their time. I think that you're evaluating their snap judgments, rather than their actual judgment.</p><p>To the English major- "&lt;words&gt;Tennessee&lt;words&gt;child porn&lt;wordswordswords&gt;illegal?"</p><p>To the Math major- "Logic problem with 2-3 qualifiers and some bolded text: intuitive, or counter-intuitive answer?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How much time did each mechanical turk user spend on the survey ?
For 25 cents , I do n't think you 're going to get an especially large chunk of their time .
I think that you 're evaluating their snap judgments , rather than their actual judgment.To the English major- " Tennesseechild pornillegal ?
" To the Math major- " Logic problem with 2-3 qualifiers and some bolded text : intuitive , or counter-intuitive answer ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How much time did each mechanical turk user spend on the survey?
For 25 cents, I don't think you're going to get an especially large chunk of their time.
I think that you're evaluating their snap judgments, rather than their actual judgment.To the English major- "Tennesseechild pornillegal?
"To the Math major- "Logic problem with 2-3 qualifiers and some bolded text: intuitive, or counter-intuitive answer?
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28598619</id>
	<title>Re:Double Plus Good...</title>
	<author>DNS-and-BIND</author>
	<datestamp>1246913280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You keep using that word...I do not think it means what you think it means.<p>THOUGHTCRIME: To even consider any thought not in line with the principles of Ingsoc. Doubting any of the principles of Ingsoc. All crimes begin with a thought. So, if you control thought, you can control crime. "Thoughtcrime is death. Thoughtcrime does not entail death, Thoughtcrime is death.... The essential crime that contains all others in itself."</p><p>So, as the guy took action on his thoughts, it's not thoughtcrime.  And I'd be careful using themes from George Orwell, the man was a well-known rightwing nutbag.  His novels 1984 and Animal Farm were barely-disguised attacks on socalism (gasp! o noes! the socialists are coming to get us and ensure that everyone can get healthcare, annie get your gun...)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You keep using that word...I do not think it means what you think it means.THOUGHTCRIME : To even consider any thought not in line with the principles of Ingsoc .
Doubting any of the principles of Ingsoc .
All crimes begin with a thought .
So , if you control thought , you can control crime .
" Thoughtcrime is death .
Thoughtcrime does not entail death , Thoughtcrime is death.... The essential crime that contains all others in itself .
" So , as the guy took action on his thoughts , it 's not thoughtcrime .
And I 'd be careful using themes from George Orwell , the man was a well-known rightwing nutbag .
His novels 1984 and Animal Farm were barely-disguised attacks on socalism ( gasp !
o noes !
the socialists are coming to get us and ensure that everyone can get healthcare , annie get your gun... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You keep using that word...I do not think it means what you think it means.THOUGHTCRIME: To even consider any thought not in line with the principles of Ingsoc.
Doubting any of the principles of Ingsoc.
All crimes begin with a thought.
So, if you control thought, you can control crime.
"Thoughtcrime is death.
Thoughtcrime does not entail death, Thoughtcrime is death.... The essential crime that contains all others in itself.
"So, as the guy took action on his thoughts, it's not thoughtcrime.
And I'd be careful using themes from George Orwell, the man was a well-known rightwing nutbag.
His novels 1984 and Animal Farm were barely-disguised attacks on socalism (gasp!
o noes!
the socialists are coming to get us and ensure that everyone can get healthcare, annie get your gun...)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595389</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28599747</id>
	<title>Funny...</title>
	<author>BatGnat</author>
	<datestamp>1246874940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What I find funny about it is, that if he used a photoshop'ed Miley for sexual gratification it is illegal, but if he used a real picture of Miley at the Beach, in a Bikini, readily available in any gossip magazine, it would not be illegal...</htmltext>
<tokenext>What I find funny about it is , that if he used a photoshop'ed Miley for sexual gratification it is illegal , but if he used a real picture of Miley at the Beach , in a Bikini , readily available in any gossip magazine , it would not be illegal.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I find funny about it is, that if he used a photoshop'ed Miley for sexual gratification it is illegal, but if he used a real picture of Miley at the Beach, in a Bikini, readily available in any gossip magazine, it would not be illegal...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28598995</id>
	<title>Re:Tough one</title>
	<author>ConceptJunkie</author>
	<datestamp>1246871940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thoughtcrimes have been on the books for years, except they're called "hate crimes".</p><p>Don't rest assured just because you are not an anti-semite or anti-homosexual, etc, that you won't be subject to throughtcrime legislation at some point in the future.  The slope is steep and slippery and our legislators are at the top, pushing with all their might.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thoughtcrimes have been on the books for years , except they 're called " hate crimes " .Do n't rest assured just because you are not an anti-semite or anti-homosexual , etc , that you wo n't be subject to throughtcrime legislation at some point in the future .
The slope is steep and slippery and our legislators are at the top , pushing with all their might .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thoughtcrimes have been on the books for years, except they're called "hate crimes".Don't rest assured just because you are not an anti-semite or anti-homosexual, etc, that you won't be subject to throughtcrime legislation at some point in the future.
The slope is steep and slippery and our legislators are at the top, pushing with all their might.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595641</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28602187</id>
	<title>whatever .. he is a perv but didnt really ....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246887660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ehh i would argue that not really borderline crossing the law<br>its not breaking the law as written -  period<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; now this is not to say what he did is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. not in taste by any measure and is more a matter<br>of a social moral majority question than that of law.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; cause eventually will dictate if law or set precedent that putting another persons face on another will be illegal and<br>honestly its just ridiculous to have such laws..</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; is what he did right<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. mostly likely not . was it illegal<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. no...<br>im sure there are a thousand tangents but we're not legal experts here so<br>until we're more educated in the system our thoughts have little merit than<br>casual opinion</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ehh i would argue that not really borderline crossing the lawits not breaking the law as written - period             now this is not to say what he did is .. not in taste by any measure and is more a matterof a social moral majority question than that of law .
            cause eventually will dictate if law or set precedent that putting another persons face on another will be illegal andhonestly its just ridiculous to have such laws. .         is what he did right .. mostly likely not .
was it illegal .. no...im sure there are a thousand tangents but we 're not legal experts here sountil we 're more educated in the system our thoughts have little merit thancasual opinion</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ehh i would argue that not really borderline crossing the lawits not breaking the law as written -  period
            now this is not to say what he did is .. not in taste by any measure and is more a matterof a social moral majority question than that of law.
            cause eventually will dictate if law or set precedent that putting another persons face on another will be illegal andhonestly its just ridiculous to have such laws..
        is what he did right .. mostly likely not .
was it illegal .. no...im sure there are a thousand tangents but we're not legal experts here sountil we're more educated in the system our thoughts have little merit thancasual opinion</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28596059</id>
	<title>Contact Dave Denny!</title>
	<author>link15672</author>
	<datestamp>1246902600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why don't all users of SlashDot actually call Dave Denny (or DA Bill Cox) and ask them the same question!

If the man accused were to have been viewing CLOTHED photos of Miley Cyrus, or even CLOTHED photos of the underage girls for sexual gratification, would he still be being tried for the same crimes?  Who will be the judge of who's using CLOTHED photos of underage girls (or boys) for sexual gratification, and who's just using them to document their child's lives?

Contact Info:

Bill Cox (DA) bill.cox@hcdatn.org
Dave Denny (ADA) dave.denny@hcdatn.org
Phone Number (423) 209-7400</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do n't all users of SlashDot actually call Dave Denny ( or DA Bill Cox ) and ask them the same question !
If the man accused were to have been viewing CLOTHED photos of Miley Cyrus , or even CLOTHED photos of the underage girls for sexual gratification , would he still be being tried for the same crimes ?
Who will be the judge of who 's using CLOTHED photos of underage girls ( or boys ) for sexual gratification , and who 's just using them to document their child 's lives ?
Contact Info : Bill Cox ( DA ) bill.cox @ hcdatn.org Dave Denny ( ADA ) dave.denny @ hcdatn.org Phone Number ( 423 ) 209-7400</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why don't all users of SlashDot actually call Dave Denny (or DA Bill Cox) and ask them the same question!
If the man accused were to have been viewing CLOTHED photos of Miley Cyrus, or even CLOTHED photos of the underage girls for sexual gratification, would he still be being tried for the same crimes?
Who will be the judge of who's using CLOTHED photos of underage girls (or boys) for sexual gratification, and who's just using them to document their child's lives?
Contact Info:

Bill Cox (DA) bill.cox@hcdatn.org
Dave Denny (ADA) dave.denny@hcdatn.org
Phone Number (423) 209-7400</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595705</id>
	<title>Re:Meh</title>
	<author>AlexBirch</author>
	<datestamp>1246901220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>If they were statisticians, they would have a standard deviation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they were statisticians , they would have a standard deviation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they were statisticians, they would have a standard deviation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595007</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595415</id>
	<title>Re:Austistic Spectrum</title>
	<author>loutr</author>
	<datestamp>1246899900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The question was not "Do you feel it is morally wrong ?" but "Do you think he violated a law ?". There's a huge difference.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The question was not " Do you feel it is morally wrong ?
" but " Do you think he violated a law ? " .
There 's a huge difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The question was not "Do you feel it is morally wrong ?
" but "Do you think he violated a law ?".
There's a huge difference.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595045</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595311</id>
	<title>Why does this story make the cut?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246899240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mathletes! There are mathletes in here!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mathletes !
There are mathletes in here !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mathletes!
There are mathletes in here!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595483</id>
	<title>Math ability vs. ego.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246900260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You didn't actually correlate against math skill.  You correlated against perceived math skill, or confidence, or ability to bullshit.</p><p>For example, in the most recent standardized test I took (GMAT, lols), I rolled a wickedly hot 80th percentile on the math.  I mean, all that 9th grade "math" that I haven't studied or used in the last 15 years whooped my arse.  Now, if you use those scores to determine "math skills", you get a bunch of 10th graders that scored well (having just taken the classes) beating people using actual complex math on a daily basis.</p><p>Obviously you're not using the GMAT math section for math ability, but the point is still valid.  You didn't control for "16 year old that scored 750 on the PSAT math section and thus thinks he's hot stuffing" vs. "person that has completed and demonstrated mastery of differential equations".</p><p>As you stated, you didn't correlate math vs. english.  Rather than "people that gave the answer I wanted and are good at English are also good at Math", I suspect you'll see "people that are generally good at both things gave the answer I wanted" (yeah, I'm biased too, and suspect that would play out).  You're attempting to state that people with verbal skills are terrible.  No.  That's just typical passed down nerd crap that holds nerds back by intentionally ignoring something they can be competent at.  It has no basis in reality.</p><p>Anyways... I'm in agreement that photoshop being 'illegal' is ridiculous, but your test is absurdly invalid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You did n't actually correlate against math skill .
You correlated against perceived math skill , or confidence , or ability to bullshit.For example , in the most recent standardized test I took ( GMAT , lols ) , I rolled a wickedly hot 80th percentile on the math .
I mean , all that 9th grade " math " that I have n't studied or used in the last 15 years whooped my arse .
Now , if you use those scores to determine " math skills " , you get a bunch of 10th graders that scored well ( having just taken the classes ) beating people using actual complex math on a daily basis.Obviously you 're not using the GMAT math section for math ability , but the point is still valid .
You did n't control for " 16 year old that scored 750 on the PSAT math section and thus thinks he 's hot stuffing " vs. " person that has completed and demonstrated mastery of differential equations " .As you stated , you did n't correlate math vs. english. Rather than " people that gave the answer I wanted and are good at English are also good at Math " , I suspect you 'll see " people that are generally good at both things gave the answer I wanted " ( yeah , I 'm biased too , and suspect that would play out ) .
You 're attempting to state that people with verbal skills are terrible .
No. That 's just typical passed down nerd crap that holds nerds back by intentionally ignoring something they can be competent at .
It has no basis in reality.Anyways... I 'm in agreement that photoshop being 'illegal ' is ridiculous , but your test is absurdly invalid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You didn't actually correlate against math skill.
You correlated against perceived math skill, or confidence, or ability to bullshit.For example, in the most recent standardized test I took (GMAT, lols), I rolled a wickedly hot 80th percentile on the math.
I mean, all that 9th grade "math" that I haven't studied or used in the last 15 years whooped my arse.
Now, if you use those scores to determine "math skills", you get a bunch of 10th graders that scored well (having just taken the classes) beating people using actual complex math on a daily basis.Obviously you're not using the GMAT math section for math ability, but the point is still valid.
You didn't control for "16 year old that scored 750 on the PSAT math section and thus thinks he's hot stuffing" vs. "person that has completed and demonstrated mastery of differential equations".As you stated, you didn't correlate math vs. english.  Rather than "people that gave the answer I wanted and are good at English are also good at Math", I suspect you'll see "people that are generally good at both things gave the answer I wanted" (yeah, I'm biased too, and suspect that would play out).
You're attempting to state that people with verbal skills are terrible.
No.  That's just typical passed down nerd crap that holds nerds back by intentionally ignoring something they can be competent at.
It has no basis in reality.Anyways... I'm in agreement that photoshop being 'illegal' is ridiculous, but your test is absurdly invalid.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595439</id>
	<title>Re:Meh</title>
	<author>benjamindees</author>
	<datestamp>1246900020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This isn't surprising.  Meth is a known aphrodesiac.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't surprising .
Meth is a known aphrodesiac .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't surprising.
Meth is a known aphrodesiac.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595007</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595335</id>
	<title>Ug.</title>
	<author>SatanicPuppy</author>
	<datestamp>1246899480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"A Tennessee man is arrested for possessing a picture of Miley Cyrus's face superimposed on a nude woman's body. In a survey that I posted on the Web, a majority of respondents said the man violated the law -- except for respondents who say they were good at math in school, who as a group answered the survey differently from everyone else."</p><p>Therefore: Mathematicians like child porn.</p><p>Talk about flamebait summaries. Can we have something that roughly represents the article?</p><p>I have a ton of problems with the methodology as well. Self-selected tiny sample set with self-reported aptitudes used to make blanket statements, with no attempt to get a rational cross-section (which he acknowledges and then says it's not a problem despite lack of any evidence supporting that conjecture), and all the problems/bias associated with internet-only research (we are a biased sample set, in that we're all <em>here</em>).</p><p>In short: wanking. You can't even begin to effectively correlate decision making to mathematical ability without actually testing that ability.</p><p>If you asked me to describe my own math ability, I'd say "average", because I routinely deal with people who are so much better than me at math that I can't in good conscience say I'm better than that...I mean, I never progressed beyond the simplest multi-variable calculus! But put me up against someone who is average across the entire population, and I'll rate much higher.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" A Tennessee man is arrested for possessing a picture of Miley Cyrus 's face superimposed on a nude woman 's body .
In a survey that I posted on the Web , a majority of respondents said the man violated the law -- except for respondents who say they were good at math in school , who as a group answered the survey differently from everyone else .
" Therefore : Mathematicians like child porn.Talk about flamebait summaries .
Can we have something that roughly represents the article ? I have a ton of problems with the methodology as well .
Self-selected tiny sample set with self-reported aptitudes used to make blanket statements , with no attempt to get a rational cross-section ( which he acknowledges and then says it 's not a problem despite lack of any evidence supporting that conjecture ) , and all the problems/bias associated with internet-only research ( we are a biased sample set , in that we 're all here ) .In short : wanking .
You ca n't even begin to effectively correlate decision making to mathematical ability without actually testing that ability.If you asked me to describe my own math ability , I 'd say " average " , because I routinely deal with people who are so much better than me at math that I ca n't in good conscience say I 'm better than that...I mean , I never progressed beyond the simplest multi-variable calculus !
But put me up against someone who is average across the entire population , and I 'll rate much higher .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"A Tennessee man is arrested for possessing a picture of Miley Cyrus's face superimposed on a nude woman's body.
In a survey that I posted on the Web, a majority of respondents said the man violated the law -- except for respondents who say they were good at math in school, who as a group answered the survey differently from everyone else.
"Therefore: Mathematicians like child porn.Talk about flamebait summaries.
Can we have something that roughly represents the article?I have a ton of problems with the methodology as well.
Self-selected tiny sample set with self-reported aptitudes used to make blanket statements, with no attempt to get a rational cross-section (which he acknowledges and then says it's not a problem despite lack of any evidence supporting that conjecture), and all the problems/bias associated with internet-only research (we are a biased sample set, in that we're all here).In short: wanking.
You can't even begin to effectively correlate decision making to mathematical ability without actually testing that ability.If you asked me to describe my own math ability, I'd say "average", because I routinely deal with people who are so much better than me at math that I can't in good conscience say I'm better than that...I mean, I never progressed beyond the simplest multi-variable calculus!
But put me up against someone who is average across the entire population, and I'll rate much higher.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595675</id>
	<title>Re:50\%</title>
	<author>digitalsushi</author>
	<datestamp>1246901100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i actually completely made this up so that someone would do the harder work of proving me wrong.  they deserve some credit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i actually completely made this up so that someone would do the harder work of proving me wrong .
they deserve some credit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i actually completely made this up so that someone would do the harder work of proving me wrong.
they deserve some credit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595279</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595749</id>
	<title>The real reason</title>
	<author>DoofusOfDeath</author>
	<datestamp>1246901340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Math geeks are deathly afraid of porn regulation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Math geeks are deathly afraid of porn regulation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Math geeks are deathly afraid of porn regulation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28604987</id>
	<title>Re:Ug.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246957380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, it is true that non-random samples might be biased, but sometimes you can assume they're not biased, or at least not so biased that the poll is useless. In this case, is there any evident reason for the sample to be biased? Is there any logical reason to believe that those without internet access will respond differently to these question? Any reason to believe they will blatantly lie about their skills in Math or English language? True that you cannot correlate decision making to mathematical ability without actually testing that ability, but you can correlate it to what is the believe the sample has about their skills, which makes the poll still interesting.</p><p>Obviously to give an accurate statistical significance you have to be able to answer these questions and the article fails to explain that but, still, I think this poll, in this case, gives you some clues about what the real thing would be...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , it is true that non-random samples might be biased , but sometimes you can assume they 're not biased , or at least not so biased that the poll is useless .
In this case , is there any evident reason for the sample to be biased ?
Is there any logical reason to believe that those without internet access will respond differently to these question ?
Any reason to believe they will blatantly lie about their skills in Math or English language ?
True that you can not correlate decision making to mathematical ability without actually testing that ability , but you can correlate it to what is the believe the sample has about their skills , which makes the poll still interesting.Obviously to give an accurate statistical significance you have to be able to answer these questions and the article fails to explain that but , still , I think this poll , in this case , gives you some clues about what the real thing would be.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, it is true that non-random samples might be biased, but sometimes you can assume they're not biased, or at least not so biased that the poll is useless.
In this case, is there any evident reason for the sample to be biased?
Is there any logical reason to believe that those without internet access will respond differently to these question?
Any reason to believe they will blatantly lie about their skills in Math or English language?
True that you cannot correlate decision making to mathematical ability without actually testing that ability, but you can correlate it to what is the believe the sample has about their skills, which makes the poll still interesting.Obviously to give an accurate statistical significance you have to be able to answer these questions and the article fails to explain that but, still, I think this poll, in this case, gives you some clues about what the real thing would be...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595335</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595603</id>
	<title>Submitter fails statistics 101</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246900800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Response\_bias</p><p>It also occurs in situations of <b>voluntary response</b>, such as phone-in polls, where the people who care enough to call are not necessarily a statistically representative sample of the actual population.</p><p>You picked the absolute worse form of gathering data. Go sit in the corner.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Response \ _biasIt also occurs in situations of voluntary response , such as phone-in polls , where the people who care enough to call are not necessarily a statistically representative sample of the actual population.You picked the absolute worse form of gathering data .
Go sit in the corner .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Response\_biasIt also occurs in situations of voluntary response, such as phone-in polls, where the people who care enough to call are not necessarily a statistically representative sample of the actual population.You picked the absolute worse form of gathering data.
Go sit in the corner.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28599855</id>
	<title>the interesting bit is</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246875480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i consider my mathematical skills to be excellent (regardless of what they really are), and I always feel the need to exert more effort than usual when it comes to justifying the non-popular opinion. And when it does seem like it logically makes sense (as you have proven in your presentation of the facts), then why should I object?</p><p>On the other hand, an english thinker will always keep their emotional thoughts at the forefront, in order to judge what they are reading their way. Rather than finding flaws in the argument against what is written, they choose to present their own arguments.</p><p>You are trying to profile, but it is quite shallow and meaningless.</p><p>Why? Because man made laws are the most laughable thing on this planet. And the sad thing is, you are not even discussing that! You waste your time on the opinion of a man on a particular issue in this ridiculous excuse for a law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i consider my mathematical skills to be excellent ( regardless of what they really are ) , and I always feel the need to exert more effort than usual when it comes to justifying the non-popular opinion .
And when it does seem like it logically makes sense ( as you have proven in your presentation of the facts ) , then why should I object ? On the other hand , an english thinker will always keep their emotional thoughts at the forefront , in order to judge what they are reading their way .
Rather than finding flaws in the argument against what is written , they choose to present their own arguments.You are trying to profile , but it is quite shallow and meaningless.Why ?
Because man made laws are the most laughable thing on this planet .
And the sad thing is , you are not even discussing that !
You waste your time on the opinion of a man on a particular issue in this ridiculous excuse for a law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i consider my mathematical skills to be excellent (regardless of what they really are), and I always feel the need to exert more effort than usual when it comes to justifying the non-popular opinion.
And when it does seem like it logically makes sense (as you have proven in your presentation of the facts), then why should I object?On the other hand, an english thinker will always keep their emotional thoughts at the forefront, in order to judge what they are reading their way.
Rather than finding flaws in the argument against what is written, they choose to present their own arguments.You are trying to profile, but it is quite shallow and meaningless.Why?
Because man made laws are the most laughable thing on this planet.
And the sad thing is, you are not even discussing that!
You waste your time on the opinion of a man on a particular issue in this ridiculous excuse for a law.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595355</id>
	<title>Re:Austistic Spectrum</title>
	<author>jedidiah</author>
	<datestamp>1246899540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The question isn't about "social norms" it's about "the law".</p><p>You've just demonstrated the original point and why juries are so easy to manipulate,<br>especially when both sides of the trial have done all they can to strip the jury of<br>anyone with any sense, expertise or education.</p><p>This isn't about what personally offends you but what will give the state the<br>right to PUT YOUR SORRY ASS IN A CAGE WITH ANIMALS.</p><p>Clearly many people don't have a full understanding of all the relevant consequences.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The question is n't about " social norms " it 's about " the law " .You 've just demonstrated the original point and why juries are so easy to manipulate,especially when both sides of the trial have done all they can to strip the jury ofanyone with any sense , expertise or education.This is n't about what personally offends you but what will give the state theright to PUT YOUR SORRY ASS IN A CAGE WITH ANIMALS.Clearly many people do n't have a full understanding of all the relevant consequences .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The question isn't about "social norms" it's about "the law".You've just demonstrated the original point and why juries are so easy to manipulate,especially when both sides of the trial have done all they can to strip the jury ofanyone with any sense, expertise or education.This isn't about what personally offends you but what will give the state theright to PUT YOUR SORRY ASS IN A CAGE WITH ANIMALS.Clearly many people don't have a full understanding of all the relevant consequences.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595045</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28597029</id>
	<title>Re:Formatting</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246906440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As someone mentioned above, it's Slashdot's CSS turning HTML <i> tags into block quotes.</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As someone mentioned above , it 's Slashdot 's CSS turning HTML tags into block quotes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As someone mentioned above, it's Slashdot's CSS turning HTML  tags into block quotes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595801</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28601581</id>
	<title>Re:This just in:</title>
	<author>Seumas</author>
	<datestamp>1246884420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What this survey seems to prove is what we all already know.</p><p>Mouth-breathers with limited intellect tend to accept whatever they're told. They're the type who say "he must be guilty of something or they wouldn't be accusing him!" and associate exercise of the fifth and fourth amendments as admissions of guilt and think we have "too much free speech".</p><p>Those with higher intellect (and therefore, typically abstract thought which is what I feel is a more important component to perceiving the world and having a rational, intellectual, factual view and interpretation of things) are less likely to just flow with what they have been told by someone "in authority" and apply critical-thinking processes to ration the problem out.</p><p>It isn't necessarily that people who are great at MATH would come to this conclusion as intelligent people (capacity for abstract thought) would. I'm sure if you queried people in above the 89th percentile of *anything* that involves some intellect to be above the 89th percentile in, they'd have come largely to the same resolution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What this survey seems to prove is what we all already know.Mouth-breathers with limited intellect tend to accept whatever they 're told .
They 're the type who say " he must be guilty of something or they would n't be accusing him !
" and associate exercise of the fifth and fourth amendments as admissions of guilt and think we have " too much free speech " .Those with higher intellect ( and therefore , typically abstract thought which is what I feel is a more important component to perceiving the world and having a rational , intellectual , factual view and interpretation of things ) are less likely to just flow with what they have been told by someone " in authority " and apply critical-thinking processes to ration the problem out.It is n't necessarily that people who are great at MATH would come to this conclusion as intelligent people ( capacity for abstract thought ) would .
I 'm sure if you queried people in above the 89th percentile of * anything * that involves some intellect to be above the 89th percentile in , they 'd have come largely to the same resolution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What this survey seems to prove is what we all already know.Mouth-breathers with limited intellect tend to accept whatever they're told.
They're the type who say "he must be guilty of something or they wouldn't be accusing him!
" and associate exercise of the fifth and fourth amendments as admissions of guilt and think we have "too much free speech".Those with higher intellect (and therefore, typically abstract thought which is what I feel is a more important component to perceiving the world and having a rational, intellectual, factual view and interpretation of things) are less likely to just flow with what they have been told by someone "in authority" and apply critical-thinking processes to ration the problem out.It isn't necessarily that people who are great at MATH would come to this conclusion as intelligent people (capacity for abstract thought) would.
I'm sure if you queried people in above the 89th percentile of *anything* that involves some intellect to be above the 89th percentile in, they'd have come largely to the same resolution.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28594939</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28600547</id>
	<title>er</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246878960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you actually interpret that law literally, about the only illegal thing to buy under it would be a box with a 10-year old in it having sex. A picture of a minor having sex, after all, does not "include" the real minor.</p><p>Laws are written in natural language for a reason.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you actually interpret that law literally , about the only illegal thing to buy under it would be a box with a 10-year old in it having sex .
A picture of a minor having sex , after all , does not " include " the real minor.Laws are written in natural language for a reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you actually interpret that law literally, about the only illegal thing to buy under it would be a box with a 10-year old in it having sex.
A picture of a minor having sex, after all, does not "include" the real minor.Laws are written in natural language for a reason.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595389</id>
	<title>Double Plus Good...</title>
	<author>tekrat</author>
	<datestamp>1246899720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, if someone was to take the prosecutor's face and photoshop it onto a picture of a dead body, that photoshop artist would be arrested for murder? Clearly, the way the prosecutor has re-worded the law in his favor, the victim is being charged with a thought-crime.</p><p>And if MERELY THINKING of a sexual act with a minor is punishable, then we are in a very sad state of affairs.</p><p>What is up with this country?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , if someone was to take the prosecutor 's face and photoshop it onto a picture of a dead body , that photoshop artist would be arrested for murder ?
Clearly , the way the prosecutor has re-worded the law in his favor , the victim is being charged with a thought-crime.And if MERELY THINKING of a sexual act with a minor is punishable , then we are in a very sad state of affairs.What is up with this country ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, if someone was to take the prosecutor's face and photoshop it onto a picture of a dead body, that photoshop artist would be arrested for murder?
Clearly, the way the prosecutor has re-worded the law in his favor, the victim is being charged with a thought-crime.And if MERELY THINKING of a sexual act with a minor is punishable, then we are in a very sad state of affairs.What is up with this country?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28601697</id>
	<title>Re:Formatting</title>
	<author>PaganRitual</author>
	<datestamp>1246884960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We've already discussed this, it's been Shatner-ized. Now move along.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 've already discussed this , it 's been Shatner-ized .
Now move along .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We've already discussed this, it's been Shatner-ized.
Now move along.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595801</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28597335</id>
	<title>Re:Meh</title>
	<author>that IT girl</author>
	<datestamp>1246907820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That was kind of what my response was going to be:
<br>
So all this proves is that math nerds are more likely to want to get their rocks off to underage girls?
<br>
We already knew they weren't getting any... right?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)
<br>
(Please don't actually take this seriously, I love nerdy guys.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>That was kind of what my response was going to be : So all this proves is that math nerds are more likely to want to get their rocks off to underage girls ?
We already knew they were n't getting any... right ? ; ) ( Please do n't actually take this seriously , I love nerdy guys .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That was kind of what my response was going to be:

So all this proves is that math nerds are more likely to want to get their rocks off to underage girls?
We already knew they weren't getting any... right? ;)

(Please don't actually take this seriously, I love nerdy guys.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595007</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28615141</id>
	<title>Whats the relationship between smarts and ego?</title>
	<author>bensch128</author>
	<datestamp>1246966080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find this study to be wildly stupid.</p><p>The author merely asks the survey participates to rate their mathematical abilities without actually testing them.<br>I wonder about the correlation (probably negative) between people who rate their math skills highly and people who actually can do math.</p><p>This study should be titled "Correlation between people who have high self esteem and who thinks that this child pornography prosecution is stupid."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find this study to be wildly stupid.The author merely asks the survey participates to rate their mathematical abilities without actually testing them.I wonder about the correlation ( probably negative ) between people who rate their math skills highly and people who actually can do math.This study should be titled " Correlation between people who have high self esteem and who thinks that this child pornography prosecution is stupid .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find this study to be wildly stupid.The author merely asks the survey participates to rate their mathematical abilities without actually testing them.I wonder about the correlation (probably negative) between people who rate their math skills highly and people who actually can do math.This study should be titled "Correlation between people who have high self esteem and who thinks that this child pornography prosecution is stupid.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28599539</id>
	<title>Full disclosure</title>
	<author>Ghubi</author>
	<datestamp>1246874040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thanks for sharing your occupation, but more importantly, do you find the man innocent or guilty?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks for sharing your occupation , but more importantly , do you find the man innocent or guilty ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks for sharing your occupation, but more importantly, do you find the man innocent or guilty?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595351</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28596171</id>
	<title>Re:This just in:</title>
	<author>moderatorrater</author>
	<datestamp>1246903080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Rationality is still atypical, and still associated with mathematical ability...</p></div><p>FTA:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I've tried, and I can't think of any coherent point that could be made in order to argue that the Miley photoshopper really did violate the Tennessee law.</p></div><p>Finally:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Even though 44\% of the 27 people with "excellent" math skills said the man did violate the law, when you look at the 58 people who self-reported "very good" math skills, 74\% of them said he violated the law. This would appear to confound my original hypothesis that good math skills lead people to converge on the correct answer. But I suspect that many people with self-reported "very good" math grades were probably just good students who studied hard and did the practice problems and got good grades in math, but without necessarily having the insight that makes someone an "excellent" math student.</p></div><p>Bennett, in his usual way, has made so many leaps of logic without enough support that it's astounding. He's making assumptions he can't support (such as above, or assuming that those using mechanical turk are a valid sample), and it's kind of sad. He's making the assumption the a minor's head pasted on the body of an adult constitutes a simulated minor, which may or may not be legally true. Here's the cogent argument: Miley Cyrus is a minor, her actual picture is being used to simulate her in a sexual position. By using her actual head, it's entirely possible that it fit the legal definition. What's more, in matters of legal opinion, the DA is more likely to know the law than some guy who goes off on Slashdot about it. <br> <br>

Seems to me that if we were really rational about this, we'd defer to the experts rather than read essays by people of middling intelligence and logic with no serious legal background and serious holes in his logic.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Rationality is still atypical , and still associated with mathematical ability...FTA : I 've tried , and I ca n't think of any coherent point that could be made in order to argue that the Miley photoshopper really did violate the Tennessee law.Finally : Even though 44 \ % of the 27 people with " excellent " math skills said the man did violate the law , when you look at the 58 people who self-reported " very good " math skills , 74 \ % of them said he violated the law .
This would appear to confound my original hypothesis that good math skills lead people to converge on the correct answer .
But I suspect that many people with self-reported " very good " math grades were probably just good students who studied hard and did the practice problems and got good grades in math , but without necessarily having the insight that makes someone an " excellent " math student.Bennett , in his usual way , has made so many leaps of logic without enough support that it 's astounding .
He 's making assumptions he ca n't support ( such as above , or assuming that those using mechanical turk are a valid sample ) , and it 's kind of sad .
He 's making the assumption the a minor 's head pasted on the body of an adult constitutes a simulated minor , which may or may not be legally true .
Here 's the cogent argument : Miley Cyrus is a minor , her actual picture is being used to simulate her in a sexual position .
By using her actual head , it 's entirely possible that it fit the legal definition .
What 's more , in matters of legal opinion , the DA is more likely to know the law than some guy who goes off on Slashdot about it .
Seems to me that if we were really rational about this , we 'd defer to the experts rather than read essays by people of middling intelligence and logic with no serious legal background and serious holes in his logic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rationality is still atypical, and still associated with mathematical ability...FTA:I've tried, and I can't think of any coherent point that could be made in order to argue that the Miley photoshopper really did violate the Tennessee law.Finally:Even though 44\% of the 27 people with "excellent" math skills said the man did violate the law, when you look at the 58 people who self-reported "very good" math skills, 74\% of them said he violated the law.
This would appear to confound my original hypothesis that good math skills lead people to converge on the correct answer.
But I suspect that many people with self-reported "very good" math grades were probably just good students who studied hard and did the practice problems and got good grades in math, but without necessarily having the insight that makes someone an "excellent" math student.Bennett, in his usual way, has made so many leaps of logic without enough support that it's astounding.
He's making assumptions he can't support (such as above, or assuming that those using mechanical turk are a valid sample), and it's kind of sad.
He's making the assumption the a minor's head pasted on the body of an adult constitutes a simulated minor, which may or may not be legally true.
Here's the cogent argument: Miley Cyrus is a minor, her actual picture is being used to simulate her in a sexual position.
By using her actual head, it's entirely possible that it fit the legal definition.
What's more, in matters of legal opinion, the DA is more likely to know the law than some guy who goes off on Slashdot about it.
Seems to me that if we were really rational about this, we'd defer to the experts rather than read essays by people of middling intelligence and logic with no serious legal background and serious holes in his logic.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28594939</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28594943</id>
	<title>FP</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246897800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Whoa!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Whoa !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whoa!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28601363</id>
	<title>Re:Statistical significance in surveys</title>
	<author>Ghubi</author>
	<datestamp>1246883220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You may be on to something here.  It's a paid survey so respondents selecting the first option seems plausible.  27 our of 127 respondents rating themselves as having excellent math skills...  I'll take that to also support the respondents pick the first option theory.</p><p>But wait, the first option of the <a href="http://www.peacefire.org/miley-photo-manipulation-survey.html" title="peacefire.org" rel="nofollow">survey</a> [peacefire.org] was yes the defendant violated the law.  First option pickers would have the opposite effect.</p><p>Full disclosure:  I don't think the defendant violated the statute.  I consider myself predisposed to do well in mathematics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You may be on to something here .
It 's a paid survey so respondents selecting the first option seems plausible .
27 our of 127 respondents rating themselves as having excellent math skills... I 'll take that to also support the respondents pick the first option theory.But wait , the first option of the survey [ peacefire.org ] was yes the defendant violated the law .
First option pickers would have the opposite effect.Full disclosure : I do n't think the defendant violated the statute .
I consider myself predisposed to do well in mathematics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You may be on to something here.
It's a paid survey so respondents selecting the first option seems plausible.
27 our of 127 respondents rating themselves as having excellent math skills...  I'll take that to also support the respondents pick the first option theory.But wait, the first option of the survey [peacefire.org] was yes the defendant violated the law.
First option pickers would have the opposite effect.Full disclosure:  I don't think the defendant violated the statute.
I consider myself predisposed to do well in mathematics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595265</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28604413</id>
	<title>Invasion of privacy?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246907400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Aren't you invading his privacy a bit too much? Even though I admit that I'd be tempted to do the same (especially because the work in itself must be pretty boring), it's not like we don't read news about privacy problems around the world every other day and should know better, right?</p><p>I was unable to reword this so that it doesn't sound like I'm flaming you, but it's actually just an honest question.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are n't you invading his privacy a bit too much ?
Even though I admit that I 'd be tempted to do the same ( especially because the work in itself must be pretty boring ) , it 's not like we do n't read news about privacy problems around the world every other day and should know better , right ? I was unable to reword this so that it does n't sound like I 'm flaming you , but it 's actually just an honest question .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aren't you invading his privacy a bit too much?
Even though I admit that I'd be tempted to do the same (especially because the work in itself must be pretty boring), it's not like we don't read news about privacy problems around the world every other day and should know better, right?I was unable to reword this so that it doesn't sound like I'm flaming you, but it's actually just an honest question.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28596381</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28603383</id>
	<title>The very definition of thought crime</title>
	<author>smchris</author>
	<datestamp>1246896480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A question I would \_really\_ have liked to have seen asked of that sample for cross-correlation is: "Is abortion murder because it destroys a destiny?"  My guess is that the correlation would be high because such people would consider a "destiny" as "real" as "thought crime".  "Reification" in a one dollar word.  There are other examples that could be explored.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A question I would \ _really \ _ have liked to have seen asked of that sample for cross-correlation is : " Is abortion murder because it destroys a destiny ?
" My guess is that the correlation would be high because such people would consider a " destiny " as " real " as " thought crime " .
" Reification " in a one dollar word .
There are other examples that could be explored .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>A question I would \_really\_ have liked to have seen asked of that sample for cross-correlation is: "Is abortion murder because it destroys a destiny?
"  My guess is that the correlation would be high because such people would consider a "destiny" as "real" as "thought crime".
"Reification" in a one dollar word.
There are other examples that could be explored.
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28601967</id>
	<title>Re:Tough one</title>
	<author>BeanThere</author>
	<datestamp>1246886340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There certainly is a conflict. Absolutely we should have the freedom to do what we want behind closed doors, so long as no one is harmed. This should hold true, no matter how twisted it is. However, if you were to see your child as the face on whoever's imposed porn, even absolute truths can become blurred.</p></div><p>When asking yourself what's OK and what's not in these situations, the best way to approach these things is to simply ask yourself the following questions: (1) Who is the victim? (2) If there's a victim, what are they a victim of?</p><p>In the case of "real" child porn, there is an obvious victim, the child, and what they're a victim of, is molestation (and subsequent degradation and reputational etc. damage by spreading the pictures). It does not follow from this that it should be OK to create a fake photo of a child involved in child porn just because no molestation took place. The child will still be a victim, just not of molestation - they'd still be a victim of the degradation from spreading those images. If I create a fake image on my computer and immediately delete it, no crime thus took place, because there <b>is no victim at all</b>.</p><p>Thus you are wrong, there is no blurring at all, just not for the reason you thought - you are confusing "blurring" for underlying instinct in your mind that realized it would still be wrong but didn't quite understand why.</p><p>Crime should have a victim.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There certainly is a conflict .
Absolutely we should have the freedom to do what we want behind closed doors , so long as no one is harmed .
This should hold true , no matter how twisted it is .
However , if you were to see your child as the face on whoever 's imposed porn , even absolute truths can become blurred.When asking yourself what 's OK and what 's not in these situations , the best way to approach these things is to simply ask yourself the following questions : ( 1 ) Who is the victim ?
( 2 ) If there 's a victim , what are they a victim of ? In the case of " real " child porn , there is an obvious victim , the child , and what they 're a victim of , is molestation ( and subsequent degradation and reputational etc .
damage by spreading the pictures ) .
It does not follow from this that it should be OK to create a fake photo of a child involved in child porn just because no molestation took place .
The child will still be a victim , just not of molestation - they 'd still be a victim of the degradation from spreading those images .
If I create a fake image on my computer and immediately delete it , no crime thus took place , because there is no victim at all.Thus you are wrong , there is no blurring at all , just not for the reason you thought - you are confusing " blurring " for underlying instinct in your mind that realized it would still be wrong but did n't quite understand why.Crime should have a victim .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There certainly is a conflict.
Absolutely we should have the freedom to do what we want behind closed doors, so long as no one is harmed.
This should hold true, no matter how twisted it is.
However, if you were to see your child as the face on whoever's imposed porn, even absolute truths can become blurred.When asking yourself what's OK and what's not in these situations, the best way to approach these things is to simply ask yourself the following questions: (1) Who is the victim?
(2) If there's a victim, what are they a victim of?In the case of "real" child porn, there is an obvious victim, the child, and what they're a victim of, is molestation (and subsequent degradation and reputational etc.
damage by spreading the pictures).
It does not follow from this that it should be OK to create a fake photo of a child involved in child porn just because no molestation took place.
The child will still be a victim, just not of molestation - they'd still be a victim of the degradation from spreading those images.
If I create a fake image on my computer and immediately delete it, no crime thus took place, because there is no victim at all.Thus you are wrong, there is no blurring at all, just not for the reason you thought - you are confusing "blurring" for underlying instinct in your mind that realized it would still be wrong but didn't quite understand why.Crime should have a victim.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595363</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28596299</id>
	<title>Re:Off-topic, sort of, but funny</title>
	<author>haifastudent</author>
	<datestamp>1246903560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And why exactly did you look at the pictures in the first place?</p><p>Doesn't seem a required step in copying files. Did you look at every other file you copied too?</p></div><p> <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/07/01/1940251" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">Maybe he works in Texas.</a> [slashdot.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And why exactly did you look at the pictures in the first place ? Does n't seem a required step in copying files .
Did you look at every other file you copied too ?
Maybe he works in Texas .
[ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And why exactly did you look at the pictures in the first place?Doesn't seem a required step in copying files.
Did you look at every other file you copied too?
Maybe he works in Texas.
[slashdot.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595443</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595499</id>
	<title>Re:Austistic Spectrum</title>
	<author>V!NCENT</author>
	<datestamp>1246900320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Ask those same people about having THEIR face superimposed on a nude child's body and see how their answers change.</p></div><p>Of course everybody wants to be liked by others, and their pictures photoshopped puts them in the light of ridicule. Of course they are going to do everything in their power to counter that. But that shouldn't make it ilegal.</p><p>I am seriously under the impressions that <b>you</b> are not realy the social type <b>and</b> are very bad at math</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ask those same people about having THEIR face superimposed on a nude child 's body and see how their answers change.Of course everybody wants to be liked by others , and their pictures photoshopped puts them in the light of ridicule .
Of course they are going to do everything in their power to counter that .
But that should n't make it ilegal.I am seriously under the impressions that you are not realy the social type and are very bad at math</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ask those same people about having THEIR face superimposed on a nude child's body and see how their answers change.Of course everybody wants to be liked by others, and their pictures photoshopped puts them in the light of ridicule.
Of course they are going to do everything in their power to counter that.
But that shouldn't make it ilegal.I am seriously under the impressions that you are not realy the social type and are very bad at math
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595045</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28600451</id>
	<title>Re:Tough one</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246878420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Suppose that in the near future, technology can read my thoughts through the walls of my home, and further suppose that I am not wearing my tin foil hat.</p></div><p>No one would go for that because everyone has thoughts that they don't want others to know about.  It'd be like if someone invented and sold real x-ray glasses--there'd be a massive public outcry over it and they'd be banned immediately.</p><p>In contrast, overpunishing Miley Photoshoppers doesn't generate much public outcry because very few people engage in that kind of activity, or even want to.  Very few people read that story and think, "Gosh, that could happen to me!"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Suppose that in the near future , technology can read my thoughts through the walls of my home , and further suppose that I am not wearing my tin foil hat.No one would go for that because everyone has thoughts that they do n't want others to know about .
It 'd be like if someone invented and sold real x-ray glasses--there 'd be a massive public outcry over it and they 'd be banned immediately.In contrast , overpunishing Miley Photoshoppers does n't generate much public outcry because very few people engage in that kind of activity , or even want to .
Very few people read that story and think , " Gosh , that could happen to me !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Suppose that in the near future, technology can read my thoughts through the walls of my home, and further suppose that I am not wearing my tin foil hat.No one would go for that because everyone has thoughts that they don't want others to know about.
It'd be like if someone invented and sold real x-ray glasses--there'd be a massive public outcry over it and they'd be banned immediately.In contrast, overpunishing Miley Photoshoppers doesn't generate much public outcry because very few people engage in that kind of activity, or even want to.
Very few people read that story and think, "Gosh, that could happen to me!
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595641</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28603045</id>
	<title>Re:Double Plus Good...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246894260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am sure more than a few of Slashdot posters have probably at least thought of committing sexual acts with Miley. Daaamn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am sure more than a few of Slashdot posters have probably at least thought of committing sexual acts with Miley .
Daaamn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am sure more than a few of Slashdot posters have probably at least thought of committing sexual acts with Miley.
Daaamn.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595389</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28594963</id>
	<title>Off-topic, sort of, but funny</title>
	<author>Petersko</author>
	<datestamp>1246897800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Reminds me of when I worked front line hardware breakfix back in 1994 or so. A guy brought his machine in for service, and we transferred his files to a new hard drive. He had a hidden directory, and in it were pictures that had been clearly spliced. There were about fifty different shots of the same woman's face on various bodies engaged in porn acts.<br> <br>

He called to let us know his friend, Angie, would pick up the computer. Naturally I was somewhat surprised when I recognized Angie.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Reminds me of when I worked front line hardware breakfix back in 1994 or so .
A guy brought his machine in for service , and we transferred his files to a new hard drive .
He had a hidden directory , and in it were pictures that had been clearly spliced .
There were about fifty different shots of the same woman 's face on various bodies engaged in porn acts .
He called to let us know his friend , Angie , would pick up the computer .
Naturally I was somewhat surprised when I recognized Angie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reminds me of when I worked front line hardware breakfix back in 1994 or so.
A guy brought his machine in for service, and we transferred his files to a new hard drive.
He had a hidden directory, and in it were pictures that had been clearly spliced.
There were about fifty different shots of the same woman's face on various bodies engaged in porn acts.
He called to let us know his friend, Angie, would pick up the computer.
Naturally I was somewhat surprised when I recognized Angie.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28597299</id>
	<title>Drama feels gooooood - (Ethos, Pathos, Logos)</title>
	<author>LCValentine</author>
	<datestamp>1246907700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Albeit, statistics can always be skewed to tell a story.  If I have a database of US Presidents, and their birth dates, and their places of birth, I believe you could statistically say that the best Presidents that the US has ever had have come from Illinois (despite the fact that this occurred before the US was fully annexed.)   Further more, you could argue that better leaders are born in April (fictionalization) because it's a coincidence what month they were born in.

<br>
<br>

When I was in college, a lady from the Wall Street Journal came to my statistics class telling us that the average Per Capita Income of subscribers was $200,000 annually.  This is not a cause -&gt; effect relationship.  Chances are better than a) some of the richest people in the world read this paper and b) the upper middle class are dragging down the average cuz they want to be rich also.  It does not however imply that one would be richer for buying WJS.

<br>
<br>

I am surprised that nobody has given mention to Aristotle's Rhetoric where it is described in great detail the invaluable skill of utilizing the feelings (ethos / ethics) of the words that surround raw logic (logos / logic) and collectively provide a persuasive argument (pathos / pathology).  It is our human nature that gives us greatness for being able to decorate words into so much more than they are, with simple things like CAPITALization, overly obfuscated alliterated onomatopoeia of oration, and rhymes so nice they splice the skies of sun and set.

<br>
<br>

It seems easy to see that people far more easily acquiesce to the involvement of their emotions than to their hair splitting logic.  How else would myspace and facebook make so much money?  Drama feels gooooood!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Albeit , statistics can always be skewed to tell a story .
If I have a database of US Presidents , and their birth dates , and their places of birth , I believe you could statistically say that the best Presidents that the US has ever had have come from Illinois ( despite the fact that this occurred before the US was fully annexed .
) Further more , you could argue that better leaders are born in April ( fictionalization ) because it 's a coincidence what month they were born in .
When I was in college , a lady from the Wall Street Journal came to my statistics class telling us that the average Per Capita Income of subscribers was $ 200,000 annually .
This is not a cause - &gt; effect relationship .
Chances are better than a ) some of the richest people in the world read this paper and b ) the upper middle class are dragging down the average cuz they want to be rich also .
It does not however imply that one would be richer for buying WJS .
I am surprised that nobody has given mention to Aristotle 's Rhetoric where it is described in great detail the invaluable skill of utilizing the feelings ( ethos / ethics ) of the words that surround raw logic ( logos / logic ) and collectively provide a persuasive argument ( pathos / pathology ) .
It is our human nature that gives us greatness for being able to decorate words into so much more than they are , with simple things like CAPITALization , overly obfuscated alliterated onomatopoeia of oration , and rhymes so nice they splice the skies of sun and set .
It seems easy to see that people far more easily acquiesce to the involvement of their emotions than to their hair splitting logic .
How else would myspace and facebook make so much money ?
Drama feels gooooood !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Albeit, statistics can always be skewed to tell a story.
If I have a database of US Presidents, and their birth dates, and their places of birth, I believe you could statistically say that the best Presidents that the US has ever had have come from Illinois (despite the fact that this occurred before the US was fully annexed.
)   Further more, you could argue that better leaders are born in April (fictionalization) because it's a coincidence what month they were born in.
When I was in college, a lady from the Wall Street Journal came to my statistics class telling us that the average Per Capita Income of subscribers was $200,000 annually.
This is not a cause -&gt; effect relationship.
Chances are better than a) some of the richest people in the world read this paper and b) the upper middle class are dragging down the average cuz they want to be rich also.
It does not however imply that one would be richer for buying WJS.
I am surprised that nobody has given mention to Aristotle's Rhetoric where it is described in great detail the invaluable skill of utilizing the feelings (ethos / ethics) of the words that surround raw logic (logos / logic) and collectively provide a persuasive argument (pathos / pathology).
It is our human nature that gives us greatness for being able to decorate words into so much more than they are, with simple things like CAPITALization, overly obfuscated alliterated onomatopoeia of oration, and rhymes so nice they splice the skies of sun and set.
It seems easy to see that people far more easily acquiesce to the involvement of their emotions than to their hair splitting logic.
How else would myspace and facebook make so much money?
Drama feels gooooood!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28596371</id>
	<title>Re:Meh</title>
	<author>wisnoskij</author>
	<datestamp>1246903800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But it is not that the law is is written vaguely, it is that the law clearly states (when you use the strict meanings of the words making up the law) that the minor must be engaged in "simulated sexual activity".
and wearing no cloths has never constituted "simulated sexual activity" in any stretch of the imagination.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But it is not that the law is is written vaguely , it is that the law clearly states ( when you use the strict meanings of the words making up the law ) that the minor must be engaged in " simulated sexual activity " .
and wearing no cloths has never constituted " simulated sexual activity " in any stretch of the imagination .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But it is not that the law is is written vaguely, it is that the law clearly states (when you use the strict meanings of the words making up the law) that the minor must be engaged in "simulated sexual activity".
and wearing no cloths has never constituted "simulated sexual activity" in any stretch of the imagination.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595315</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28596381</id>
	<title>Why?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246903860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"And why exactly did you look at the pictures in the first place?"</i> <br> <br>

Because it was probably pornography, and because I knew I wouldn't get caught.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" And why exactly did you look at the pictures in the first place ?
" Because it was probably pornography , and because I knew I would n't get caught .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"And why exactly did you look at the pictures in the first place?
"  

Because it was probably pornography, and because I knew I wouldn't get caught.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595443</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28598525</id>
	<title>Re:50\%</title>
	<author>thepotoo</author>
	<datestamp>1246912800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Excellent troll post, my good man!</p><p>You win 100 Internets, and a certificate entitling the bearer to lifelong virginity!</p><p>But seriously, before I saw your second post, I had typed up a huge rant with a dozen peer reviewed citations and plenty of swearing.  On the off chance you were actually looking for serious information, you'll be happy to know that you can find tons of studies about this from Google, Pubmed, and the isi Web of Knowledge.  Try "self ratings peer ratings" or "self ratings above average".  Alternatively, you could pick up any intro psych book and look in the index under self-ratings.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Excellent troll post , my good man ! You win 100 Internets , and a certificate entitling the bearer to lifelong virginity ! But seriously , before I saw your second post , I had typed up a huge rant with a dozen peer reviewed citations and plenty of swearing .
On the off chance you were actually looking for serious information , you 'll be happy to know that you can find tons of studies about this from Google , Pubmed , and the isi Web of Knowledge .
Try " self ratings peer ratings " or " self ratings above average " .
Alternatively , you could pick up any intro psych book and look in the index under self-ratings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Excellent troll post, my good man!You win 100 Internets, and a certificate entitling the bearer to lifelong virginity!But seriously, before I saw your second post, I had typed up a huge rant with a dozen peer reviewed citations and plenty of swearing.
On the off chance you were actually looking for serious information, you'll be happy to know that you can find tons of studies about this from Google, Pubmed, and the isi Web of Knowledge.
Try "self ratings peer ratings" or "self ratings above average".
Alternatively, you could pick up any intro psych book and look in the index under self-ratings.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595675</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595393</id>
	<title>Re:This just in:</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1246899780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're confusing logic with reason.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're confusing logic with reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're confusing logic with reason.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28594939</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595861</id>
	<title>Patently Offensive</title>
	<author>Iyonesco</author>
	<datestamp>1246901760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Western civilisation is crumbling because we're obsessed with punishing people for being "offensive" rather than for real crimes.  Here in the UK you can kill somebody and get away with 2 years in a luxury prison.  Beat somebody to a pulp and you'll get a slap on the wrist.  If you have your house burgled or your car vandalised the police won't even be interested in taking a crime report and will certainly never catch the criminals.  However if you offend a homosexual or member ethnic minority the police will be all over you in an instant and you'll be facing seven years in prison for the terrible crime of saying something offensive.  Likewise if you modify an image to contain a minor and is deemed "patently offensive" you'll have your life ruined because of your evil photoshoppery.  It seems our governments don't care in the least about crimes that do real harm and are only interested in going after "criminals" who have said some nasty words or produced a nasty picture</p><p>I'm terrified to go out on the streets at night because gangs have no fear of the toothless police and can act with impunity.  The other thing I'm terrified of is accidentally offending the wrong person since something as simple as eating black Jelly Babies in the presence of a black man can cost you your job.  The country is in massive debt, the economy is collapsing, the education system has been rendered worthless making it impossible for us to compete with countries like China, crime and vandalism are taking over the streets while the worthless police do absolutely nothing and society in general is collapsing.  Despite all this the government's only concern seems to be stopping thought crime and offensive words.</p><p>How do I get off this merry-go-round?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Western civilisation is crumbling because we 're obsessed with punishing people for being " offensive " rather than for real crimes .
Here in the UK you can kill somebody and get away with 2 years in a luxury prison .
Beat somebody to a pulp and you 'll get a slap on the wrist .
If you have your house burgled or your car vandalised the police wo n't even be interested in taking a crime report and will certainly never catch the criminals .
However if you offend a homosexual or member ethnic minority the police will be all over you in an instant and you 'll be facing seven years in prison for the terrible crime of saying something offensive .
Likewise if you modify an image to contain a minor and is deemed " patently offensive " you 'll have your life ruined because of your evil photoshoppery .
It seems our governments do n't care in the least about crimes that do real harm and are only interested in going after " criminals " who have said some nasty words or produced a nasty pictureI 'm terrified to go out on the streets at night because gangs have no fear of the toothless police and can act with impunity .
The other thing I 'm terrified of is accidentally offending the wrong person since something as simple as eating black Jelly Babies in the presence of a black man can cost you your job .
The country is in massive debt , the economy is collapsing , the education system has been rendered worthless making it impossible for us to compete with countries like China , crime and vandalism are taking over the streets while the worthless police do absolutely nothing and society in general is collapsing .
Despite all this the government 's only concern seems to be stopping thought crime and offensive words.How do I get off this merry-go-round ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Western civilisation is crumbling because we're obsessed with punishing people for being "offensive" rather than for real crimes.
Here in the UK you can kill somebody and get away with 2 years in a luxury prison.
Beat somebody to a pulp and you'll get a slap on the wrist.
If you have your house burgled or your car vandalised the police won't even be interested in taking a crime report and will certainly never catch the criminals.
However if you offend a homosexual or member ethnic minority the police will be all over you in an instant and you'll be facing seven years in prison for the terrible crime of saying something offensive.
Likewise if you modify an image to contain a minor and is deemed "patently offensive" you'll have your life ruined because of your evil photoshoppery.
It seems our governments don't care in the least about crimes that do real harm and are only interested in going after "criminals" who have said some nasty words or produced a nasty pictureI'm terrified to go out on the streets at night because gangs have no fear of the toothless police and can act with impunity.
The other thing I'm terrified of is accidentally offending the wrong person since something as simple as eating black Jelly Babies in the presence of a black man can cost you your job.
The country is in massive debt, the economy is collapsing, the education system has been rendered worthless making it impossible for us to compete with countries like China, crime and vandalism are taking over the streets while the worthless police do absolutely nothing and society in general is collapsing.
Despite all this the government's only concern seems to be stopping thought crime and offensive words.How do I get off this merry-go-round?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28597135</id>
	<title>Re:Fix your tags</title>
	<author>HTH NE1</author>
	<datestamp>1246906920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not a bug, it's legacy code. Italics were the standard way of quoting in the past. When<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. got styled, a rule of the contest was that legacy posts still render properly without requiring the archives to be edited. So italics were given block-quotation treatment and we get emphasis tags being used improperly for strictly italic purposes.</p><p>Alas, not even a selector of <tt>P &gt; I:only-child</tt> (or equivalently <tt>P &gt; I:first-child:last-child</tt>) would constrain the block-quoting style only to paragraphs entirely containing only one block of italic text as that child could have anonymous-inline-text siblings (for which there is no selector, such as <tt>P &gt;<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:anonymous ~ I:only-child</tt> rule to override a block-quoting-style rule, and I've tried combinations involing the<nobr> <wbr></nobr><tt>:not()</tt> selector). Still, using<nobr> <wbr></nobr><tt>:only-child</tt> could reduce the number of false positives and give an editing choice for new articles by including a second empty set of tags in any paragraph containing italics not intended to be rendered as a quoted block.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not a bug , it 's legacy code .
Italics were the standard way of quoting in the past .
When / .
got styled , a rule of the contest was that legacy posts still render properly without requiring the archives to be edited .
So italics were given block-quotation treatment and we get emphasis tags being used improperly for strictly italic purposes.Alas , not even a selector of P &gt; I : only-child ( or equivalently P &gt; I : first-child : last-child ) would constrain the block-quoting style only to paragraphs entirely containing only one block of italic text as that child could have anonymous-inline-text siblings ( for which there is no selector , such as P &gt; : anonymous ~ I : only-child rule to override a block-quoting-style rule , and I 've tried combinations involing the : not ( ) selector ) .
Still , using : only-child could reduce the number of false positives and give an editing choice for new articles by including a second empty set of tags in any paragraph containing italics not intended to be rendered as a quoted block .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not a bug, it's legacy code.
Italics were the standard way of quoting in the past.
When /.
got styled, a rule of the contest was that legacy posts still render properly without requiring the archives to be edited.
So italics were given block-quotation treatment and we get emphasis tags being used improperly for strictly italic purposes.Alas, not even a selector of P &gt; I:only-child (or equivalently P &gt; I:first-child:last-child) would constrain the block-quoting style only to paragraphs entirely containing only one block of italic text as that child could have anonymous-inline-text siblings (for which there is no selector, such as P &gt; :anonymous ~ I:only-child rule to override a block-quoting-style rule, and I've tried combinations involing the :not() selector).
Still, using :only-child could reduce the number of false positives and give an editing choice for new articles by including a second empty set of tags in any paragraph containing italics not intended to be rendered as a quoted block.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595091</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28600561</id>
	<title>You have a bizarre reading of the law.</title>
	<author>ljw1004</author>
	<datestamp>1246879020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does Star Wars include a farm-boy engaged in light-saber duels? From your interpretation, "no", because Luke wasn't an actual farm-boy.</p><p>Suppose I write a historical fiction in which Hitler wins the war and engages in a victory parade in Trafalgar Square. Does this book include a dictator engaging in a victory parading in Trafalgar Square? From your interpretation, "no", because it isn't an actual Hitler actually engaged in a victory parade.</p><p>When we say a piece of literature or art includes "X engaged in Y", it never means that the actual X is engaged in an actual Y. It only ever means that the depicted X is depicted as engaged in Y.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does Star Wars include a farm-boy engaged in light-saber duels ?
From your interpretation , " no " , because Luke was n't an actual farm-boy.Suppose I write a historical fiction in which Hitler wins the war and engages in a victory parade in Trafalgar Square .
Does this book include a dictator engaging in a victory parading in Trafalgar Square ?
From your interpretation , " no " , because it is n't an actual Hitler actually engaged in a victory parade.When we say a piece of literature or art includes " X engaged in Y " , it never means that the actual X is engaged in an actual Y. It only ever means that the depicted X is depicted as engaged in Y .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does Star Wars include a farm-boy engaged in light-saber duels?
From your interpretation, "no", because Luke wasn't an actual farm-boy.Suppose I write a historical fiction in which Hitler wins the war and engages in a victory parade in Trafalgar Square.
Does this book include a dictator engaging in a victory parading in Trafalgar Square?
From your interpretation, "no", because it isn't an actual Hitler actually engaged in a victory parade.When we say a piece of literature or art includes "X engaged in Y", it never means that the actual X is engaged in an actual Y. It only ever means that the depicted X is depicted as engaged in Y.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595599</id>
	<title>Re:Fix your tags</title>
	<author>skeeto</author>
	<datestamp>1246900800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's actually been like that since the "new" user pages were introduced months ago. I doubt it will be fixed anytime soon.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's actually been like that since the " new " user pages were introduced months ago .
I doubt it will be fixed anytime soon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's actually been like that since the "new" user pages were introduced months ago.
I doubt it will be fixed anytime soon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595091</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595715</id>
	<title>Re:Tough one</title>
	<author>hardburn</author>
	<datestamp>1246901220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not only that, but:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>"When you have the face of a small child affixed to a nude body of a mature woman, it's going to be the state's position that this is for sexual gratification and that this is simulated sexual activity."</p></div><p>Miley Cyrus is not a small child. She's 16. I could see the argument for saying a 16 year old can't legally consent, but certainly there's a difference between nude photos of a 16 year old versus a 9 year old (even if Miley herself was the one posing, which she isn't).</p><p>Also, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child\_Pornography\_Prevention\_Act\_of\_1996" title="wikipedia.org">Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996</a> [wikipedia.org] made simulated child porn illegal. It was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2002.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not only that , but : " When you have the face of a small child affixed to a nude body of a mature woman , it 's going to be the state 's position that this is for sexual gratification and that this is simulated sexual activity .
" Miley Cyrus is not a small child .
She 's 16 .
I could see the argument for saying a 16 year old ca n't legally consent , but certainly there 's a difference between nude photos of a 16 year old versus a 9 year old ( even if Miley herself was the one posing , which she is n't ) .Also , the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 [ wikipedia.org ] made simulated child porn illegal .
It was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2002 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not only that, but:"When you have the face of a small child affixed to a nude body of a mature woman, it's going to be the state's position that this is for sexual gratification and that this is simulated sexual activity.
"Miley Cyrus is not a small child.
She's 16.
I could see the argument for saying a 16 year old can't legally consent, but certainly there's a difference between nude photos of a 16 year old versus a 9 year old (even if Miley herself was the one posing, which she isn't).Also, the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 [wikipedia.org] made simulated child porn illegal.
It was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2002.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595039</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595527</id>
	<title>Re:50\%</title>
	<author>ratnerstar</author>
	<datestamp>1246900440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ummm<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... citation needed.</p><blockquote><div><p>Much research has found that drivers perceive themselves as being better than average. Evans (1991, p. 322) cites Svenson (1981) who had a group of subjects in two countries rank their own safety and driving skill relative to others in the group. Seventy-six percent of the drivers considered themselves as safer than the driver with median safety, and 65\% of the drivers considered themselves more skilful than the driver with median skill.</p></div></blockquote><p><a href="http://www.ambulancedriving.com/research/WP65-rateaboveav.html" title="ambulancedriving.com">http://www.ambulancedriving.com/research/WP65-rateaboveav.html</a> [ambulancedriving.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ummm ... citation needed.Much research has found that drivers perceive themselves as being better than average .
Evans ( 1991 , p. 322 ) cites Svenson ( 1981 ) who had a group of subjects in two countries rank their own safety and driving skill relative to others in the group .
Seventy-six percent of the drivers considered themselves as safer than the driver with median safety , and 65 \ % of the drivers considered themselves more skilful than the driver with median skill.http : //www.ambulancedriving.com/research/WP65-rateaboveav.html [ ambulancedriving.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ummm ... citation needed.Much research has found that drivers perceive themselves as being better than average.
Evans (1991, p. 322) cites Svenson (1981) who had a group of subjects in two countries rank their own safety and driving skill relative to others in the group.
Seventy-six percent of the drivers considered themselves as safer than the driver with median safety, and 65\% of the drivers considered themselves more skilful than the driver with median skill.http://www.ambulancedriving.com/research/WP65-rateaboveav.html [ambulancedriving.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595279</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28597479</id>
	<title>Maybe... formal logic?</title>
	<author>ukemike</author>
	<datestamp>1246908300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Teaching of formal logic is extremely rare these days.  Typically only college level math, programming, or philosophy students will have course work in formal logic.  It could be that there is a correlation between training in how to think rationally, and thinking rationally.  <br> <br>

Or maybe the sampling methodology is just soOoo whacked that it all means nothing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Teaching of formal logic is extremely rare these days .
Typically only college level math , programming , or philosophy students will have course work in formal logic .
It could be that there is a correlation between training in how to think rationally , and thinking rationally .
Or maybe the sampling methodology is just soOoo whacked that it all means nothing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Teaching of formal logic is extremely rare these days.
Typically only college level math, programming, or philosophy students will have course work in formal logic.
It could be that there is a correlation between training in how to think rationally, and thinking rationally.
Or maybe the sampling methodology is just soOoo whacked that it all means nothing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28594939</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595885</id>
	<title>What does it matter</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246901880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Illegal or legal? I don't care. He is probably headed to being a sexual predator.  The guy would at least be getting treatment for his condition so it doesn't become worse. About the survey though, most math problems are binary. A yes or a no. They don't think to incorporate their opinion into the equation because that would destroy the point.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Illegal or legal ?
I do n't care .
He is probably headed to being a sexual predator .
The guy would at least be getting treatment for his condition so it does n't become worse .
About the survey though , most math problems are binary .
A yes or a no .
They do n't think to incorporate their opinion into the equation because that would destroy the point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Illegal or legal?
I don't care.
He is probably headed to being a sexual predator.
The guy would at least be getting treatment for his condition so it doesn't become worse.
About the survey though, most math problems are binary.
A yes or a no.
They don't think to incorporate their opinion into the equation because that would destroy the point.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595711</id>
	<title>Re:Fix your tags</title>
	<author>0100010001010011</author>
	<datestamp>1246901220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like the missing space between "Anonymous Coward" and "on" that's been there fer a few weeks?</p><p>Normally the space is a placeholder for an image, but AC doesn't have on...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like the missing space between " Anonymous Coward " and " on " that 's been there fer a few weeks ? Normally the space is a placeholder for an image , but AC does n't have on.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like the missing space between "Anonymous Coward" and "on" that's been there fer a few weeks?Normally the space is a placeholder for an image, but AC doesn't have on...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595091</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595739</id>
	<title>Perhaps the real link is level of education</title>
	<author>BierGuzzl</author>
	<datestamp>1246901340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Those with a higher level of education are hopefully able to better understand the problem and question being posed. I would expect that they are also more likely to engage in critical thinking. Maybe those with a short attention span just didn't read the whole thing. The results don't suggest much more than to say that it might be worth repeating the experiment with some improvements.</p><p>My fortune: "Malek's Law: Any simple idea will be worded in the most complicated way."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Those with a higher level of education are hopefully able to better understand the problem and question being posed .
I would expect that they are also more likely to engage in critical thinking .
Maybe those with a short attention span just did n't read the whole thing .
The results do n't suggest much more than to say that it might be worth repeating the experiment with some improvements.My fortune : " Malek 's Law : Any simple idea will be worded in the most complicated way .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those with a higher level of education are hopefully able to better understand the problem and question being posed.
I would expect that they are also more likely to engage in critical thinking.
Maybe those with a short attention span just didn't read the whole thing.
The results don't suggest much more than to say that it might be worth repeating the experiment with some improvements.My fortune: "Malek's Law: Any simple idea will be worded in the most complicated way.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595287</id>
	<title>Strange Test Case</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246899180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Almost certainly, something about mathematical ability is correlated with a person's likelihood of giving the "not guilty" answer.</p> </div><p>Or hubris.  Seems like the more disposed someone is to think they're "the Shit," the more likely they are to give your "right answer."</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I've been saying for years that you can use excellent prose to defend an illogical idea, or you can use poorly crafted prose to defend a good idea, and so if you care about the quality of an idea and its impact on the real world, you have to look at the substance of an argument, not the style.</p></div><p>So are you saying that you thought what this guy did was a good idea?  Maybe you should look at the "substance" of your own argument, and think again about what kind of impact you want to make on "the real world."  Remember, good "English" skills usually involve high reading comprehension, i.e. knowing what the hell is going on.  Maybe you should factor that into your analysis.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Almost certainly , something about mathematical ability is correlated with a person 's likelihood of giving the " not guilty " answer .
Or hubris .
Seems like the more disposed someone is to think they 're " the Shit , " the more likely they are to give your " right answer .
" I 've been saying for years that you can use excellent prose to defend an illogical idea , or you can use poorly crafted prose to defend a good idea , and so if you care about the quality of an idea and its impact on the real world , you have to look at the substance of an argument , not the style.So are you saying that you thought what this guy did was a good idea ?
Maybe you should look at the " substance " of your own argument , and think again about what kind of impact you want to make on " the real world .
" Remember , good " English " skills usually involve high reading comprehension , i.e .
knowing what the hell is going on .
Maybe you should factor that into your analysis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Almost certainly, something about mathematical ability is correlated with a person's likelihood of giving the "not guilty" answer.
Or hubris.
Seems like the more disposed someone is to think they're "the Shit," the more likely they are to give your "right answer.
"I've been saying for years that you can use excellent prose to defend an illogical idea, or you can use poorly crafted prose to defend a good idea, and so if you care about the quality of an idea and its impact on the real world, you have to look at the substance of an argument, not the style.So are you saying that you thought what this guy did was a good idea?
Maybe you should look at the "substance" of your own argument, and think again about what kind of impact you want to make on "the real world.
"  Remember, good "English" skills usually involve high reading comprehension, i.e.
knowing what the hell is going on.
Maybe you should factor that into your analysis.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28605363</id>
	<title>Child Porn?</title>
	<author>4D6963</author>
	<datestamp>1246962540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, if you Photoshop the face of an underage person onto the body of an adult porn actor/actress that's child porn? Sounds like a plan! :

</p><p>1. Write a script that detects faces in porn pictures and replace them with the faces of underage people/celebrities
<br>2. Sell it to paedophiles as child porn
<br>3. Profit!
<br>4. ???
<br>5. Get pounded in the ass in a federal prison


</p><p>Also, does it make it bestiality if you Photoshop the head of an animal instead, or necrophilia if you use the face of someone dead on the picture? What if you Photoshop the face of underage people onto the heads of two animals fornicating? Paedobestiality?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , if you Photoshop the face of an underage person onto the body of an adult porn actor/actress that 's child porn ?
Sounds like a plan !
: 1 .
Write a script that detects faces in porn pictures and replace them with the faces of underage people/celebrities 2 .
Sell it to paedophiles as child porn 3 .
Profit ! 4 .
? ? ? 5 .
Get pounded in the ass in a federal prison Also , does it make it bestiality if you Photoshop the head of an animal instead , or necrophilia if you use the face of someone dead on the picture ?
What if you Photoshop the face of underage people onto the heads of two animals fornicating ?
Paedobestiality ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, if you Photoshop the face of an underage person onto the body of an adult porn actor/actress that's child porn?
Sounds like a plan!
:

1.
Write a script that detects faces in porn pictures and replace them with the faces of underage people/celebrities
2.
Sell it to paedophiles as child porn
3.
Profit!
4.
???
5.
Get pounded in the ass in a federal prison


Also, does it make it bestiality if you Photoshop the head of an animal instead, or necrophilia if you use the face of someone dead on the picture?
What if you Photoshop the face of underage people onto the heads of two animals fornicating?
Paedobestiality?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595721</id>
	<title>Re:50\%</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246901220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except motorists - probably 90\% regard themselves as better than average drivers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except motorists - probably 90 \ % regard themselves as better than average drivers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except motorists - probably 90\% regard themselves as better than average drivers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595279</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28598201</id>
	<title>Re:Double Plus Good...</title>
	<author>Sheafification</author>
	<datestamp>1246911360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Interesting point. To come back to the child porn situation, what if someone had put Miley's face on an image of a nude man? Based on the interpretation of the law that the prosecutor seems to have, this should also count as child porn, but I dare to bet that most people wouldn't put it in the same context as when it's a nude female body. They'd see it as the dumb trick that it is.</p><p>Or what if there was a nature photo of two buffalo (or whatever) having sex, and someone put Miley's face on one of them? Is that bestiality? Is that child porn? Or is it just a stupid cut and paste?</p><p>What if Miley's face didn't cover the original model's face, but was added on somewhere else? Like a two-headed nude woman or something. Does that count as child porn?</p><p>There's all sorts of variations that might run afoul of interpreting the law this way, but pretty clearly are not situations that we should be worried about.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting point .
To come back to the child porn situation , what if someone had put Miley 's face on an image of a nude man ?
Based on the interpretation of the law that the prosecutor seems to have , this should also count as child porn , but I dare to bet that most people would n't put it in the same context as when it 's a nude female body .
They 'd see it as the dumb trick that it is.Or what if there was a nature photo of two buffalo ( or whatever ) having sex , and someone put Miley 's face on one of them ?
Is that bestiality ?
Is that child porn ?
Or is it just a stupid cut and paste ? What if Miley 's face did n't cover the original model 's face , but was added on somewhere else ?
Like a two-headed nude woman or something .
Does that count as child porn ? There 's all sorts of variations that might run afoul of interpreting the law this way , but pretty clearly are not situations that we should be worried about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting point.
To come back to the child porn situation, what if someone had put Miley's face on an image of a nude man?
Based on the interpretation of the law that the prosecutor seems to have, this should also count as child porn, but I dare to bet that most people wouldn't put it in the same context as when it's a nude female body.
They'd see it as the dumb trick that it is.Or what if there was a nature photo of two buffalo (or whatever) having sex, and someone put Miley's face on one of them?
Is that bestiality?
Is that child porn?
Or is it just a stupid cut and paste?What if Miley's face didn't cover the original model's face, but was added on somewhere else?
Like a two-headed nude woman or something.
Does that count as child porn?There's all sorts of variations that might run afoul of interpreting the law this way, but pretty clearly are not situations that we should be worried about.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595389</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595961</id>
	<title>We need better maths ed, but not for the reason...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246902180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Leaving the issue of what the correct answer is aside for a moment, for all I care the law may be wrong, it does press the point that we need better maths education, but not for the reason you might guess. Not because the mathies got the answer right, after all, the law might be badly written and the right answer might actually be the wrong answer, but because for societal stability we need all people to interpret the law in the same way, and so that it will get written to a common mode of interpretation. We cannot afford to throw maths education out of the window, so we need to improve maths education for everyone.<br>I don't know if I'm saying this as a mathy or not. I haven't looked at the actual case, so I don't know what answer I would have given. I post on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. so that goes one way, but then again I have always wrestled with maths as if I was wrestling demons. I will however say that much of my own lack of maths skills has been caused by lack of good education, and that I've since taught (in informal settings) people who would consider themselves on the soft side of academics mathematical concepts that they never grasped in school. So I will venture that it must be possible to improve maths education a lot without burdening the students or teachers more. Fact is, a lot of teaching material is badly written, badly structured and doesn't focus on vital concepts and logic.<br>For example, I've seen a textbook that threw the root equation and angle doubling equations at students without telling them where those came from. They just had to learn the equations by heart (which the students hated), do a lot of homework to get it in right, do a nasty test on the matter, and afterwards they all forgot the formulae. On the other hand, I've also seen books that start out from the underlying concepts, and that works much better. Students still forget the formulae, but that doesn't matter. They can derive them or look them up. But they didn't forget the concepts and the logical way to get to the equations and that's all that counts in my opinion.<br>Oh, and perhaps maths eduction could be more fun. I still have nightmares of the boredom.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Leaving the issue of what the correct answer is aside for a moment , for all I care the law may be wrong , it does press the point that we need better maths education , but not for the reason you might guess .
Not because the mathies got the answer right , after all , the law might be badly written and the right answer might actually be the wrong answer , but because for societal stability we need all people to interpret the law in the same way , and so that it will get written to a common mode of interpretation .
We can not afford to throw maths education out of the window , so we need to improve maths education for everyone.I do n't know if I 'm saying this as a mathy or not .
I have n't looked at the actual case , so I do n't know what answer I would have given .
I post on / .
so that goes one way , but then again I have always wrestled with maths as if I was wrestling demons .
I will however say that much of my own lack of maths skills has been caused by lack of good education , and that I 've since taught ( in informal settings ) people who would consider themselves on the soft side of academics mathematical concepts that they never grasped in school .
So I will venture that it must be possible to improve maths education a lot without burdening the students or teachers more .
Fact is , a lot of teaching material is badly written , badly structured and does n't focus on vital concepts and logic.For example , I 've seen a textbook that threw the root equation and angle doubling equations at students without telling them where those came from .
They just had to learn the equations by heart ( which the students hated ) , do a lot of homework to get it in right , do a nasty test on the matter , and afterwards they all forgot the formulae .
On the other hand , I 've also seen books that start out from the underlying concepts , and that works much better .
Students still forget the formulae , but that does n't matter .
They can derive them or look them up .
But they did n't forget the concepts and the logical way to get to the equations and that 's all that counts in my opinion.Oh , and perhaps maths eduction could be more fun .
I still have nightmares of the boredom .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Leaving the issue of what the correct answer is aside for a moment, for all I care the law may be wrong, it does press the point that we need better maths education, but not for the reason you might guess.
Not because the mathies got the answer right, after all, the law might be badly written and the right answer might actually be the wrong answer, but because for societal stability we need all people to interpret the law in the same way, and so that it will get written to a common mode of interpretation.
We cannot afford to throw maths education out of the window, so we need to improve maths education for everyone.I don't know if I'm saying this as a mathy or not.
I haven't looked at the actual case, so I don't know what answer I would have given.
I post on /.
so that goes one way, but then again I have always wrestled with maths as if I was wrestling demons.
I will however say that much of my own lack of maths skills has been caused by lack of good education, and that I've since taught (in informal settings) people who would consider themselves on the soft side of academics mathematical concepts that they never grasped in school.
So I will venture that it must be possible to improve maths education a lot without burdening the students or teachers more.
Fact is, a lot of teaching material is badly written, badly structured and doesn't focus on vital concepts and logic.For example, I've seen a textbook that threw the root equation and angle doubling equations at students without telling them where those came from.
They just had to learn the equations by heart (which the students hated), do a lot of homework to get it in right, do a nasty test on the matter, and afterwards they all forgot the formulae.
On the other hand, I've also seen books that start out from the underlying concepts, and that works much better.
Students still forget the formulae, but that doesn't matter.
They can derive them or look them up.
But they didn't forget the concepts and the logical way to get to the equations and that's all that counts in my opinion.Oh, and perhaps maths eduction could be more fun.
I still have nightmares of the boredom.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28594939</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28600263</id>
	<title>Re:Austistic Spectrum</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246877460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>AS people have trouble with the abstract idea and the application of what is right and wrong.</p></div><p>"AS people" don't have trouble with "right and wrong".  They have trouble with the imposition of arbitrary standards.  You, on the other hand, seem to have trouble with abiding by more rigid standards.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Autistic spectrum people often have a problem with understanding societal norms</p></div><p>They don't have a problem understanding societal norms.  They just refuse to guess, estimate and bullshit their way through situations the way that most people do.</p><p>I, for instance, understand quite a bit more about societal "norms" than more average people.  But that is because I have derived most of them from their root causes rather than using fuzzy logic to guess at the "right" answer, as most average people appear to.</p><p>As pointed out, "norms" change, usually over a span of decades or centuries.  This indicates that their underlying logic is far more complex than can be accurately surmised by a person of average intelligence, let alone any system dependent on the intuitional ability of an average member of law enforcement.  The fact that this arbitrary authority has been stripped from those unable to apply it consistently demonstrates progress for our species.</p><p>Let me put it this way:  It's not that I don't understand your wishes.  It's that they are irrelevant.  I am not interested in having your "norms" imposed on me.  I am objectively superior to most people.</p><p>If anything, you should consider yourself lucky that I don't impose my "norms" on you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>AS people have trouble with the abstract idea and the application of what is right and wrong .
" AS people " do n't have trouble with " right and wrong " .
They have trouble with the imposition of arbitrary standards .
You , on the other hand , seem to have trouble with abiding by more rigid standards.Autistic spectrum people often have a problem with understanding societal normsThey do n't have a problem understanding societal norms .
They just refuse to guess , estimate and bullshit their way through situations the way that most people do.I , for instance , understand quite a bit more about societal " norms " than more average people .
But that is because I have derived most of them from their root causes rather than using fuzzy logic to guess at the " right " answer , as most average people appear to.As pointed out , " norms " change , usually over a span of decades or centuries .
This indicates that their underlying logic is far more complex than can be accurately surmised by a person of average intelligence , let alone any system dependent on the intuitional ability of an average member of law enforcement .
The fact that this arbitrary authority has been stripped from those unable to apply it consistently demonstrates progress for our species.Let me put it this way : It 's not that I do n't understand your wishes .
It 's that they are irrelevant .
I am not interested in having your " norms " imposed on me .
I am objectively superior to most people.If anything , you should consider yourself lucky that I do n't impose my " norms " on you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AS people have trouble with the abstract idea and the application of what is right and wrong.
"AS people" don't have trouble with "right and wrong".
They have trouble with the imposition of arbitrary standards.
You, on the other hand, seem to have trouble with abiding by more rigid standards.Autistic spectrum people often have a problem with understanding societal normsThey don't have a problem understanding societal norms.
They just refuse to guess, estimate and bullshit their way through situations the way that most people do.I, for instance, understand quite a bit more about societal "norms" than more average people.
But that is because I have derived most of them from their root causes rather than using fuzzy logic to guess at the "right" answer, as most average people appear to.As pointed out, "norms" change, usually over a span of decades or centuries.
This indicates that their underlying logic is far more complex than can be accurately surmised by a person of average intelligence, let alone any system dependent on the intuitional ability of an average member of law enforcement.
The fact that this arbitrary authority has been stripped from those unable to apply it consistently demonstrates progress for our species.Let me put it this way:  It's not that I don't understand your wishes.
It's that they are irrelevant.
I am not interested in having your "norms" imposed on me.
I am objectively superior to most people.If anything, you should consider yourself lucky that I don't impose my "norms" on you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28596515</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28597891</id>
	<title>wrong</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1246909920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>good legal codes are based on sound logical reasoning that uses observations only those in possession of high social iq can make</p><p>its a combination of social iq and logical reasoning, not one in spite of another</p><p>the problem is those who have a pedantic, empty logical reasoning based on low social iq, who go around thinking they are great social philosophers, but who only have ideas which ignorantly or purposefully ignores important undeniable aspects of human nature, ignoring any sort of social intelligence</p><p>such people are called utopianists: "if everyone just started acting like no group of human beings has ever behaved in all of human history, then problem X would be solved". and then they go onto build entire "philosophies", like the idiocies of libertarianism and communism (two failed sides of the same coin ignoring essential human altruism and essential human selfishness), that will never work in reality, simply because these "philosophies" only work by ignoring bedrock principles of human nature</p><p>any philosophy that ignores obvious components of human nature is either a comedy or tragedy, because so many of these low social iq/high traditional iq types are usually very earnest and shrill about their "philosophies", when the entire house of cards is, frankly, ridiculous. its called building castles in sky: great intricate exercises in logical reasoning, without any foundation whatsoever in reality, and therefore completely useless, no matter how much effort or passion was involved in the construction</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>good legal codes are based on sound logical reasoning that uses observations only those in possession of high social iq can makeits a combination of social iq and logical reasoning , not one in spite of anotherthe problem is those who have a pedantic , empty logical reasoning based on low social iq , who go around thinking they are great social philosophers , but who only have ideas which ignorantly or purposefully ignores important undeniable aspects of human nature , ignoring any sort of social intelligencesuch people are called utopianists : " if everyone just started acting like no group of human beings has ever behaved in all of human history , then problem X would be solved " .
and then they go onto build entire " philosophies " , like the idiocies of libertarianism and communism ( two failed sides of the same coin ignoring essential human altruism and essential human selfishness ) , that will never work in reality , simply because these " philosophies " only work by ignoring bedrock principles of human natureany philosophy that ignores obvious components of human nature is either a comedy or tragedy , because so many of these low social iq/high traditional iq types are usually very earnest and shrill about their " philosophies " , when the entire house of cards is , frankly , ridiculous .
its called building castles in sky : great intricate exercises in logical reasoning , without any foundation whatsoever in reality , and therefore completely useless , no matter how much effort or passion was involved in the construction</tokentext>
<sentencetext>good legal codes are based on sound logical reasoning that uses observations only those in possession of high social iq can makeits a combination of social iq and logical reasoning, not one in spite of anotherthe problem is those who have a pedantic, empty logical reasoning based on low social iq, who go around thinking they are great social philosophers, but who only have ideas which ignorantly or purposefully ignores important undeniable aspects of human nature, ignoring any sort of social intelligencesuch people are called utopianists: "if everyone just started acting like no group of human beings has ever behaved in all of human history, then problem X would be solved".
and then they go onto build entire "philosophies", like the idiocies of libertarianism and communism (two failed sides of the same coin ignoring essential human altruism and essential human selfishness), that will never work in reality, simply because these "philosophies" only work by ignoring bedrock principles of human natureany philosophy that ignores obvious components of human nature is either a comedy or tragedy, because so many of these low social iq/high traditional iq types are usually very earnest and shrill about their "philosophies", when the entire house of cards is, frankly, ridiculous.
its called building castles in sky: great intricate exercises in logical reasoning, without any foundation whatsoever in reality, and therefore completely useless, no matter how much effort or passion was involved in the construction</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28597393</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28596435</id>
	<title>Re:Great formatting in this article</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246904040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a bug of slashdot which in some circumstances renders italic tags as quote tags. Better make the maintainers fix it than blame the messenger.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a bug of slashdot which in some circumstances renders italic tags as quote tags .
Better make the maintainers fix it than blame the messenger .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a bug of slashdot which in some circumstances renders italic tags as quote tags.
Better make the maintainers fix it than blame the messenger.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28594957</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28600943</id>
	<title>what really happened</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246880880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The guy's a landlord. One of his tenants has a 10 year old daughter.</p><p>It was unclear how he got the photos (he may not be saying), but he had many photos of his tenant's 10-year old daughter, including photos of her panties on her bed (or a bed). The 10 year old girl's father (the guy's tenant) turned him in when he discovered that he had photos of her.</p><p>So there you have it -- there's the situation. Your landlord has quite a few (perhaps near one dozen) photos of your 10 year old daughter, including pictures of her panties on a bed, and then he's taking them and cutting them up and doing this stuff with it.</p><p>Obviously, they're trying to find something to charge him with. It's certainly a creepy situation, and abstracting it out of what really happened isn't going to really get at the gist of the situation.</p><p>So the full question is "is it legal for my landlord to take pictures of my 10 year old daughter, her panties, and the photoshop them onto naked bodies of women and leave them lying about the house for his pothead friends to see?"</p><p>Law evolves, and this is certainly a creepy situation, if you asked me. You want to do something to that guy, it creeps you out. Could a law preventing this be used in a way that pushes a religious or political agenda and affects individuals' liberties and freedoms? Perhaps it might. Does an individual like this represent an obstacle to that father's and his family's pursuit of happiness and ability to live peacefully in that living arrangement? It sure does.</p><p>This is not all black and white through and through. It's a little more complicated than that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The guy 's a landlord .
One of his tenants has a 10 year old daughter.It was unclear how he got the photos ( he may not be saying ) , but he had many photos of his tenant 's 10-year old daughter , including photos of her panties on her bed ( or a bed ) .
The 10 year old girl 's father ( the guy 's tenant ) turned him in when he discovered that he had photos of her.So there you have it -- there 's the situation .
Your landlord has quite a few ( perhaps near one dozen ) photos of your 10 year old daughter , including pictures of her panties on a bed , and then he 's taking them and cutting them up and doing this stuff with it.Obviously , they 're trying to find something to charge him with .
It 's certainly a creepy situation , and abstracting it out of what really happened is n't going to really get at the gist of the situation.So the full question is " is it legal for my landlord to take pictures of my 10 year old daughter , her panties , and the photoshop them onto naked bodies of women and leave them lying about the house for his pothead friends to see ?
" Law evolves , and this is certainly a creepy situation , if you asked me .
You want to do something to that guy , it creeps you out .
Could a law preventing this be used in a way that pushes a religious or political agenda and affects individuals ' liberties and freedoms ?
Perhaps it might .
Does an individual like this represent an obstacle to that father 's and his family 's pursuit of happiness and ability to live peacefully in that living arrangement ?
It sure does.This is not all black and white through and through .
It 's a little more complicated than that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The guy's a landlord.
One of his tenants has a 10 year old daughter.It was unclear how he got the photos (he may not be saying), but he had many photos of his tenant's 10-year old daughter, including photos of her panties on her bed (or a bed).
The 10 year old girl's father (the guy's tenant) turned him in when he discovered that he had photos of her.So there you have it -- there's the situation.
Your landlord has quite a few (perhaps near one dozen) photos of your 10 year old daughter, including pictures of her panties on a bed, and then he's taking them and cutting them up and doing this stuff with it.Obviously, they're trying to find something to charge him with.
It's certainly a creepy situation, and abstracting it out of what really happened isn't going to really get at the gist of the situation.So the full question is "is it legal for my landlord to take pictures of my 10 year old daughter, her panties, and the photoshop them onto naked bodies of women and leave them lying about the house for his pothead friends to see?
"Law evolves, and this is certainly a creepy situation, if you asked me.
You want to do something to that guy, it creeps you out.
Could a law preventing this be used in a way that pushes a religious or political agenda and affects individuals' liberties and freedoms?
Perhaps it might.
Does an individual like this represent an obstacle to that father's and his family's pursuit of happiness and ability to live peacefully in that living arrangement?
It sure does.This is not all black and white through and through.
It's a little more complicated than that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28599841</id>
	<title>Re:Off-topic, sort of, but funny</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246875360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And why exactly did you look at the pictures in the first place?</p><p>Doesn't seem a required step in copying files. Did you look at every other file you copied too?</p></div><p>Because he worked in a computer repair shop, duh.</p><p>No, he didn't <i>need</i> to, but if you think that every time you take yours into the shop it isn't mirrored or at least scanned for pix and software then you're an idiot.</p><p>Back to the topic of the story, while the guy in Tennesee might not technically be liable under state law, the picture still violates the federal anti child porn statutes. They way they are written, you could take a picture of two cows fucking and paste Miley's face on one of them and be guilty of possesing (and manufacturing, if you did the Photoshop work) child pornography.<br>But it's all to save the children, so stop bitching.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And why exactly did you look at the pictures in the first place ? Does n't seem a required step in copying files .
Did you look at every other file you copied too ? Because he worked in a computer repair shop , duh.No , he did n't need to , but if you think that every time you take yours into the shop it is n't mirrored or at least scanned for pix and software then you 're an idiot.Back to the topic of the story , while the guy in Tennesee might not technically be liable under state law , the picture still violates the federal anti child porn statutes .
They way they are written , you could take a picture of two cows fucking and paste Miley 's face on one of them and be guilty of possesing ( and manufacturing , if you did the Photoshop work ) child pornography.But it 's all to save the children , so stop bitching .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And why exactly did you look at the pictures in the first place?Doesn't seem a required step in copying files.
Did you look at every other file you copied too?Because he worked in a computer repair shop, duh.No, he didn't need to, but if you think that every time you take yours into the shop it isn't mirrored or at least scanned for pix and software then you're an idiot.Back to the topic of the story, while the guy in Tennesee might not technically be liable under state law, the picture still violates the federal anti child porn statutes.
They way they are written, you could take a picture of two cows fucking and paste Miley's face on one of them and be guilty of possesing (and manufacturing, if you did the Photoshop work) child pornography.But it's all to save the children, so stop bitching.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595443</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595811</id>
	<title>Re:Statistical significance in surveys</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246901580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not to mention the fact that the scales in both your sample math proficiency question (Excellent / Good / Average / Poor) and the submitters (Excellent / Very Good / Good / Fair / Poor) are biased to one end of the spectrum. Yours has no middle value  and a 2:1 good/not good ratio and the submitter's has "Good" in the middle position and a 3:1 good/not good ratio (depending on the interpretation of "fair").</p><p>[interestingly, the captcha for this post was "debunk"]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to mention the fact that the scales in both your sample math proficiency question ( Excellent / Good / Average / Poor ) and the submitters ( Excellent / Very Good / Good / Fair / Poor ) are biased to one end of the spectrum .
Yours has no middle value and a 2 : 1 good/not good ratio and the submitter 's has " Good " in the middle position and a 3 : 1 good/not good ratio ( depending on the interpretation of " fair " ) .
[ interestingly , the captcha for this post was " debunk " ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to mention the fact that the scales in both your sample math proficiency question (Excellent / Good / Average / Poor) and the submitters (Excellent / Very Good / Good / Fair / Poor) are biased to one end of the spectrum.
Yours has no middle value  and a 2:1 good/not good ratio and the submitter's has "Good" in the middle position and a 3:1 good/not good ratio (depending on the interpretation of "fair").
[interestingly, the captcha for this post was "debunk"]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595265</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28597189</id>
	<title>Re:Fix your tags</title>
	<author>HTH NE1</author>
	<datestamp>1246907160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Like the missing space between "Anonymous Coward" and "on" that's been there fer a few weeks?</p></div><p>The space isn't missing for me, but the zooicon displaying an image for my relationship to non-anonymous posters <em>is</em> missing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Like the missing space between " Anonymous Coward " and " on " that 's been there fer a few weeks ? The space is n't missing for me , but the zooicon displaying an image for my relationship to non-anonymous posters is missing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like the missing space between "Anonymous Coward" and "on" that's been there fer a few weeks?The space isn't missing for me, but the zooicon displaying an image for my relationship to non-anonymous posters is missing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28600433</id>
	<title>Statistics :-)</title>
	<author>flim</author>
	<datestamp>1246878360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't fully disagree, but it seems likely that the math guys took a different approach than everybody else: They followed the actual rule laid out. Laws have been written in a language of its own forever and the general perception is that it isn't understandable by someone who hasn't devoted his life to it. Secondly, people tend to make their lifes easier by jumping to conclusions. Since protecting children is really popular, it's quite easy to imagine that people jump to the conclusion that this case is more likely to be illegal than legal.
That doesn't say anything about their potential intelligence. It might indicated they're scared to actually try to understand the rules. Which I don't think is far fetched. Math on the other hand enforces a mind set of rule following (that's not necessarily good).
In short - I find it more likely that this statistic tells us more about how people percive law - not that much about intelligence. Then, there's also the question of what you should answer - I wouldn't be surprised about someone answering "it's most illegal" just in case someone gets back to them with "pedophile" if they don't.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't fully disagree , but it seems likely that the math guys took a different approach than everybody else : They followed the actual rule laid out .
Laws have been written in a language of its own forever and the general perception is that it is n't understandable by someone who has n't devoted his life to it .
Secondly , people tend to make their lifes easier by jumping to conclusions .
Since protecting children is really popular , it 's quite easy to imagine that people jump to the conclusion that this case is more likely to be illegal than legal .
That does n't say anything about their potential intelligence .
It might indicated they 're scared to actually try to understand the rules .
Which I do n't think is far fetched .
Math on the other hand enforces a mind set of rule following ( that 's not necessarily good ) .
In short - I find it more likely that this statistic tells us more about how people percive law - not that much about intelligence .
Then , there 's also the question of what you should answer - I would n't be surprised about someone answering " it 's most illegal " just in case someone gets back to them with " pedophile " if they do n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't fully disagree, but it seems likely that the math guys took a different approach than everybody else: They followed the actual rule laid out.
Laws have been written in a language of its own forever and the general perception is that it isn't understandable by someone who hasn't devoted his life to it.
Secondly, people tend to make their lifes easier by jumping to conclusions.
Since protecting children is really popular, it's quite easy to imagine that people jump to the conclusion that this case is more likely to be illegal than legal.
That doesn't say anything about their potential intelligence.
It might indicated they're scared to actually try to understand the rules.
Which I don't think is far fetched.
Math on the other hand enforces a mind set of rule following (that's not necessarily good).
In short - I find it more likely that this statistic tells us more about how people percive law - not that much about intelligence.
Then, there's also the question of what you should answer - I wouldn't be surprised about someone answering "it's most illegal" just in case someone gets back to them with "pedophile" if they don't.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28603207</id>
	<title>Re:Tough one</title>
	<author>greyhueofdoubt</author>
	<datestamp>1246895280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please don't take this personally, but I counted 10 "if"s in your post. Please find a way to relate your ideas to the real world of 'oftens' and 'always'.</p><p>I'm just saying. Give me ten "if"s and I'll have us all walking around on stilts and riding giraffes in clown wigs. Your post is ten levels removed from reality as afar as I'm concerned.</p><p>-b</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please do n't take this personally , but I counted 10 " if " s in your post .
Please find a way to relate your ideas to the real world of 'oftens ' and 'always'.I 'm just saying .
Give me ten " if " s and I 'll have us all walking around on stilts and riding giraffes in clown wigs .
Your post is ten levels removed from reality as afar as I 'm concerned.-b</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please don't take this personally, but I counted 10 "if"s in your post.
Please find a way to relate your ideas to the real world of 'oftens' and 'always'.I'm just saying.
Give me ten "if"s and I'll have us all walking around on stilts and riding giraffes in clown wigs.
Your post is ten levels removed from reality as afar as I'm concerned.-b</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595893</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28598383</id>
	<title>Re:Statistical significance in surveys</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246912140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't forget respondents' cultural biases.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't forget respondents ' cultural biases .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't forget respondents' cultural biases.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595265</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28599413</id>
	<title>Re:I would have guessed otherwise</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246873560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't you really need to see the picture to tell whether "a reasonable man" would think it was really a naked underage girl photo or a ridiculous farce?  Was the photoshopping "seamless"?  Or was Miley wearing a clown wig, red nose, her head completely upside down and the body was of the very obese nude calendar model "Bridget"?</p><p>Despite my excellent math ability, I'd still be incredibly upset if even in the farcical latter case the head came from my (equally underage and slender) daughter.</p><p>Were the other two underage faces famous?  Or was it some perv lifting them off of Facebook?</p><p>People want to craft laws and make jury decisions so that practicing pervs go to jail.  There is not enough info given to figure that out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't you really need to see the picture to tell whether " a reasonable man " would think it was really a naked underage girl photo or a ridiculous farce ?
Was the photoshopping " seamless " ?
Or was Miley wearing a clown wig , red nose , her head completely upside down and the body was of the very obese nude calendar model " Bridget " ? Despite my excellent math ability , I 'd still be incredibly upset if even in the farcical latter case the head came from my ( equally underage and slender ) daughter.Were the other two underage faces famous ?
Or was it some perv lifting them off of Facebook ? People want to craft laws and make jury decisions so that practicing pervs go to jail .
There is not enough info given to figure that out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't you really need to see the picture to tell whether "a reasonable man" would think it was really a naked underage girl photo or a ridiculous farce?
Was the photoshopping "seamless"?
Or was Miley wearing a clown wig, red nose, her head completely upside down and the body was of the very obese nude calendar model "Bridget"?Despite my excellent math ability, I'd still be incredibly upset if even in the farcical latter case the head came from my (equally underage and slender) daughter.Were the other two underage faces famous?
Or was it some perv lifting them off of Facebook?People want to craft laws and make jury decisions so that practicing pervs go to jail.
There is not enough info given to figure that out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28594937</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28597393</id>
	<title>Re:the cult of high iq</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246908000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except that law -- ideal legal and justice system -- isn't based on social acceptance. There's an entire philosophy behind justice and the legal system. The people who founded law (the Persians, the Romans, the Americans, etc.) weren't people with "high social IQ" who made law something that does what's most popular with the people.</p><p>Aristotle, Hume, Mill, Hammurabi, Socrates, Franklin, Jefferson, etc. These weren't people who lacked critical reasoning skills in favor of social skills. The exact opposite in fact.</p><p>While I won't argue the subject of which is more valuable to be successful in the world -- certainly there are enough examples to show that this "Social IQ" is more valuable -- but the idea that law should be based on it is fallacious.</p><p>Justice is blind. Law is impartial. It isn't there to punish the social "eww" factor. It's there to maintain a set of codes agreed upon by scholars, not the populous, to be practically the best -- in utilitarian terms -- to the correct functioning of the population and any extensions thereof.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except that law -- ideal legal and justice system -- is n't based on social acceptance .
There 's an entire philosophy behind justice and the legal system .
The people who founded law ( the Persians , the Romans , the Americans , etc .
) were n't people with " high social IQ " who made law something that does what 's most popular with the people.Aristotle , Hume , Mill , Hammurabi , Socrates , Franklin , Jefferson , etc .
These were n't people who lacked critical reasoning skills in favor of social skills .
The exact opposite in fact.While I wo n't argue the subject of which is more valuable to be successful in the world -- certainly there are enough examples to show that this " Social IQ " is more valuable -- but the idea that law should be based on it is fallacious.Justice is blind .
Law is impartial .
It is n't there to punish the social " eww " factor .
It 's there to maintain a set of codes agreed upon by scholars , not the populous , to be practically the best -- in utilitarian terms -- to the correct functioning of the population and any extensions thereof .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except that law -- ideal legal and justice system -- isn't based on social acceptance.
There's an entire philosophy behind justice and the legal system.
The people who founded law (the Persians, the Romans, the Americans, etc.
) weren't people with "high social IQ" who made law something that does what's most popular with the people.Aristotle, Hume, Mill, Hammurabi, Socrates, Franklin, Jefferson, etc.
These weren't people who lacked critical reasoning skills in favor of social skills.
The exact opposite in fact.While I won't argue the subject of which is more valuable to be successful in the world -- certainly there are enough examples to show that this "Social IQ" is more valuable -- but the idea that law should be based on it is fallacious.Justice is blind.
Law is impartial.
It isn't there to punish the social "eww" factor.
It's there to maintain a set of codes agreed upon by scholars, not the populous, to be practically the best -- in utilitarian terms -- to the correct functioning of the population and any extensions thereof.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595977</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28611457</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246994400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's amazing how far the author will go to make viewing fake kiddie porn seem ok. And then to link together other like-minded perverts by saying that it's because they're "good at math". What a perv.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's amazing how far the author will go to make viewing fake kiddie porn seem ok. And then to link together other like-minded perverts by saying that it 's because they 're " good at math " .
What a perv .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's amazing how far the author will go to make viewing fake kiddie porn seem ok. And then to link together other like-minded perverts by saying that it's because they're "good at math".
What a perv.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595351</id>
	<title>Re:This just in:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246899540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know you're just trolling, but I'll bite. I've gone through two radically different forms of mathematics education in my lifetime. The one was largely a "how to solve" system of rote numbers and formulas, and the other was proof-based calculus. None of it ever got terribly high up the latter in terms of cutting-edge math; the most difficult stuff included properties of Hilbert spaces and Dirichlet's function. Anyway, the latter sequence was all taught at the level of comprehension through the proof.</p><p>I turned out to be much better about the proof-based math and enjoyed it a lot more even though it cost more time and labor. I actually felt like I was learning something about the properties of the world and not just serving as a second-rate calculator. Anyway, my experience was that the creative and literary types were much better at comprehending math through proofs than discrete calculations. It appealed more to their abstract and critical reasoning skills, and the outcomes really reflected that.</p><p>Of course I don't mean to say that a Hemingway is automatically a Lebesgue, but I've really come to believe that the gap between the kind of thinking required for "real" math and for "real" critical reading is much smaller than anyone will admit. The real problem is pedagogy in primary and secondary education, especially the false division between the humanity and ineffability of literature and the objectiveness and determinacy of mathematics. Both are the endeavors of human beings attempting to understand and describe the world around them. They rely on different patterns of thought that develop from the same raw ability.</p><p>For the record I'm a classical philologist, a research occupation which is more literary than mathematical but intensely dependent on critical reading skills in ancient Greek and Latin. Alan Sokal is as much our hero as he is to the so-called hard sciences.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know you 're just trolling , but I 'll bite .
I 've gone through two radically different forms of mathematics education in my lifetime .
The one was largely a " how to solve " system of rote numbers and formulas , and the other was proof-based calculus .
None of it ever got terribly high up the latter in terms of cutting-edge math ; the most difficult stuff included properties of Hilbert spaces and Dirichlet 's function .
Anyway , the latter sequence was all taught at the level of comprehension through the proof.I turned out to be much better about the proof-based math and enjoyed it a lot more even though it cost more time and labor .
I actually felt like I was learning something about the properties of the world and not just serving as a second-rate calculator .
Anyway , my experience was that the creative and literary types were much better at comprehending math through proofs than discrete calculations .
It appealed more to their abstract and critical reasoning skills , and the outcomes really reflected that.Of course I do n't mean to say that a Hemingway is automatically a Lebesgue , but I 've really come to believe that the gap between the kind of thinking required for " real " math and for " real " critical reading is much smaller than anyone will admit .
The real problem is pedagogy in primary and secondary education , especially the false division between the humanity and ineffability of literature and the objectiveness and determinacy of mathematics .
Both are the endeavors of human beings attempting to understand and describe the world around them .
They rely on different patterns of thought that develop from the same raw ability.For the record I 'm a classical philologist , a research occupation which is more literary than mathematical but intensely dependent on critical reading skills in ancient Greek and Latin .
Alan Sokal is as much our hero as he is to the so-called hard sciences .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know you're just trolling, but I'll bite.
I've gone through two radically different forms of mathematics education in my lifetime.
The one was largely a "how to solve" system of rote numbers and formulas, and the other was proof-based calculus.
None of it ever got terribly high up the latter in terms of cutting-edge math; the most difficult stuff included properties of Hilbert spaces and Dirichlet's function.
Anyway, the latter sequence was all taught at the level of comprehension through the proof.I turned out to be much better about the proof-based math and enjoyed it a lot more even though it cost more time and labor.
I actually felt like I was learning something about the properties of the world and not just serving as a second-rate calculator.
Anyway, my experience was that the creative and literary types were much better at comprehending math through proofs than discrete calculations.
It appealed more to their abstract and critical reasoning skills, and the outcomes really reflected that.Of course I don't mean to say that a Hemingway is automatically a Lebesgue, but I've really come to believe that the gap between the kind of thinking required for "real" math and for "real" critical reading is much smaller than anyone will admit.
The real problem is pedagogy in primary and secondary education, especially the false division between the humanity and ineffability of literature and the objectiveness and determinacy of mathematics.
Both are the endeavors of human beings attempting to understand and describe the world around them.
They rely on different patterns of thought that develop from the same raw ability.For the record I'm a classical philologist, a research occupation which is more literary than mathematical but intensely dependent on critical reading skills in ancient Greek and Latin.
Alan Sokal is as much our hero as he is to the so-called hard sciences.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28594939</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28596957</id>
	<title>Re:Pic?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246906140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you've ever been to 4chan, the picture in question, and many like it, are posted EVERY DAY, often several times per day.</p><p>Celebrity fakes (real celebs, porn actress bodies) are very, very common around the net, and often the heads are of "technical minors" (16 year olds like Cyrus, or say, the chick from Harry Potter).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 've ever been to 4chan , the picture in question , and many like it , are posted EVERY DAY , often several times per day.Celebrity fakes ( real celebs , porn actress bodies ) are very , very common around the net , and often the heads are of " technical minors " ( 16 year olds like Cyrus , or say , the chick from Harry Potter ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you've ever been to 4chan, the picture in question, and many like it, are posted EVERY DAY, often several times per day.Celebrity fakes (real celebs, porn actress bodies) are very, very common around the net, and often the heads are of "technical minors" (16 year olds like Cyrus, or say, the chick from Harry Potter).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28594947</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595569</id>
	<title>Next up..</title>
	<author>hrvatska</author>
	<datestamp>1246900620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Will be two bit local prosecutors going after local adolescent girls who photoshop their own and their friends' heads onto images of the naked bodies of older women.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Will be two bit local prosecutors going after local adolescent girls who photoshop their own and their friends ' heads onto images of the naked bodies of older women .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will be two bit local prosecutors going after local adolescent girls who photoshop their own and their friends' heads onto images of the naked bodies of older women.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28608385</id>
	<title>Re:Tough one</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246982460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Before you argue that this is still a protected right, please consider this. If the accused in this case had swapped the children's heads onto clothed adult bodies doing nothing particularly sexual, and then swapped those images into ads for cigarettes, <strong>and those images had actually been used</strong>, he could have been prosecuted on any of several counts.</p></div><p>I would guess that using this guy's naked images in an advertisement would also not go too well. But that isn't what happened.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Before you argue that this is still a protected right , please consider this .
If the accused in this case had swapped the children 's heads onto clothed adult bodies doing nothing particularly sexual , and then swapped those images into ads for cigarettes , and those images had actually been used , he could have been prosecuted on any of several counts.I would guess that using this guy 's naked images in an advertisement would also not go too well .
But that is n't what happened .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Before you argue that this is still a protected right, please consider this.
If the accused in this case had swapped the children's heads onto clothed adult bodies doing nothing particularly sexual, and then swapped those images into ads for cigarettes, and those images had actually been used, he could have been prosecuted on any of several counts.I would guess that using this guy's naked images in an advertisement would also not go too well.
But that isn't what happened.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595893</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28599715</id>
	<title>Interesting- points to a need for further research</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246874760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are a lot of posts talking about how flawed this survey is.</p><p>They are all at least partly correct.</p><p>In pointing this out they all miss the point completely. This is an interesting survey, and it came up with an interesting result.</p><p>No- you shouldn't just believe it. Its merely a first pointer at an idea which is interesting enough to merit further research conducted more rigorously. Hopefully some researcher more qualified than this person will be intrigued and look into the question more thoroughly.</p><p>Despite being a bad survey, this, to the best of my knowledge, is the best survey and analysis regarding this topic available. There may be others, and I'd love to have them pointed out. Until there is better evidence, it may be worthwhile to keep this in mind as an interesting statistical correlation, form hypothesis about why the correlation might exist, and consider possible impacts of various hypothesis in the real world.</p><p>As pointed out, several times in this post and elsewhere, you should be on the look out for better research. You should guard against making this a part of your world view.</p><p>So, in summary its interesting. Keep it in mind. Maybe someone should take a closer look at the question. Not the study, the actual question.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are a lot of posts talking about how flawed this survey is.They are all at least partly correct.In pointing this out they all miss the point completely .
This is an interesting survey , and it came up with an interesting result.No- you should n't just believe it .
Its merely a first pointer at an idea which is interesting enough to merit further research conducted more rigorously .
Hopefully some researcher more qualified than this person will be intrigued and look into the question more thoroughly.Despite being a bad survey , this , to the best of my knowledge , is the best survey and analysis regarding this topic available .
There may be others , and I 'd love to have them pointed out .
Until there is better evidence , it may be worthwhile to keep this in mind as an interesting statistical correlation , form hypothesis about why the correlation might exist , and consider possible impacts of various hypothesis in the real world.As pointed out , several times in this post and elsewhere , you should be on the look out for better research .
You should guard against making this a part of your world view.So , in summary its interesting .
Keep it in mind .
Maybe someone should take a closer look at the question .
Not the study , the actual question .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are a lot of posts talking about how flawed this survey is.They are all at least partly correct.In pointing this out they all miss the point completely.
This is an interesting survey, and it came up with an interesting result.No- you shouldn't just believe it.
Its merely a first pointer at an idea which is interesting enough to merit further research conducted more rigorously.
Hopefully some researcher more qualified than this person will be intrigued and look into the question more thoroughly.Despite being a bad survey, this, to the best of my knowledge, is the best survey and analysis regarding this topic available.
There may be others, and I'd love to have them pointed out.
Until there is better evidence, it may be worthwhile to keep this in mind as an interesting statistical correlation, form hypothesis about why the correlation might exist, and consider possible impacts of various hypothesis in the real world.As pointed out, several times in this post and elsewhere, you should be on the look out for better research.
You should guard against making this a part of your world view.So, in summary its interesting.
Keep it in mind.
Maybe someone should take a closer look at the question.
Not the study, the actual question.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595949</id>
	<title>Re:Austistic Spectrum</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246902120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Lets assume you meant<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...
<i>
Ask those same people about having THEIR face superimposed on a nude's body and see how their answers change.
</i><nobr> <wbr></nobr>... because the change to use of a nude child changes things drasticly.
<p>
OK<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... it's either illegal or it isn't and the fact that when people are involved in an 'event' their opinions of whether or not the event is, or should be, illegal change has no bearing on the actuality of the legality of the event - and thankfully so! That is the reason why vigilantes are frowned upon, because they will more often than not have an emotional attachment to the event, and almost by definition will be looking to string someone up for it!
</p><p>
To examine any event for legality you really need to be able to step outside emotions and look at the problem rationally, and, as per my previous post, this is perhaps where the better educated are at an advantage.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lets assume you meant .. . Ask those same people about having THEIR face superimposed on a nude 's body and see how their answers change .
... because the change to use of a nude child changes things drasticly .
OK ... it 's either illegal or it is n't and the fact that when people are involved in an 'event ' their opinions of whether or not the event is , or should be , illegal change has no bearing on the actuality of the legality of the event - and thankfully so !
That is the reason why vigilantes are frowned upon , because they will more often than not have an emotional attachment to the event , and almost by definition will be looking to string someone up for it !
To examine any event for legality you really need to be able to step outside emotions and look at the problem rationally , and , as per my previous post , this is perhaps where the better educated are at an advantage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lets assume you meant ...

Ask those same people about having THEIR face superimposed on a nude's body and see how their answers change.
... because the change to use of a nude child changes things drasticly.
OK ... it's either illegal or it isn't and the fact that when people are involved in an 'event' their opinions of whether or not the event is, or should be, illegal change has no bearing on the actuality of the legality of the event - and thankfully so!
That is the reason why vigilantes are frowned upon, because they will more often than not have an emotional attachment to the event, and almost by definition will be looking to string someone up for it!
To examine any event for legality you really need to be able to step outside emotions and look at the problem rationally, and, as per my previous post, this is perhaps where the better educated are at an advantage.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595045</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595315</id>
	<title>Re:Meh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246899300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not the wrong answer. The answer might not be what the legislature intended, but by the statute it was correct.<br> <br>

I'm fully in favor of changing the law to reflect the intention of the legislature, but it's completely inappropriate to have a law of this sort being interpreted in a way which deviates from the language used by that amount. <br> <br>

Some laws like the Sherman act are written in a way which is intentionally vague so that the judicial branch can refine it down to deal with the various forms of anti-trust misbehavior. But for something like this, that's bad, really, really bad. A person isn't generally possessing a JD and as such isn't likely to know that a whole lot about what the law actually means via case history.<br> <br>

While not applicable to this, other laws that deal with similar grey area of law allow for one party to define the crime where the perpetrator might not reasonably be able to determine the legality ahead of time. Sexual harassment laws are probably the best example of that, the most egregious cases are ones which everybody can recognize, but often times it's a matter of life experience which leads to one conclusion or another.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not the wrong answer .
The answer might not be what the legislature intended , but by the statute it was correct .
I 'm fully in favor of changing the law to reflect the intention of the legislature , but it 's completely inappropriate to have a law of this sort being interpreted in a way which deviates from the language used by that amount .
Some laws like the Sherman act are written in a way which is intentionally vague so that the judicial branch can refine it down to deal with the various forms of anti-trust misbehavior .
But for something like this , that 's bad , really , really bad .
A person is n't generally possessing a JD and as such is n't likely to know that a whole lot about what the law actually means via case history .
While not applicable to this , other laws that deal with similar grey area of law allow for one party to define the crime where the perpetrator might not reasonably be able to determine the legality ahead of time .
Sexual harassment laws are probably the best example of that , the most egregious cases are ones which everybody can recognize , but often times it 's a matter of life experience which leads to one conclusion or another .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not the wrong answer.
The answer might not be what the legislature intended, but by the statute it was correct.
I'm fully in favor of changing the law to reflect the intention of the legislature, but it's completely inappropriate to have a law of this sort being interpreted in a way which deviates from the language used by that amount.
Some laws like the Sherman act are written in a way which is intentionally vague so that the judicial branch can refine it down to deal with the various forms of anti-trust misbehavior.
But for something like this, that's bad, really, really bad.
A person isn't generally possessing a JD and as such isn't likely to know that a whole lot about what the law actually means via case history.
While not applicable to this, other laws that deal with similar grey area of law allow for one party to define the crime where the perpetrator might not reasonably be able to determine the legality ahead of time.
Sexual harassment laws are probably the best example of that, the most egregious cases are ones which everybody can recognize, but often times it's a matter of life experience which leads to one conclusion or another.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595007</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28596545</id>
	<title>Re:Tough one</title>
	<author>1u3hr</author>
	<datestamp>1246904400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>The counter argument is that the photoshopped (or in this case literally cut and pasted) image does harm real children</i> <p>
In reality:  the guy made the pictures on his own PC for his own amusement. He didn't show them to the kids. How on earth could real children have been harmed by his imaginings?
</p><p> <i>if, a year from now, somebody prints of a bunch of copies and pastes them up all over her school </i> </p><p>
In that case, it's clearly the guy who printed and pasted them who is the guilty party. same as if he graffitied her name and phone number "for a good time". </p><p>And really, any idiot can paste a head onto a porn body in 10 minutes. I'm sure schoolboys all over the planet are doing so at his moment with portraits of their classmates. I've seen this used as a story device in sitcoms, years ago ("Boston Public", I think). </p><p>
Just Google "Celebrity fakes" and find thousands of sites devoted to this (though not using children, the methods are obviously the same). And here's a <a href="http://www.scottss.com/learn.htm" title="scottss.com">how-to</a> [scottss.com] to get you started.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The counter argument is that the photoshopped ( or in this case literally cut and pasted ) image does harm real children In reality : the guy made the pictures on his own PC for his own amusement .
He did n't show them to the kids .
How on earth could real children have been harmed by his imaginings ?
if , a year from now , somebody prints of a bunch of copies and pastes them up all over her school In that case , it 's clearly the guy who printed and pasted them who is the guilty party .
same as if he graffitied her name and phone number " for a good time " .
And really , any idiot can paste a head onto a porn body in 10 minutes .
I 'm sure schoolboys all over the planet are doing so at his moment with portraits of their classmates .
I 've seen this used as a story device in sitcoms , years ago ( " Boston Public " , I think ) .
Just Google " Celebrity fakes " and find thousands of sites devoted to this ( though not using children , the methods are obviously the same ) .
And here 's a how-to [ scottss.com ] to get you started .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The counter argument is that the photoshopped (or in this case literally cut and pasted) image does harm real children 
In reality:  the guy made the pictures on his own PC for his own amusement.
He didn't show them to the kids.
How on earth could real children have been harmed by his imaginings?
if, a year from now, somebody prints of a bunch of copies and pastes them up all over her school  
In that case, it's clearly the guy who printed and pasted them who is the guilty party.
same as if he graffitied her name and phone number "for a good time".
And really, any idiot can paste a head onto a porn body in 10 minutes.
I'm sure schoolboys all over the planet are doing so at his moment with portraits of their classmates.
I've seen this used as a story device in sitcoms, years ago ("Boston Public", I think).
Just Google "Celebrity fakes" and find thousands of sites devoted to this (though not using children, the methods are obviously the same).
And here's a how-to [scottss.com] to get you started.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595893</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28596363</id>
	<title>Re:Tough one</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246903800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Putting a childs face onto another body is at most a copyright violation, even if the body it is glued on is a tree or a pollinating flower like often in Teletubbies.</p><p>OTOH, even the grown-up porn actors/actresses have parents - and there certainly is conflict.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Putting a childs face onto another body is at most a copyright violation , even if the body it is glued on is a tree or a pollinating flower like often in Teletubbies.OTOH , even the grown-up porn actors/actresses have parents - and there certainly is conflict .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Putting a childs face onto another body is at most a copyright violation, even if the body it is glued on is a tree or a pollinating flower like often in Teletubbies.OTOH, even the grown-up porn actors/actresses have parents - and there certainly is conflict.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595363</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595657</id>
	<title>Shopping Miley</title>
	<author>frozentier</author>
	<datestamp>1246901040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Shopping Miley's head on to a naked woman doesn't make her naked, just as shopping her head onto an old photo of Arnold Schwarzenegger doesn't suddenly make her a male bodybuilder.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Shopping Miley 's head on to a naked woman does n't make her naked , just as shopping her head onto an old photo of Arnold Schwarzenegger does n't suddenly make her a male bodybuilder .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shopping Miley's head on to a naked woman doesn't make her naked, just as shopping her head onto an old photo of Arnold Schwarzenegger doesn't suddenly make her a male bodybuilder.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595385</id>
	<title>Re:Austistic Spectrum</title>
	<author>benjamindees</author>
	<datestamp>1246899720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Ask those same people about having THEIR face superimposed on a nude child's body and see how their answers change.</p></div><p><div class="quote"><p>the face of a small child affixed to a nude body of a mature woman</p></div><p>And you've demonstrated that non-autism-spectrum people can't read or engage in basic logical thought.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ask those same people about having THEIR face superimposed on a nude child 's body and see how their answers change.the face of a small child affixed to a nude body of a mature womanAnd you 've demonstrated that non-autism-spectrum people ca n't read or engage in basic logical thought .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ask those same people about having THEIR face superimposed on a nude child's body and see how their answers change.the face of a small child affixed to a nude body of a mature womanAnd you've demonstrated that non-autism-spectrum people can't read or engage in basic logical thought.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595045</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595417</id>
	<title>no self-reporting, please</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246899900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What you may have found is a correlation between "people who self-report themselves as excellent in math" and b) people who aren't religious nutcases.</p><p>I doubt you've found much more than that.</p><p>It would be interesting for someone to try this at a college, asking students to give their math and verbal SAT scores, then asking some dummy questions, and then asking about cut'n'paste thoughtcrime.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What you may have found is a correlation between " people who self-report themselves as excellent in math " and b ) people who are n't religious nutcases.I doubt you 've found much more than that.It would be interesting for someone to try this at a college , asking students to give their math and verbal SAT scores , then asking some dummy questions , and then asking about cut'n'paste thoughtcrime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What you may have found is a correlation between "people who self-report themselves as excellent in math" and b) people who aren't religious nutcases.I doubt you've found much more than that.It would be interesting for someone to try this at a college, asking students to give their math and verbal SAT scores, then asking some dummy questions, and then asking about cut'n'paste thoughtcrime.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28600553</id>
	<title>Re:Tough one</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246878960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>moral: ALWAYS wear your tin foil hat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>moral : ALWAYS wear your tin foil hat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>moral: ALWAYS wear your tin foil hat.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595641</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28596919</id>
	<title>Re:Statistical significance in surveys</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246906020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Regardless, I bet the defense counsel would look for people who rated themselves excellent at math for the jury pool.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Regardless , I bet the defense counsel would look for people who rated themselves excellent at math for the jury pool .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Regardless, I bet the defense counsel would look for people who rated themselves excellent at math for the jury pool.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595265</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595279</id>
	<title>50\%</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246899120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Somehow, and I don't understand this, but if you asked everyone if they have above or below average abilities on any random topic, people always partition themselves into two groups, almost exactly evenly.  It seems completely unfathomable that people do not artificially inflate their own assessment of self, yet every single time, people objectively rate their abilities in these personal assessment surveys.  How weird is that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Somehow , and I do n't understand this , but if you asked everyone if they have above or below average abilities on any random topic , people always partition themselves into two groups , almost exactly evenly .
It seems completely unfathomable that people do not artificially inflate their own assessment of self , yet every single time , people objectively rate their abilities in these personal assessment surveys .
How weird is that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Somehow, and I don't understand this, but if you asked everyone if they have above or below average abilities on any random topic, people always partition themselves into two groups, almost exactly evenly.
It seems completely unfathomable that people do not artificially inflate their own assessment of self, yet every single time, people objectively rate their abilities in these personal assessment surveys.
How weird is that?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28604951</id>
	<title>Re:Tough one</title>
	<author>julesh</author>
	<datestamp>1247000160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Thoughtcrimes have been on the books for years, except they're called "hate crimes".</i></p><p>Hate crimes are not thoughtcrime.  Hate crimes are, typically, antipropoganda crimes -- they make it illegal to attempt to rouse a group of people into active hatred of another group.  This is very different from what a lot of people seem to think of them as, i.e. laws against hating a group of people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thoughtcrimes have been on the books for years , except they 're called " hate crimes " .Hate crimes are not thoughtcrime .
Hate crimes are , typically , antipropoganda crimes -- they make it illegal to attempt to rouse a group of people into active hatred of another group .
This is very different from what a lot of people seem to think of them as , i.e .
laws against hating a group of people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thoughtcrimes have been on the books for years, except they're called "hate crimes".Hate crimes are not thoughtcrime.
Hate crimes are, typically, antipropoganda crimes -- they make it illegal to attempt to rouse a group of people into active hatred of another group.
This is very different from what a lot of people seem to think of them as, i.e.
laws against hating a group of people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28598995</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28596589</id>
	<title>Re:I would have guessed otherwise</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246904640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did the morality police get mod points? Why is this rated "Troll" and not "Humor"?</p><p>And that "Alter Relationship" sure is one prolific poster!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did the morality police get mod points ?
Why is this rated " Troll " and not " Humor " ? And that " Alter Relationship " sure is one prolific poster !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did the morality police get mod points?
Why is this rated "Troll" and not "Humor"?And that "Alter Relationship" sure is one prolific poster!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28594937</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595025</id>
	<title>How did you phrase the mechanical turk question?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246898100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Very interesting.  I would be interested to see the exact phrasing of your Mechanical Turk question, to ensure that there is no bias hiding in the wording.

I would also be interested in rerunning the experiment with two groups, one who sees the DA's argument and one who sees your argument, and seeing how much these arguments skew the numbers for each self-assessed Math/English segment.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Very interesting .
I would be interested to see the exact phrasing of your Mechanical Turk question , to ensure that there is no bias hiding in the wording .
I would also be interested in rerunning the experiment with two groups , one who sees the DA 's argument and one who sees your argument , and seeing how much these arguments skew the numbers for each self-assessed Math/English segment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Very interesting.
I would be interested to see the exact phrasing of your Mechanical Turk question, to ensure that there is no bias hiding in the wording.
I would also be interested in rerunning the experiment with two groups, one who sees the DA's argument and one who sees your argument, and seeing how much these arguments skew the numbers for each self-assessed Math/English segment.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28597691</id>
	<title>Multiple comparison correction?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246909020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did you do a multiple-comparison correction on the statistics? You seem to have asked lots of questions, with lots of groups. You need to moderate your conclusions to take this into account. Google 'Bonferroni' and go from there.</p><p>People in psychology departments do studies like this all the time - and they do them much more rigorously than you have. I can see that this might make a great science fair project, but I don't really see why it's reached Slashdot. If you're an undergraduate, it's an interesting question, and to some extent I applaud you for approaching it in this way. But you still have a way to go.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you do a multiple-comparison correction on the statistics ?
You seem to have asked lots of questions , with lots of groups .
You need to moderate your conclusions to take this into account .
Google 'Bonferroni ' and go from there.People in psychology departments do studies like this all the time - and they do them much more rigorously than you have .
I can see that this might make a great science fair project , but I do n't really see why it 's reached Slashdot .
If you 're an undergraduate , it 's an interesting question , and to some extent I applaud you for approaching it in this way .
But you still have a way to go .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you do a multiple-comparison correction on the statistics?
You seem to have asked lots of questions, with lots of groups.
You need to moderate your conclusions to take this into account.
Google 'Bonferroni' and go from there.People in psychology departments do studies like this all the time - and they do them much more rigorously than you have.
I can see that this might make a great science fair project, but I don't really see why it's reached Slashdot.
If you're an undergraduate, it's an interesting question, and to some extent I applaud you for approaching it in this way.
But you still have a way to go.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28597235</id>
	<title>Re:Tough one</title>
	<author>2obvious4u</author>
	<datestamp>1246907340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That reminds me, I've seen a lot of stuff shoved up Cartman's ass, why hasn't Trey Parker been brought up on child pornography charges?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That reminds me , I 've seen a lot of stuff shoved up Cartman 's ass , why has n't Trey Parker been brought up on child pornography charges ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That reminds me, I've seen a lot of stuff shoved up Cartman's ass, why hasn't Trey Parker been brought up on child pornography charges?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595039</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28603913</id>
	<title>Re:Tough one</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246900800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Also, the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 made simulated child porn illegal. It was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2002.</p></div></blockquote><p>
2002: The Supreme Court strikes down the Child Pornography Prevention Act.<br>
2003: Christopher "moot" Poole leaves the Something Awful forums to found 4chan.org.
<br> <br>
Captcha: "kidnap"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 made simulated child porn illegal .
It was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2002 .
2002 : The Supreme Court strikes down the Child Pornography Prevention Act .
2003 : Christopher " moot " Poole leaves the Something Awful forums to found 4chan.org .
Captcha : " kidnap "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 made simulated child porn illegal.
It was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2002.
2002: The Supreme Court strikes down the Child Pornography Prevention Act.
2003: Christopher "moot" Poole leaves the Something Awful forums to found 4chan.org.
Captcha: "kidnap"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595715</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595011</id>
	<title>Oh purleeeease</title>
	<author>Rogerborg</author>
	<datestamp>1246898040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>At this point I'm going to give in to my bias and hereinafter refer to that as the "right answer"</p></div></blockquote><p>I think your bias was obvious right from the point where you decided to pay money to people to tell you what you wanted to hear, then decided to focus on the one subset of people who actually did so.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>At this point I 'm going to give in to my bias and hereinafter refer to that as the " right answer " I think your bias was obvious right from the point where you decided to pay money to people to tell you what you wanted to hear , then decided to focus on the one subset of people who actually did so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At this point I'm going to give in to my bias and hereinafter refer to that as the "right answer"I think your bias was obvious right from the point where you decided to pay money to people to tell you what you wanted to hear, then decided to focus on the one subset of people who actually did so.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28596515</id>
	<title>Re:Austistic Spectrum</title>
	<author>drsmack1</author>
	<datestamp>1246904280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And you have demonstrated the AS trait of completely linear thinking.  The point is that AS people have trouble with the abstract idea and the application of what is right and wrong.<br> <br>People who are closer to neurologically normal are able to decide what things *are just wrong*.  <br> <br>You can certainly argue that the AS people will usually be more correct as to what the law specifically says.<br> <br>My point is that the AS person would be both right (yes, that is what the law says) *and* wrong (you let this freak go and he will go on to actually molest girls).<br> <br>If you let AS people make life decisions for other people based on theory and rules - you are going to have a LOT of problems.<br> <br>A lot of the problems in this country can be traced to a rigid interpetation of the law that allows "troublemakers" to run free because they are not breaking a specific law.  This does not change the fact that they are negativity affecting society as a whole.  Law enforcement used to have the ability to make these judgments; the  mandate to "keep the peace".  No longer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And you have demonstrated the AS trait of completely linear thinking .
The point is that AS people have trouble with the abstract idea and the application of what is right and wrong .
People who are closer to neurologically normal are able to decide what things * are just wrong * .
You can certainly argue that the AS people will usually be more correct as to what the law specifically says .
My point is that the AS person would be both right ( yes , that is what the law says ) * and * wrong ( you let this freak go and he will go on to actually molest girls ) .
If you let AS people make life decisions for other people based on theory and rules - you are going to have a LOT of problems .
A lot of the problems in this country can be traced to a rigid interpetation of the law that allows " troublemakers " to run free because they are not breaking a specific law .
This does not change the fact that they are negativity affecting society as a whole .
Law enforcement used to have the ability to make these judgments ; the mandate to " keep the peace " .
No longer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And you have demonstrated the AS trait of completely linear thinking.
The point is that AS people have trouble with the abstract idea and the application of what is right and wrong.
People who are closer to neurologically normal are able to decide what things *are just wrong*.
You can certainly argue that the AS people will usually be more correct as to what the law specifically says.
My point is that the AS person would be both right (yes, that is what the law says) *and* wrong (you let this freak go and he will go on to actually molest girls).
If you let AS people make life decisions for other people based on theory and rules - you are going to have a LOT of problems.
A lot of the problems in this country can be traced to a rigid interpetation of the law that allows "troublemakers" to run free because they are not breaking a specific law.
This does not change the fact that they are negativity affecting society as a whole.
Law enforcement used to have the ability to make these judgments; the  mandate to "keep the peace".
No longer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595385</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595091</id>
	<title>Re:Fix your tags</title>
	<author>TerranFury</author>
	<datestamp>1246898280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is a bug in the Slashcode, I think.  Try this: Make an HTML post in which you use italics.  Then view that same post in your profile.  The italics will have been replaced by quotes.  Hopefully this high-visibility example will cause this to be fixed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a bug in the Slashcode , I think .
Try this : Make an HTML post in which you use italics .
Then view that same post in your profile .
The italics will have been replaced by quotes .
Hopefully this high-visibility example will cause this to be fixed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a bug in the Slashcode, I think.
Try this: Make an HTML post in which you use italics.
Then view that same post in your profile.
The italics will have been replaced by quotes.
Hopefully this high-visibility example will cause this to be fixed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28594933</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28598375</id>
	<title>Re:Tough one</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246912080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>if you were to see your child as the face on whoever's imposed porn</p></div><p>According to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, 27\% of the child porn in which they are able to identify the child was photographed by a parent or stepparent, and another 10\% involves another relative (one was even the child's great-grandfather).  Therefore, about  1/3 of the folks won't be surprised at all.  Sad but true.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>if you were to see your child as the face on whoever 's imposed pornAccording to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children , 27 \ % of the child porn in which they are able to identify the child was photographed by a parent or stepparent , and another 10 \ % involves another relative ( one was even the child 's great-grandfather ) .
Therefore , about 1/3 of the folks wo n't be surprised at all .
Sad but true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if you were to see your child as the face on whoever's imposed pornAccording to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, 27\% of the child porn in which they are able to identify the child was photographed by a parent or stepparent, and another 10\% involves another relative (one was even the child's great-grandfather).
Therefore, about  1/3 of the folks won't be surprised at all.
Sad but true.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595363</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595699</id>
	<title>Summary:</title>
	<author>Weedhopper</author>
	<datestamp>1246901220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Author understands neither statistics nor survey methodology.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Author understands neither statistics nor survey methodology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Author understands neither statistics nor survey methodology.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28600931</id>
	<title>Real conclusion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246880820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What I concluded from your <em>statistical</em> analysis is that internet users being paid 25 cents, via a site relatively unknown to the public, and who rate themselves as excellent at math, choose the "correct" answer more often than those who do not rate themselves as excellent.  That does not sound like the same conclusion you drew but I truly appreciate the hypothesis you are testing even if the survey wasn't perfect.</p><p>To get a "purer" sample you would need to employ multiple survey mediums (self-completion written survey, computer survey, telephone survey, in-person verbal survey, etc.) and probably visit several locations.</p><p>Gathering statistics for surveys always feels like a losing battle to me.  The quickest way to make someone's work irrelevant is to choose a few details in the surveying methodology and run them through the ringer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What I concluded from your statistical analysis is that internet users being paid 25 cents , via a site relatively unknown to the public , and who rate themselves as excellent at math , choose the " correct " answer more often than those who do not rate themselves as excellent .
That does not sound like the same conclusion you drew but I truly appreciate the hypothesis you are testing even if the survey was n't perfect.To get a " purer " sample you would need to employ multiple survey mediums ( self-completion written survey , computer survey , telephone survey , in-person verbal survey , etc .
) and probably visit several locations.Gathering statistics for surveys always feels like a losing battle to me .
The quickest way to make someone 's work irrelevant is to choose a few details in the surveying methodology and run them through the ringer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I concluded from your statistical analysis is that internet users being paid 25 cents, via a site relatively unknown to the public, and who rate themselves as excellent at math, choose the "correct" answer more often than those who do not rate themselves as excellent.
That does not sound like the same conclusion you drew but I truly appreciate the hypothesis you are testing even if the survey wasn't perfect.To get a "purer" sample you would need to employ multiple survey mediums (self-completion written survey, computer survey, telephone survey, in-person verbal survey, etc.
) and probably visit several locations.Gathering statistics for surveys always feels like a losing battle to me.
The quickest way to make someone's work irrelevant is to choose a few details in the surveying methodology and run them through the ringer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28599947</id>
	<title>Re:Utterly meaningless--made of statistical FAIL.</title>
	<author>lotze</author>
	<datestamp>1246875840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The rightly esteemed statistician R.A. Fisher would agree with you, I think.  He was pretty firmly against any statistical analysis which was not done using controlled design of experiments design.

</p><p>However, using this argument, it is impossible to prove most real-world effects using statistics.  The best example of this is the link between smoking and lung cancer.  Even after a preponderance of evidence from multiple studies accumulated, Fisher refused to acknowledge a link, because each study had some methodological flaw which allowed some alternative <em>possible</em> explanation for the correlation.  There's a description of the debate in the excellent (and very readable) book "The Lady Tasting Tea" by David Salsburg, in <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=ej9xytYdkyAC&amp;pg=PA181&amp;lpg=PA181" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">Chapter 18</a> [google.com].  Essentially, the problem here is that there<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/could/ be bias due to Mechanical Turk participants being biased in some way.  On the other hand, there's no particular reason to think that Mechanical Turk participants' bias will have a particular effect.  If the effect here is significant and strong, we would want to repeat this with other populations to confirm the lack of a bias...but the <em>possibility</em> of a bias will pretty much always exist, no matter how many groups of people we study.  As we study more, the possibility of bias in each population decreases.

</p><p>Now, I don't mean to say that the author's statistical argument is correct.  In particular, I think that he has the tendency (which we all have and fall prey to from time to time) of confirmation bias, of focusing on the evidence which supports the hypothesis we already believe.  Here's my analysis, from the numbers provided by the author:

</p><p>I've posted <a href="http://www.math.umd.edu/~lotze/slashdot\_miley.html" title="umd.edu" rel="nofollow">a quick barplot</a> [umd.edu] to illustrate.  You can see that other than the "Excellent" category, the tendency is for higher self-reported math ability to actually correspond to a <em>higher</em> tendency to say that yes, the law was violated.

</p><p>A quick and dirty statistical analysis assumes as its null hypothesis that all four categories (no respondents self-reported as "Poor") are the same: they each have the same probability of voting "Yes" for whether the law was violated.  A standard maximum-likelihood estimate for this percentage sums over all the responses, arriving at about a 67\% chance of saying "Yes".  This estimate <em>does</em> have some variance (it's an estimate, not the truth), but we'll ignore that for the moment and assume it's the correct percentage.  Now the question is, if this is the case, what is the probability of getting the 44\% (12/27) in the "Excellent" category?  If we use a binomial distribution, the chances of getting 12 or fewer "Yes" responses from 27 is about 0.013, which seems to have been the source of the author's conclusion that this result is about 1\% likely to happen by chance.  However, we should also consider that we have four categories; whenever running multiple tests, you have a better chance of getting a "significant" result just by chance.  A standard significance cutoff level is 0.05, reflecting that if something has less than a 5\% probability of happening by chance, this is evidence that something other than chance is at work.  Since we are running 4 tests, we use a Bonferroni correction, dividing by 4, to get 0.0125 as our actual cutoff.  You can see, however, that 0.013 is higher than 0.0125, so it actually does not even (quite) meet the 5\% significance level.

</p><p>As a final note for all the real statisticians out there, it's clear there are still a number of issues with the above analysis (such as the fact that we ignore the dependence between the categories, for example).  A chi-squared test provides a value of 8.06, with a p-value around 0.045; however, this is caused about equally by the low "yes" result for "Excellent" <strong>and</strong> the high "yes" result for "Very good"; that difference, unfortunately, allows for a variety of expl</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The rightly esteemed statistician R.A. Fisher would agree with you , I think .
He was pretty firmly against any statistical analysis which was not done using controlled design of experiments design .
However , using this argument , it is impossible to prove most real-world effects using statistics .
The best example of this is the link between smoking and lung cancer .
Even after a preponderance of evidence from multiple studies accumulated , Fisher refused to acknowledge a link , because each study had some methodological flaw which allowed some alternative possible explanation for the correlation .
There 's a description of the debate in the excellent ( and very readable ) book " The Lady Tasting Tea " by David Salsburg , in Chapter 18 [ google.com ] .
Essentially , the problem here is that there /could/ be bias due to Mechanical Turk participants being biased in some way .
On the other hand , there 's no particular reason to think that Mechanical Turk participants ' bias will have a particular effect .
If the effect here is significant and strong , we would want to repeat this with other populations to confirm the lack of a bias...but the possibility of a bias will pretty much always exist , no matter how many groups of people we study .
As we study more , the possibility of bias in each population decreases .
Now , I do n't mean to say that the author 's statistical argument is correct .
In particular , I think that he has the tendency ( which we all have and fall prey to from time to time ) of confirmation bias , of focusing on the evidence which supports the hypothesis we already believe .
Here 's my analysis , from the numbers provided by the author : I 've posted a quick barplot [ umd.edu ] to illustrate .
You can see that other than the " Excellent " category , the tendency is for higher self-reported math ability to actually correspond to a higher tendency to say that yes , the law was violated .
A quick and dirty statistical analysis assumes as its null hypothesis that all four categories ( no respondents self-reported as " Poor " ) are the same : they each have the same probability of voting " Yes " for whether the law was violated .
A standard maximum-likelihood estimate for this percentage sums over all the responses , arriving at about a 67 \ % chance of saying " Yes " .
This estimate does have some variance ( it 's an estimate , not the truth ) , but we 'll ignore that for the moment and assume it 's the correct percentage .
Now the question is , if this is the case , what is the probability of getting the 44 \ % ( 12/27 ) in the " Excellent " category ?
If we use a binomial distribution , the chances of getting 12 or fewer " Yes " responses from 27 is about 0.013 , which seems to have been the source of the author 's conclusion that this result is about 1 \ % likely to happen by chance .
However , we should also consider that we have four categories ; whenever running multiple tests , you have a better chance of getting a " significant " result just by chance .
A standard significance cutoff level is 0.05 , reflecting that if something has less than a 5 \ % probability of happening by chance , this is evidence that something other than chance is at work .
Since we are running 4 tests , we use a Bonferroni correction , dividing by 4 , to get 0.0125 as our actual cutoff .
You can see , however , that 0.013 is higher than 0.0125 , so it actually does not even ( quite ) meet the 5 \ % significance level .
As a final note for all the real statisticians out there , it 's clear there are still a number of issues with the above analysis ( such as the fact that we ignore the dependence between the categories , for example ) .
A chi-squared test provides a value of 8.06 , with a p-value around 0.045 ; however , this is caused about equally by the low " yes " result for " Excellent " and the high " yes " result for " Very good " ; that difference , unfortunately , allows for a variety of expl</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The rightly esteemed statistician R.A. Fisher would agree with you, I think.
He was pretty firmly against any statistical analysis which was not done using controlled design of experiments design.
However, using this argument, it is impossible to prove most real-world effects using statistics.
The best example of this is the link between smoking and lung cancer.
Even after a preponderance of evidence from multiple studies accumulated, Fisher refused to acknowledge a link, because each study had some methodological flaw which allowed some alternative possible explanation for the correlation.
There's a description of the debate in the excellent (and very readable) book "The Lady Tasting Tea" by David Salsburg, in Chapter 18 [google.com].
Essentially, the problem here is that there /could/ be bias due to Mechanical Turk participants being biased in some way.
On the other hand, there's no particular reason to think that Mechanical Turk participants' bias will have a particular effect.
If the effect here is significant and strong, we would want to repeat this with other populations to confirm the lack of a bias...but the possibility of a bias will pretty much always exist, no matter how many groups of people we study.
As we study more, the possibility of bias in each population decreases.
Now, I don't mean to say that the author's statistical argument is correct.
In particular, I think that he has the tendency (which we all have and fall prey to from time to time) of confirmation bias, of focusing on the evidence which supports the hypothesis we already believe.
Here's my analysis, from the numbers provided by the author:

I've posted a quick barplot [umd.edu] to illustrate.
You can see that other than the "Excellent" category, the tendency is for higher self-reported math ability to actually correspond to a higher tendency to say that yes, the law was violated.
A quick and dirty statistical analysis assumes as its null hypothesis that all four categories (no respondents self-reported as "Poor") are the same: they each have the same probability of voting "Yes" for whether the law was violated.
A standard maximum-likelihood estimate for this percentage sums over all the responses, arriving at about a 67\% chance of saying "Yes".
This estimate does have some variance (it's an estimate, not the truth), but we'll ignore that for the moment and assume it's the correct percentage.
Now the question is, if this is the case, what is the probability of getting the 44\% (12/27) in the "Excellent" category?
If we use a binomial distribution, the chances of getting 12 or fewer "Yes" responses from 27 is about 0.013, which seems to have been the source of the author's conclusion that this result is about 1\% likely to happen by chance.
However, we should also consider that we have four categories; whenever running multiple tests, you have a better chance of getting a "significant" result just by chance.
A standard significance cutoff level is 0.05, reflecting that if something has less than a 5\% probability of happening by chance, this is evidence that something other than chance is at work.
Since we are running 4 tests, we use a Bonferroni correction, dividing by 4, to get 0.0125 as our actual cutoff.
You can see, however, that 0.013 is higher than 0.0125, so it actually does not even (quite) meet the 5\% significance level.
As a final note for all the real statisticians out there, it's clear there are still a number of issues with the above analysis (such as the fact that we ignore the dependence between the categories, for example).
A chi-squared test provides a value of 8.06, with a p-value around 0.045; however, this is caused about equally by the low "yes" result for "Excellent" and the high "yes" result for "Very good"; that difference, unfortunately, allows for a variety of expl</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595631</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28601811</id>
	<title>Re:Tough one</title>
	<author>Fastolfe</author>
	<datestamp>1246885440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IANAL, but I suspect the intent of that provision is to permit them to prosecute when they have pictures of someone that is obviously a minor (a child in the physical sense).  If someone has sexually-explicit pictures of someone that is very clearly ~12 years old, you shouldn't have to jump through hoops to identify this one person (which could be anywhere in the world), and prove their age.  I don't think the intent is to allow them to point to a picture of a sexually-mature (but young) woman, say they're a minor, and prosecute you for having it, without actually proving that they're a minor.  If there's a legitimate question of fact about whether the person is a minor, you'd have to get a really stupid or evil jury to let you get convicted for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IANAL , but I suspect the intent of that provision is to permit them to prosecute when they have pictures of someone that is obviously a minor ( a child in the physical sense ) .
If someone has sexually-explicit pictures of someone that is very clearly ~ 12 years old , you should n't have to jump through hoops to identify this one person ( which could be anywhere in the world ) , and prove their age .
I do n't think the intent is to allow them to point to a picture of a sexually-mature ( but young ) woman , say they 're a minor , and prosecute you for having it , without actually proving that they 're a minor .
If there 's a legitimate question of fact about whether the person is a minor , you 'd have to get a really stupid or evil jury to let you get convicted for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IANAL, but I suspect the intent of that provision is to permit them to prosecute when they have pictures of someone that is obviously a minor (a child in the physical sense).
If someone has sexually-explicit pictures of someone that is very clearly ~12 years old, you shouldn't have to jump through hoops to identify this one person (which could be anywhere in the world), and prove their age.
I don't think the intent is to allow them to point to a picture of a sexually-mature (but young) woman, say they're a minor, and prosecute you for having it, without actually proving that they're a minor.
If there's a legitimate question of fact about whether the person is a minor, you'd have to get a really stupid or evil jury to let you get convicted for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28596341</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595523</id>
	<title>Re:Fix your tags</title>
	<author>Canazza</author>
	<datestamp>1246900440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Quite clearly this man is guilty of Copyright infringment, as the photo was likely taken from promotional material and is property of Disney. Quick! Call the RIAA!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Quite clearly this man is guilty of Copyright infringment , as the photo was likely taken from promotional material and is property of Disney .
Quick ! Call the RIAA !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quite clearly this man is guilty of Copyright infringment, as the photo was likely taken from promotional material and is property of Disney.
Quick! Call the RIAA!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28594933</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595985</id>
	<title>Re:Off-topic, sort of, but funny</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246902240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Did you look at every other file you copied too?</p></div><p>No, only the suspiciously hidden folder.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>And why exactly did you look at the pictures in the first place?</p></div><p>Curiosity, I'd imagine. Or, because it was clearly porn, which is fun to look at.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you look at every other file you copied too ? No , only the suspiciously hidden folder.And why exactly did you look at the pictures in the first place ? Curiosity , I 'd imagine .
Or , because it was clearly porn , which is fun to look at .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you look at every other file you copied too?No, only the suspiciously hidden folder.And why exactly did you look at the pictures in the first place?Curiosity, I'd imagine.
Or, because it was clearly porn, which is fun to look at.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595443</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28597259</id>
	<title>"If the photos get out"</title>
	<author>professorguy</author>
	<datestamp>1246907520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>All this harm occurs <b>if the photos get out</b>.  That seems like an argument for NOT prosecuting this case....</htmltext>
<tokenext>All this harm occurs if the photos get out .
That seems like an argument for NOT prosecuting this case... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All this harm occurs if the photos get out.
That seems like an argument for NOT prosecuting this case....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595893</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28594937</id>
	<title>I would have guessed otherwise</title>
	<author>Bemopolis</author>
	<datestamp>1246897740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>It seems to me that those with advanced math skills would all agree that the Photoshopped images *were* of Miley Cyrus, via the transitive property.
<br> <br>
I dunno...they gave ME a Reggi pole.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems to me that those with advanced math skills would all agree that the Photoshopped images * were * of Miley Cyrus , via the transitive property .
I dunno...they gave ME a Reggi pole .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems to me that those with advanced math skills would all agree that the Photoshopped images *were* of Miley Cyrus, via the transitive property.
I dunno...they gave ME a Reggi pole.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595801</id>
	<title>Formatting</title>
	<author>Quiet\_Desperation</author>
	<datestamp>1246901520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What is <p><div class="quote"><p>up</p></div><p> with the </p><p><div class="quote"><p>weird formatting</p> </div><p> of the article?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What is up with the weird formatting of the article ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is up with the weird formatting  of the article?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28598199</id>
	<title>I'm wondering what concept was really responded to</title>
	<author>sonciwind</author>
	<datestamp>1246911360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Literal "was the law broken"

subjective interpretation: "did the man do something wrong"

I'm wondering if "smarter" people were more likely to answer the question, than to respond to the negative feelings the whole thing gives rise to.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Literal " was the law broken " subjective interpretation : " did the man do something wrong " I 'm wondering if " smarter " people were more likely to answer the question , than to respond to the negative feelings the whole thing gives rise to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Literal "was the law broken"

subjective interpretation: "did the man do something wrong"

I'm wondering if "smarter" people were more likely to answer the question, than to respond to the negative feelings the whole thing gives rise to.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28607915</id>
	<title>Jury</title>
	<author>SirKron</author>
	<datestamp>1246980540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Unfortunately, people who are good with Math are also good at getting out of Jury Duty.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , people who are good with Math are also good at getting out of Jury Duty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, people who are good with Math are also good at getting out of Jury Duty.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595469</id>
	<title>Re:Fix your tags</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246900200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, judging by idle./..org section's white-on-white titles, I'd say that you are dreaming.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , judging by idle./..org section 's white-on-white titles , I 'd say that you are dreaming .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, judging by idle./..org section's white-on-white titles, I'd say that you are dreaming.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595091</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28596083</id>
	<title>Writing style matters...</title>
	<author>blahplusplus</author>
	<datestamp>1246902660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... this is exactly why nerds and academic types get ousted from politics so quickly, STYLE and rhetoric is a must.</p><p>People who have people skills and enough intelligence like Mr Obama (not that I agree with everything the man does or says being the poltical stooge that he is), at least knows this.</p><p>This partly why academnics get wrtiten off, GOOD WRITING and expressing yourself so other people can understand wtf it is your saying DOES MATTER as well is the emotional tone and way you say it.</p><p>It all matters and there is a *mathematical* reason why this is the case, that has to do with symmetry of communication styles and how most people communicate in the real world(tm).</p><p>Style mattes as much as substance, the old idea that style does not matter is one of the enlightenments fallacies that many academics and nerds out of the loop of what science has discovered still cling to, since it has been shown to be scientifically false a long time ago.</p><p>A convincing bullshitter can often times bamboozle the traditional enlightenment rationalist that has not taken a couse in marketing or ever have had to market something to a general audience.</p><p>Most human beings are sloppy thinkers, and even careful thinkers have a tough time with academic companions whose prose is disturbingly obtuse.</p><p>I know tonnes of high IQ types who use the most obtuse arcance language known to man and they don't realize how *stupid* they look to people when the don't communicate in a language anyone can understand.</p><p>When it comes to argument I now focus both on STYLE and SUBSTANCE, because you want your stuff to be read and digested as widely as possible, coming off as a social slob as many nerds and academics do in writing is not good for propogating their insights and wisdom.</p><p>Sometimes we nerdy people need to take a step back and not be so serious about "form over substance" when we know both matters, how many nerds drool over hot girls, esp hot intelligent girls who have an intellectual side?  Practically every intelligent man with a pulse.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... this is exactly why nerds and academic types get ousted from politics so quickly , STYLE and rhetoric is a must.People who have people skills and enough intelligence like Mr Obama ( not that I agree with everything the man does or says being the poltical stooge that he is ) , at least knows this.This partly why academnics get wrtiten off , GOOD WRITING and expressing yourself so other people can understand wtf it is your saying DOES MATTER as well is the emotional tone and way you say it.It all matters and there is a * mathematical * reason why this is the case , that has to do with symmetry of communication styles and how most people communicate in the real world ( tm ) .Style mattes as much as substance , the old idea that style does not matter is one of the enlightenments fallacies that many academics and nerds out of the loop of what science has discovered still cling to , since it has been shown to be scientifically false a long time ago.A convincing bullshitter can often times bamboozle the traditional enlightenment rationalist that has not taken a couse in marketing or ever have had to market something to a general audience.Most human beings are sloppy thinkers , and even careful thinkers have a tough time with academic companions whose prose is disturbingly obtuse.I know tonnes of high IQ types who use the most obtuse arcance language known to man and they do n't realize how * stupid * they look to people when the do n't communicate in a language anyone can understand.When it comes to argument I now focus both on STYLE and SUBSTANCE , because you want your stuff to be read and digested as widely as possible , coming off as a social slob as many nerds and academics do in writing is not good for propogating their insights and wisdom.Sometimes we nerdy people need to take a step back and not be so serious about " form over substance " when we know both matters , how many nerds drool over hot girls , esp hot intelligent girls who have an intellectual side ?
Practically every intelligent man with a pulse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... this is exactly why nerds and academic types get ousted from politics so quickly, STYLE and rhetoric is a must.People who have people skills and enough intelligence like Mr Obama (not that I agree with everything the man does or says being the poltical stooge that he is), at least knows this.This partly why academnics get wrtiten off, GOOD WRITING and expressing yourself so other people can understand wtf it is your saying DOES MATTER as well is the emotional tone and way you say it.It all matters and there is a *mathematical* reason why this is the case, that has to do with symmetry of communication styles and how most people communicate in the real world(tm).Style mattes as much as substance, the old idea that style does not matter is one of the enlightenments fallacies that many academics and nerds out of the loop of what science has discovered still cling to, since it has been shown to be scientifically false a long time ago.A convincing bullshitter can often times bamboozle the traditional enlightenment rationalist that has not taken a couse in marketing or ever have had to market something to a general audience.Most human beings are sloppy thinkers, and even careful thinkers have a tough time with academic companions whose prose is disturbingly obtuse.I know tonnes of high IQ types who use the most obtuse arcance language known to man and they don't realize how *stupid* they look to people when the don't communicate in a language anyone can understand.When it comes to argument I now focus both on STYLE and SUBSTANCE, because you want your stuff to be read and digested as widely as possible, coming off as a social slob as many nerds and academics do in writing is not good for propogating their insights and wisdom.Sometimes we nerdy people need to take a step back and not be so serious about "form over substance" when we know both matters, how many nerds drool over hot girls, esp hot intelligent girls who have an intellectual side?
Practically every intelligent man with a pulse.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28596753</id>
	<title>Is this Kiddie Porn?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246905360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>So, then is the following wrong?<br><br>&nbsp; Adult&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Kiddie<br>&nbsp; Porn&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Porn<br><br> \_\_\_O\_\_\_<br>&nbsp; &nbsp;O|O&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; \_\_o\_\_<br>&nbsp; &nbsp; |&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; '|'<br>&nbsp; &nbsp;/ \&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;/ \</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , then is the following wrong ?   Adult             Kiddie   Porn               Porn \ _ \ _ \ _O \ _ \ _ \ _     O | O             \ _ \ _o \ _ \ _     |               ' | '     / \               / \</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, then is the following wrong?  Adult           Kiddie  Porn             Porn \_\_\_O\_\_\_   O|O            \_\_o\_\_    |              '|'   / \             / \</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28604769</id>
	<title>Re:Pic?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246998300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Picture here: <a href="http://www.barbie.com/" title="barbie.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.goatse.cx</a> [barbie.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Picture here : http : //www.goatse.cx [ barbie.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Picture here: http://www.goatse.cx [barbie.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28594947</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595837</id>
	<title>Re:50\%</title>
	<author>NeutronCowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1246901700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What? That is completely contrary to my experience. The example that always cracks me up is driving ability. Take any group - friends, family, driver's ed, random people in line at the grocery store, and you'll get about only about 5\% of the people who'll rate themselves below average. Most everybody is an above average driver.</p><p>Unless my sarcasm detector is off. Wait... yes, it actually is. Damn. Well done.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What ?
That is completely contrary to my experience .
The example that always cracks me up is driving ability .
Take any group - friends , family , driver 's ed , random people in line at the grocery store , and you 'll get about only about 5 \ % of the people who 'll rate themselves below average .
Most everybody is an above average driver.Unless my sarcasm detector is off .
Wait... yes , it actually is .
Damn. Well done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What?
That is completely contrary to my experience.
The example that always cracks me up is driving ability.
Take any group - friends, family, driver's ed, random people in line at the grocery store, and you'll get about only about 5\% of the people who'll rate themselves below average.
Most everybody is an above average driver.Unless my sarcasm detector is off.
Wait... yes, it actually is.
Damn. Well done.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595279</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28605397</id>
	<title>All Child Photos?</title>
	<author>RivenAleem</author>
	<datestamp>1246962840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is not intended to be flip, or a joke, but wouldn't a ruleing like this mean that all photos of children, would be labelled as pornographic, due to the potential for them to be used in a simulated sexual image?

I'm not expert, and I'm kinda glad I'm somewhat naieve in this, but surely child pornography is all about the child's body, in it's totality, and not about having it's face superimposed onto that of an adult. If someone's fetish revolves about the faces of children then surely no photo can be ruled out as a source of pornographic material?</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not intended to be flip , or a joke , but would n't a ruleing like this mean that all photos of children , would be labelled as pornographic , due to the potential for them to be used in a simulated sexual image ?
I 'm not expert , and I 'm kinda glad I 'm somewhat naieve in this , but surely child pornography is all about the child 's body , in it 's totality , and not about having it 's face superimposed onto that of an adult .
If someone 's fetish revolves about the faces of children then surely no photo can be ruled out as a source of pornographic material ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not intended to be flip, or a joke, but wouldn't a ruleing like this mean that all photos of children, would be labelled as pornographic, due to the potential for them to be used in a simulated sexual image?
I'm not expert, and I'm kinda glad I'm somewhat naieve in this, but surely child pornography is all about the child's body, in it's totality, and not about having it's face superimposed onto that of an adult.
If someone's fetish revolves about the faces of children then surely no photo can be ruled out as a source of pornographic material?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28603103</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>m0rm3gil</author>
	<datestamp>1246894680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>+1 honest</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>+ 1 honest</tokentext>
<sentencetext>+1 honest</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28596381</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28598641</id>
	<title>Talking Goat</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246913400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Think of your two candidates as the Goat from Adam Sandler's talking goat skit, and the stupid old man who beats him.</p><p>The goat clearly understands the concept of superimposing images on top of one another.</p><p>The old man is dumb shit who just accepts that it is something he doesn't understand (math, photoshop, superimposed images) and goes on about his business.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Think of your two candidates as the Goat from Adam Sandler 's talking goat skit , and the stupid old man who beats him.The goat clearly understands the concept of superimposing images on top of one another.The old man is dumb shit who just accepts that it is something he does n't understand ( math , photoshop , superimposed images ) and goes on about his business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Think of your two candidates as the Goat from Adam Sandler's talking goat skit, and the stupid old man who beats him.The goat clearly understands the concept of superimposing images on top of one another.The old man is dumb shit who just accepts that it is something he doesn't understand (math, photoshop, superimposed images) and goes on about his business.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28596173</id>
	<title>Re:Tough one</title>
	<author>interkin3tic</author>
	<datestamp>1246903080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I agree child porn is immoral and should be illegal, but the main reason I think it should be illegal is so the girl isn't subjected to the photo shoot. A Photoshop job like this, despite being offensive, seems to be a protected right of Americans.</p></div><p>The bodies having sex are of legal age, so wouldn't these be closer depictions of Miley Cyrus having sex when she was of legal age?  Porn from the future?</p><p>It's weird, but kind of makes sense to me in some ways.  If you were to do the reverse and photoshop a legal-age woman's head on child porn, the finished product would still be offensive to me, and not just because of the starting materials.</p><p>It seems to me that if some guy is getting off on miley cyrus' image, but with a body that is of legal age, that's not quite pedophilia.  Weird and perverted (and odd tastes in music, and isn't there enough clearly legal porn for you out there?) but not a pedophile.  If it were a toddler's face, that could be different, and if it were a legal age woman that looked pre-pubescent, that's also more questionable.</p><p>(Not saying this should be any type of legal standard, and IANAL, just musing.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree child porn is immoral and should be illegal , but the main reason I think it should be illegal is so the girl is n't subjected to the photo shoot .
A Photoshop job like this , despite being offensive , seems to be a protected right of Americans.The bodies having sex are of legal age , so would n't these be closer depictions of Miley Cyrus having sex when she was of legal age ?
Porn from the future ? It 's weird , but kind of makes sense to me in some ways .
If you were to do the reverse and photoshop a legal-age woman 's head on child porn , the finished product would still be offensive to me , and not just because of the starting materials.It seems to me that if some guy is getting off on miley cyrus ' image , but with a body that is of legal age , that 's not quite pedophilia .
Weird and perverted ( and odd tastes in music , and is n't there enough clearly legal porn for you out there ?
) but not a pedophile .
If it were a toddler 's face , that could be different , and if it were a legal age woman that looked pre-pubescent , that 's also more questionable .
( Not saying this should be any type of legal standard , and IANAL , just musing .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree child porn is immoral and should be illegal, but the main reason I think it should be illegal is so the girl isn't subjected to the photo shoot.
A Photoshop job like this, despite being offensive, seems to be a protected right of Americans.The bodies having sex are of legal age, so wouldn't these be closer depictions of Miley Cyrus having sex when she was of legal age?
Porn from the future?It's weird, but kind of makes sense to me in some ways.
If you were to do the reverse and photoshop a legal-age woman's head on child porn, the finished product would still be offensive to me, and not just because of the starting materials.It seems to me that if some guy is getting off on miley cyrus' image, but with a body that is of legal age, that's not quite pedophilia.
Weird and perverted (and odd tastes in music, and isn't there enough clearly legal porn for you out there?
) but not a pedophile.
If it were a toddler's face, that could be different, and if it were a legal age woman that looked pre-pubescent, that's also more questionable.
(Not saying this should be any type of legal standard, and IANAL, just musing.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595039</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28597199</id>
	<title>Precedent</title>
	<author>Quantus347</author>
	<datestamp>1246907220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I dont recall the specifics, but wasn't there another case a while back involving whether it was child pornography when it was a drawing of a child (ie completely fabricated)?  This would be the closest thing to a precedent I can think of.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I dont recall the specifics , but was n't there another case a while back involving whether it was child pornography when it was a drawing of a child ( ie completely fabricated ) ?
This would be the closest thing to a precedent I can think of .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dont recall the specifics, but wasn't there another case a while back involving whether it was child pornography when it was a drawing of a child (ie completely fabricated)?
This would be the closest thing to a precedent I can think of.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28594945</id>
	<title>Can I be the first to say</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246897800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>tl;dr</p><p>Oddly appropriate footer quote...</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Malek's Law: Any simple idea will be worded in the most complicated way.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>tl ; drOddly appropriate footer quote...Malek 's Law : Any simple idea will be worded in the most complicated way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>tl;drOddly appropriate footer quote...Malek's Law: Any simple idea will be worded in the most complicated way.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28598429</id>
	<title>Ain't it wonderful..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246912320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To live in such a "free" country when a juvenile prank can engender such draconian consequences!</p><p>He'll be lucky if they (the self righteous tub-thumping mob) don't utterly destroy him and any life/future he might hope for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To live in such a " free " country when a juvenile prank can engender such draconian consequences ! He 'll be lucky if they ( the self righteous tub-thumping mob ) do n't utterly destroy him and any life/future he might hope for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To live in such a "free" country when a juvenile prank can engender such draconian consequences!He'll be lucky if they (the self righteous tub-thumping mob) don't utterly destroy him and any life/future he might hope for.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595053</id>
	<title>Re:Sorry</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246898160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a bug in Slashcode somewhere.  Happens to all of my archived posts when I view them -- anything I put in <i>italics</i> or <b>boldface</b> turns into a </p><p><div class="quote"><p>blockquote</p></div><p>.  Yes, it's really annoying, but it's not the submitter's fault.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a bug in Slashcode somewhere .
Happens to all of my archived posts when I view them -- anything I put in italics or boldface turns into a blockquote .
Yes , it 's really annoying , but it 's not the submitter 's fault .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a bug in Slashcode somewhere.
Happens to all of my archived posts when I view them -- anything I put in italics or boldface turns into a blockquote.
Yes, it's really annoying, but it's not the submitter's fault.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28594899</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28597185</id>
	<title>Creeping criminalization</title>
	<author>TaleSpinner</author>
	<datestamp>1246907160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Our society has reached the point where it criminalizes things not because they are Bad, Wrong, or Evil, but simply because it makes things easier for the police.  In this case, a photoshopped picture cannot be illegal since it depicts something that never happened.  Nevertheless, we still criminalize sexualized sketches of children, cgi images of sexualized children, or even written pornography that talks about sexualized children, and all for the same reason: so police don't have to prove an actual crime occurred in court.  Of <i>course</i> it violates the 1st Amendment!  Like anyone pays attention to <i>that</i> any more.  This is part and parcel with modern "law enforcement".  Photocop and red light cameras seldom produce pictures that can identify the driver, so states using them (for revenue) always change the law to hold the registrar of the vehicle responsible for the moving violation, thereby eliminating the need to identify the actual perpetrator, and neatly bypassing the  law about one spouse testifying against another, since 90\% of the time it's one of the two spouses.  It also changes the remaining 10\% to a score since either the registrar doesn't know who it was, or is forced to testify against a friend.</p><p>Like 24x7 tracking of citizens, no-warrant searches and wiretaps, the fiction that just because email may pass through someone else's computer it cannot have an expectation of privacy, all these are designed to eliminate work for police, so they are free to do what society hires them for - generating revenue.  That is what is really meant by "law enforcement".</p><p>Cynical?  Oh, yes.  But I come by it honestly.  Yes, I would rather live in anarchy, since as near as I can tell, the only difference between what we have now and anarchy is the fact that one of the biggest lawbreakers is the government and its agents.  Anarchy would at least remove that source of crime.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Our society has reached the point where it criminalizes things not because they are Bad , Wrong , or Evil , but simply because it makes things easier for the police .
In this case , a photoshopped picture can not be illegal since it depicts something that never happened .
Nevertheless , we still criminalize sexualized sketches of children , cgi images of sexualized children , or even written pornography that talks about sexualized children , and all for the same reason : so police do n't have to prove an actual crime occurred in court .
Of course it violates the 1st Amendment !
Like anyone pays attention to that any more .
This is part and parcel with modern " law enforcement " .
Photocop and red light cameras seldom produce pictures that can identify the driver , so states using them ( for revenue ) always change the law to hold the registrar of the vehicle responsible for the moving violation , thereby eliminating the need to identify the actual perpetrator , and neatly bypassing the law about one spouse testifying against another , since 90 \ % of the time it 's one of the two spouses .
It also changes the remaining 10 \ % to a score since either the registrar does n't know who it was , or is forced to testify against a friend.Like 24x7 tracking of citizens , no-warrant searches and wiretaps , the fiction that just because email may pass through someone else 's computer it can not have an expectation of privacy , all these are designed to eliminate work for police , so they are free to do what society hires them for - generating revenue .
That is what is really meant by " law enforcement " .Cynical ?
Oh , yes .
But I come by it honestly .
Yes , I would rather live in anarchy , since as near as I can tell , the only difference between what we have now and anarchy is the fact that one of the biggest lawbreakers is the government and its agents .
Anarchy would at least remove that source of crime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Our society has reached the point where it criminalizes things not because they are Bad, Wrong, or Evil, but simply because it makes things easier for the police.
In this case, a photoshopped picture cannot be illegal since it depicts something that never happened.
Nevertheless, we still criminalize sexualized sketches of children, cgi images of sexualized children, or even written pornography that talks about sexualized children, and all for the same reason: so police don't have to prove an actual crime occurred in court.
Of course it violates the 1st Amendment!
Like anyone pays attention to that any more.
This is part and parcel with modern "law enforcement".
Photocop and red light cameras seldom produce pictures that can identify the driver, so states using them (for revenue) always change the law to hold the registrar of the vehicle responsible for the moving violation, thereby eliminating the need to identify the actual perpetrator, and neatly bypassing the  law about one spouse testifying against another, since 90\% of the time it's one of the two spouses.
It also changes the remaining 10\% to a score since either the registrar doesn't know who it was, or is forced to testify against a friend.Like 24x7 tracking of citizens, no-warrant searches and wiretaps, the fiction that just because email may pass through someone else's computer it cannot have an expectation of privacy, all these are designed to eliminate work for police, so they are free to do what society hires them for - generating revenue.
That is what is really meant by "law enforcement".Cynical?
Oh, yes.
But I come by it honestly.
Yes, I would rather live in anarchy, since as near as I can tell, the only difference between what we have now and anarchy is the fact that one of the biggest lawbreakers is the government and its agents.
Anarchy would at least remove that source of crime.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28600375</id>
	<title>Re:Off-topic, sort of, but funny</title>
	<author>dswensen</author>
	<datestamp>1246878060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, no, NO, it's the Photoshopping guy who's the pervert, -not- the guy searching in hidden directories for other people's porn on the company dime. Focus!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , no , NO , it 's the Photoshopping guy who 's the pervert , -not- the guy searching in hidden directories for other people 's porn on the company dime .
Focus !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, no, NO, it's the Photoshopping guy who's the pervert, -not- the guy searching in hidden directories for other people's porn on the company dime.
Focus!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595443</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595631</id>
	<title>Utterly meaningless--made of statistical FAIL.</title>
	<author>MoralHazard</author>
	<datestamp>1246900920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This statistical extrapolation is not valid (AT ALL, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, NEVER EVER).  For this kind of analysis to mean anything, you have to conclusively demonstrate that you collected a representative sample of the population.  That means:  A random sample, drawn in a non-biased (or bias-controlled) fashion, from the whole underlying population.  Ask a real statistician, and (s)he'll tell you:  Your extrapolations are only as good as your sampling methodology.</p><p>You seem to be under the mistaken impression that you're somehow, magically, exempt from this mathematical fact because you are making relative comparisons between two subsets of your sample.  Where the hell did you get that idea?</p><p>To understand why, try considering this hypothetical:  What if the subset of the population that is drawn to answer your MechTurk question is biased in more than one way?  For instance, it could contain a larger-than-normal proportion of highly-intelligent social misfits who sympathize with outcasts, as well as a larger-than-normal proportion of under-educated Moral Orals.  It could easily generate similar results to yours, as could an infinity of other hypothetically biased samples.</p><p>Statistically, then, how do you differentiate between your pet theory and the infinity of alternatives?  YOU CAN'T.  Methods of statistical extrapolation obtain their effectiveness from their relationship with the law of large numbers (probability, basically).  Your poor sampling method has completely discarded that link, leaving zero support for your conclusions.</p><p>You cannot fix this problem with math:  If your sample is not a truly random sample, drawn from the full underlying population in a non-biased (or bias-controlled) fashion, your numbers don't mean shit W.R.T. the population, and they never will.  PERIOD.</p><p>(As an aside, there are methods that can control for sampling bias in certain LIMITED circumstances, when the nature of the bias can be quantified.  But you aren't using this method, AND it doesn't apply to your situation, because you can't make reliable quantifying statements about how your sample is biased.)</p><p>You are officially part of the problem.  Either learn more stats, or STOP MISLEADING YOURSELF AND OTHERS by mis-applying them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This statistical extrapolation is not valid ( AT ALL , UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES , NEVER EVER ) .
For this kind of analysis to mean anything , you have to conclusively demonstrate that you collected a representative sample of the population .
That means : A random sample , drawn in a non-biased ( or bias-controlled ) fashion , from the whole underlying population .
Ask a real statistician , and ( s ) he 'll tell you : Your extrapolations are only as good as your sampling methodology.You seem to be under the mistaken impression that you 're somehow , magically , exempt from this mathematical fact because you are making relative comparisons between two subsets of your sample .
Where the hell did you get that idea ? To understand why , try considering this hypothetical : What if the subset of the population that is drawn to answer your MechTurk question is biased in more than one way ?
For instance , it could contain a larger-than-normal proportion of highly-intelligent social misfits who sympathize with outcasts , as well as a larger-than-normal proportion of under-educated Moral Orals .
It could easily generate similar results to yours , as could an infinity of other hypothetically biased samples.Statistically , then , how do you differentiate between your pet theory and the infinity of alternatives ?
YOU CA N'T .
Methods of statistical extrapolation obtain their effectiveness from their relationship with the law of large numbers ( probability , basically ) .
Your poor sampling method has completely discarded that link , leaving zero support for your conclusions.You can not fix this problem with math : If your sample is not a truly random sample , drawn from the full underlying population in a non-biased ( or bias-controlled ) fashion , your numbers do n't mean shit W.R.T .
the population , and they never will .
PERIOD. ( As an aside , there are methods that can control for sampling bias in certain LIMITED circumstances , when the nature of the bias can be quantified .
But you are n't using this method , AND it does n't apply to your situation , because you ca n't make reliable quantifying statements about how your sample is biased .
) You are officially part of the problem .
Either learn more stats , or STOP MISLEADING YOURSELF AND OTHERS by mis-applying them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This statistical extrapolation is not valid (AT ALL, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, NEVER EVER).
For this kind of analysis to mean anything, you have to conclusively demonstrate that you collected a representative sample of the population.
That means:  A random sample, drawn in a non-biased (or bias-controlled) fashion, from the whole underlying population.
Ask a real statistician, and (s)he'll tell you:  Your extrapolations are only as good as your sampling methodology.You seem to be under the mistaken impression that you're somehow, magically, exempt from this mathematical fact because you are making relative comparisons between two subsets of your sample.
Where the hell did you get that idea?To understand why, try considering this hypothetical:  What if the subset of the population that is drawn to answer your MechTurk question is biased in more than one way?
For instance, it could contain a larger-than-normal proportion of highly-intelligent social misfits who sympathize with outcasts, as well as a larger-than-normal proportion of under-educated Moral Orals.
It could easily generate similar results to yours, as could an infinity of other hypothetically biased samples.Statistically, then, how do you differentiate between your pet theory and the infinity of alternatives?
YOU CAN'T.
Methods of statistical extrapolation obtain their effectiveness from their relationship with the law of large numbers (probability, basically).
Your poor sampling method has completely discarded that link, leaving zero support for your conclusions.You cannot fix this problem with math:  If your sample is not a truly random sample, drawn from the full underlying population in a non-biased (or bias-controlled) fashion, your numbers don't mean shit W.R.T.
the population, and they never will.
PERIOD.(As an aside, there are methods that can control for sampling bias in certain LIMITED circumstances, when the nature of the bias can be quantified.
But you aren't using this method, AND it doesn't apply to your situation, because you can't make reliable quantifying statements about how your sample is biased.
)You are officially part of the problem.
Either learn more stats, or STOP MISLEADING YOURSELF AND OTHERS by mis-applying them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28597437</id>
	<title>Re:Tough one</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246908180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And we all "KNOW" that banning words (books), or pictures (child porn), or things (alcohol) is the solution and will stop men from doing these "bad" things .</p><p>In some places of the world, genital mutilation is perceived as "normal."  You have NO right to tell others what is immoral or illegal then anyone else, because \_every\_ law is relative to the culture &amp; society in which passes them.  The only true \_objective\_ way to look at morality is to determine if the parties<br>
&nbsp; a) consented, and<br>
&nbsp; b) understand the consequences of that consent.</p><p>To coin a new para-phrase: "One man's erection is another man's disgust."</p><p>There will come a day when computers can render people in an ultra photo-realistic sexual manner. Will these computer generated images be deemed "illegal" and "immoral"? QUICK, they are such a threat to society! Men act out their fantasies and we can't have that! Let's ignore why they want to do that in the first place -- and tempt them with the real thing since the virtual thing is "illegal."</p><p>Stop treating the symptom, and address the cause.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And we all " KNOW " that banning words ( books ) , or pictures ( child porn ) , or things ( alcohol ) is the solution and will stop men from doing these " bad " things .In some places of the world , genital mutilation is perceived as " normal .
" You have NO right to tell others what is immoral or illegal then anyone else , because \ _every \ _ law is relative to the culture &amp; society in which passes them .
The only true \ _objective \ _ way to look at morality is to determine if the parties   a ) consented , and   b ) understand the consequences of that consent.To coin a new para-phrase : " One man 's erection is another man 's disgust .
" There will come a day when computers can render people in an ultra photo-realistic sexual manner .
Will these computer generated images be deemed " illegal " and " immoral " ?
QUICK , they are such a threat to society !
Men act out their fantasies and we ca n't have that !
Let 's ignore why they want to do that in the first place -- and tempt them with the real thing since the virtual thing is " illegal .
" Stop treating the symptom , and address the cause .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And we all "KNOW" that banning words (books), or pictures (child porn), or things (alcohol) is the solution and will stop men from doing these "bad" things .In some places of the world, genital mutilation is perceived as "normal.
"  You have NO right to tell others what is immoral or illegal then anyone else, because \_every\_ law is relative to the culture &amp; society in which passes them.
The only true \_objective\_ way to look at morality is to determine if the parties
  a) consented, and
  b) understand the consequences of that consent.To coin a new para-phrase: "One man's erection is another man's disgust.
"There will come a day when computers can render people in an ultra photo-realistic sexual manner.
Will these computer generated images be deemed "illegal" and "immoral"?
QUICK, they are such a threat to society!
Men act out their fantasies and we can't have that!
Let's ignore why they want to do that in the first place -- and tempt them with the real thing since the virtual thing is "illegal.
"Stop treating the symptom, and address the cause.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595039</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28599091</id>
	<title>Re:Meh</title>
	<author>DavidTC</author>
	<datestamp>1246872300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The law is just blatantly stupid because they left of the phrase 'depiction of' and hence doesn't apply to anything at all except possibly kidnapping. Read the actual law:</p><p>
It is unlawful for any person to knowingly <b>possess material</b> that <b>includes a minor</b> engaged in:</p><p>
So it's illegal to carry around a napsack with a minor in it engaged in simulated sexual activity, or something. If I were this guy, I'd demand that someone demonstrate he, at any point in time, 'possessed' a minor, which he obviously would have to do to possess anything that contained a minor.</p><p>
This issue is really what everyone is arguing about, because depending on how you mentally insert 'depiction of' depends on how you read this law.</p><p>
It really is amazing how stupid legislature can be when writing their own laws. (As opposed to getting lobbyists to do it for them.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The law is just blatantly stupid because they left of the phrase 'depiction of ' and hence does n't apply to anything at all except possibly kidnapping .
Read the actual law : It is unlawful for any person to knowingly possess material that includes a minor engaged in : So it 's illegal to carry around a napsack with a minor in it engaged in simulated sexual activity , or something .
If I were this guy , I 'd demand that someone demonstrate he , at any point in time , 'possessed ' a minor , which he obviously would have to do to possess anything that contained a minor .
This issue is really what everyone is arguing about , because depending on how you mentally insert 'depiction of ' depends on how you read this law .
It really is amazing how stupid legislature can be when writing their own laws .
( As opposed to getting lobbyists to do it for them .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The law is just blatantly stupid because they left of the phrase 'depiction of' and hence doesn't apply to anything at all except possibly kidnapping.
Read the actual law:
It is unlawful for any person to knowingly possess material that includes a minor engaged in:
So it's illegal to carry around a napsack with a minor in it engaged in simulated sexual activity, or something.
If I were this guy, I'd demand that someone demonstrate he, at any point in time, 'possessed' a minor, which he obviously would have to do to possess anything that contained a minor.
This issue is really what everyone is arguing about, because depending on how you mentally insert 'depiction of' depends on how you read this law.
It really is amazing how stupid legislature can be when writing their own laws.
(As opposed to getting lobbyists to do it for them.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595315</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28601099</id>
	<title>Randomness of poll</title>
	<author>Dunkirk</author>
	<datestamp>1246881660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seems to me that the Mechanical Turk system pre-selects those sharp enough to be in a position to use a computer with internet access. It's not truly random. This tilts the responses in a particular direction. I'm not sure what it means, but to get back to any sort of generalized result, you'd have to now come up with a way to gauge these responders versus the general population, wouldn't you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems to me that the Mechanical Turk system pre-selects those sharp enough to be in a position to use a computer with internet access .
It 's not truly random .
This tilts the responses in a particular direction .
I 'm not sure what it means , but to get back to any sort of generalized result , you 'd have to now come up with a way to gauge these responders versus the general population , would n't you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems to me that the Mechanical Turk system pre-selects those sharp enough to be in a position to use a computer with internet access.
It's not truly random.
This tilts the responses in a particular direction.
I'm not sure what it means, but to get back to any sort of generalized result, you'd have to now come up with a way to gauge these responders versus the general population, wouldn't you?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28597967</id>
	<title>Re:Tough one</title>
	<author>Dog-Cow</author>
	<datestamp>1246910340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I disagree that child porn should be illegal.  I have never heard of or read a credible study that shows any lasting harm to the child that is not adequately explained by our species's hang-ups regarding sex.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I disagree that child porn should be illegal .
I have never heard of or read a credible study that shows any lasting harm to the child that is not adequately explained by our species 's hang-ups regarding sex .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I disagree that child porn should be illegal.
I have never heard of or read a credible study that shows any lasting harm to the child that is not adequately explained by our species's hang-ups regarding sex.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595039</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595921</id>
	<title>problems with self reporting</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246901940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All you've established that people who think so highly of themselves that they are willing to say they have "excellent" math skills -- the top rating -- are also less likely to think that this person has broken the law.</p><p>I think this is interesting in light of recent psychological research which has found that criminals generally have <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-esteem#Bullying.2C\_violence\_and\_murder" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">very high self-esteem</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All you 've established that people who think so highly of themselves that they are willing to say they have " excellent " math skills -- the top rating -- are also less likely to think that this person has broken the law.I think this is interesting in light of recent psychological research which has found that criminals generally have very high self-esteem [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All you've established that people who think so highly of themselves that they are willing to say they have "excellent" math skills -- the top rating -- are also less likely to think that this person has broken the law.I think this is interesting in light of recent psychological research which has found that criminals generally have very high self-esteem [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28596387</id>
	<title>Re:Meh</title>
	<author>tilandal</author>
	<datestamp>1246903860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The law means pretty much whatever you can manage to convince a judge and/or jury it means. What the legislature intended it to mean is largely inconsequential. Even if your representatives managed to read the law before voting for it (which is a matter of some considerable debate) each of the potentially hundreds of representatives voting will have differing interpretations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The law means pretty much whatever you can manage to convince a judge and/or jury it means .
What the legislature intended it to mean is largely inconsequential .
Even if your representatives managed to read the law before voting for it ( which is a matter of some considerable debate ) each of the potentially hundreds of representatives voting will have differing interpretations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The law means pretty much whatever you can manage to convince a judge and/or jury it means.
What the legislature intended it to mean is largely inconsequential.
Even if your representatives managed to read the law before voting for it (which is a matter of some considerable debate) each of the potentially hundreds of representatives voting will have differing interpretations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595315</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28599523</id>
	<title>Re:Austistic Spectrum</title>
	<author>benjamindees</author>
	<datestamp>1246873920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh hey, you're an actual fascist.  That's funny that you purport to categorize others' thinking as defective.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>This does not change the fact that they are negativity affecting society as a whole.</p></div><p>1) One cannot affect the whole without affecting any part.</p><p>2) Laws which are not complete enough to encompass all crimes should be completed.</p><p>3) It is better to free the guilty than to punish the innocent.</p><p>4) Citizens have a right to due process of law.</p><p>With which of these statements do you disagree?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh hey , you 're an actual fascist .
That 's funny that you purport to categorize others ' thinking as defective.This does not change the fact that they are negativity affecting society as a whole.1 ) One can not affect the whole without affecting any part.2 ) Laws which are not complete enough to encompass all crimes should be completed.3 ) It is better to free the guilty than to punish the innocent.4 ) Citizens have a right to due process of law.With which of these statements do you disagree ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh hey, you're an actual fascist.
That's funny that you purport to categorize others' thinking as defective.This does not change the fact that they are negativity affecting society as a whole.1) One cannot affect the whole without affecting any part.2) Laws which are not complete enough to encompass all crimes should be completed.3) It is better to free the guilty than to punish the innocent.4) Citizens have a right to due process of law.With which of these statements do you disagree?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28596515</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28597547</id>
	<title>Re:Other people just don't get it</title>
	<author>imgod2u</author>
	<datestamp>1246908480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>[quote]In school we were taught that everything has a set of rules. For one set to be apart of another it has to follow these sets of rules. You do each rule/law and try and prove that it is false. Go through each rule/law and when you find ONE rule that is false you quit. The whole thing is false. It is black or white. It is not gray no matter how "black" it was? 4 out of 5 rules that are true does not equal 80\% true. It == 100\% false. I don't think the outside (people) follow that rule.[/quote]</p><p>Obviously you've never moved on to probability theory then. The idea that science and math are somehow so abstract that they aren't relevant to the world is incorrect. While elementary math is all about rules, higher-level math -- especially applied math -- is all about how to define models that follow rules but allow for "gray areas" to describe the real world.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ quote ] In school we were taught that everything has a set of rules .
For one set to be apart of another it has to follow these sets of rules .
You do each rule/law and try and prove that it is false .
Go through each rule/law and when you find ONE rule that is false you quit .
The whole thing is false .
It is black or white .
It is not gray no matter how " black " it was ?
4 out of 5 rules that are true does not equal 80 \ % true .
It = = 100 \ % false .
I do n't think the outside ( people ) follow that rule .
[ /quote ] Obviously you 've never moved on to probability theory then .
The idea that science and math are somehow so abstract that they are n't relevant to the world is incorrect .
While elementary math is all about rules , higher-level math -- especially applied math -- is all about how to define models that follow rules but allow for " gray areas " to describe the real world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[quote]In school we were taught that everything has a set of rules.
For one set to be apart of another it has to follow these sets of rules.
You do each rule/law and try and prove that it is false.
Go through each rule/law and when you find ONE rule that is false you quit.
The whole thing is false.
It is black or white.
It is not gray no matter how "black" it was?
4 out of 5 rules that are true does not equal 80\% true.
It == 100\% false.
I don't think the outside (people) follow that rule.
[/quote]Obviously you've never moved on to probability theory then.
The idea that science and math are somehow so abstract that they aren't relevant to the world is incorrect.
While elementary math is all about rules, higher-level math -- especially applied math -- is all about how to define models that follow rules but allow for "gray areas" to describe the real world.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28596829</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595427</id>
	<title>Re:Tough one</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246899960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And as for psychological damages to the victim? Or social damages?<br>Should slander be okay? What about parodies? Misrepresentation of other people's opinions either through intent or mistake?<br>Another issue with this type of material is an argument you could give for copyright; the benefit of society. If we allow these pictures to propagate are we fostering child molestors or children who are susceptible to grooming?<br>I think there's more here than just a 'victimless crime' and that, due to its potency, slow and cautionary steps should be made in producing ideological priorities.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And as for psychological damages to the victim ?
Or social damages ? Should slander be okay ?
What about parodies ?
Misrepresentation of other people 's opinions either through intent or mistake ? Another issue with this type of material is an argument you could give for copyright ; the benefit of society .
If we allow these pictures to propagate are we fostering child molestors or children who are susceptible to grooming ? I think there 's more here than just a 'victimless crime ' and that , due to its potency , slow and cautionary steps should be made in producing ideological priorities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And as for psychological damages to the victim?
Or social damages?Should slander be okay?
What about parodies?
Misrepresentation of other people's opinions either through intent or mistake?Another issue with this type of material is an argument you could give for copyright; the benefit of society.
If we allow these pictures to propagate are we fostering child molestors or children who are susceptible to grooming?I think there's more here than just a 'victimless crime' and that, due to its potency, slow and cautionary steps should be made in producing ideological priorities.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595039</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595663</id>
	<title>Re:Tough one</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246901040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And as for psychological damages to the victim? Or social damages?
Should slander be okay? What about parodies? Misrepresentation of other people's opinions either through intent or mistake?</p></div><p>Good points.  All art and social commentary should be made illegal!  It's the only way to save everyone from potential embarassment or psychological damage.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Another issue with this type of material is an argument you could give for copyright; the benefit of society. If we allow these pictures to propagate are we fostering child molestors or children who are susceptible to grooming?</p></div><p>Which is why violent movies, tv and books should also be banned.  Aren't they just propagating violence?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I think there's more here than just a 'victimless crime' and that, due to its potency, slow and cautionary steps should be made in producing ideological priorities.</p></div><p>It certainly wasn't victimless.  Who knows what harm may have befallen society if this creep had been allowed to keep his photoshopped Miley Cyrus picture in the privacy of his own home!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And as for psychological damages to the victim ?
Or social damages ?
Should slander be okay ?
What about parodies ?
Misrepresentation of other people 's opinions either through intent or mistake ? Good points .
All art and social commentary should be made illegal !
It 's the only way to save everyone from potential embarassment or psychological damage.Another issue with this type of material is an argument you could give for copyright ; the benefit of society .
If we allow these pictures to propagate are we fostering child molestors or children who are susceptible to grooming ? Which is why violent movies , tv and books should also be banned .
Are n't they just propagating violence ? I think there 's more here than just a 'victimless crime ' and that , due to its potency , slow and cautionary steps should be made in producing ideological priorities.It certainly was n't victimless .
Who knows what harm may have befallen society if this creep had been allowed to keep his photoshopped Miley Cyrus picture in the privacy of his own home !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And as for psychological damages to the victim?
Or social damages?
Should slander be okay?
What about parodies?
Misrepresentation of other people's opinions either through intent or mistake?Good points.
All art and social commentary should be made illegal!
It's the only way to save everyone from potential embarassment or psychological damage.Another issue with this type of material is an argument you could give for copyright; the benefit of society.
If we allow these pictures to propagate are we fostering child molestors or children who are susceptible to grooming?Which is why violent movies, tv and books should also be banned.
Aren't they just propagating violence?I think there's more here than just a 'victimless crime' and that, due to its potency, slow and cautionary steps should be made in producing ideological priorities.It certainly wasn't victimless.
Who knows what harm may have befallen society if this creep had been allowed to keep his photoshopped Miley Cyrus picture in the privacy of his own home!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595427</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28596829</id>
	<title>Other people just don't get it</title>
	<author>howe.chris</author>
	<datestamp>1246905600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have a math degree.  I know enough about mathematics to know that I don't think I am that good at it.  Compared to my (Math) "peers" I am probably slightly above average.  Compared to the rest of the world I am &gt;99\%.  So by that definition I would categorize myself as Excellent.  To get really good you have to study it on a daily or at least weekly basis.  I am way too lazy to do anything like that.
<br> <br>
In school we were taught that everything has a set of rules.  For one set to be apart of another it has to follow these sets of rules.  You do each rule/law and try and prove that it is false.  Go through each rule/law and when you find ONE rule that is false you quit.  The whole thing is false.  It is black or white.  It is not gray no matter how "black" it was?  4 out of 5 rules that are true does not equal 80\% true.  It == 100\% false.  I don't think the outside (people) follow that rule.
<br> <br>
I served in Jury duty once for a guy that was clearly guilty.  I wanted a free lunch and really wanted the day to be wasted so I didn't have to go back to work.  So I convinced 2 other people that there was a chance based on one rule that the guy had a chance of being innocent.  We just needed the judge to clarify one point of the law.  He clarified it (after lunch break) and he was by definition guilty.  I said okay by definition he is guilty lets return the verdict and go home.  And one guy looked at me and said these other 2 people still think he could be innocent.  I said no based on the letter of the law he is guilty.  Here are the rules, they are ALL true.  Based on the directions that the judge gave us by definition of the law he is guilty.  They had to talk about it for 30+ more minutes.  I just didn't get it.  It doesn't matter how we feel or if we feel sorry for the guy.  We were told these 5 "rules", if all 5 were true, by definition he is guilty.  We don't make the rules.  There really shoudn't be any emotion in any of this.  I really didn't understand any of their protests or questions after that.  (I created two monsters.)  In the end we voted him guilty.  And the guy probably got life (not deserved) for the 3 strikes law.
<br> <br>
So in summary (poor to bad Composition skills BTW) laws are really not black and white to the greater public.  They let emotion get involved and 80\% true might be 100\% true to them.  Some people just ignore the pieces that are false because they want the man to be guilty.  Doesn't matter what the law says.  The guy is sick and deserves to rot in jail.  Sadly sometimes if a guy is really "bad", 20\% true is enough to convict.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a math degree .
I know enough about mathematics to know that I do n't think I am that good at it .
Compared to my ( Math ) " peers " I am probably slightly above average .
Compared to the rest of the world I am &gt; 99 \ % .
So by that definition I would categorize myself as Excellent .
To get really good you have to study it on a daily or at least weekly basis .
I am way too lazy to do anything like that .
In school we were taught that everything has a set of rules .
For one set to be apart of another it has to follow these sets of rules .
You do each rule/law and try and prove that it is false .
Go through each rule/law and when you find ONE rule that is false you quit .
The whole thing is false .
It is black or white .
It is not gray no matter how " black " it was ?
4 out of 5 rules that are true does not equal 80 \ % true .
It = = 100 \ % false .
I do n't think the outside ( people ) follow that rule .
I served in Jury duty once for a guy that was clearly guilty .
I wanted a free lunch and really wanted the day to be wasted so I did n't have to go back to work .
So I convinced 2 other people that there was a chance based on one rule that the guy had a chance of being innocent .
We just needed the judge to clarify one point of the law .
He clarified it ( after lunch break ) and he was by definition guilty .
I said okay by definition he is guilty lets return the verdict and go home .
And one guy looked at me and said these other 2 people still think he could be innocent .
I said no based on the letter of the law he is guilty .
Here are the rules , they are ALL true .
Based on the directions that the judge gave us by definition of the law he is guilty .
They had to talk about it for 30 + more minutes .
I just did n't get it .
It does n't matter how we feel or if we feel sorry for the guy .
We were told these 5 " rules " , if all 5 were true , by definition he is guilty .
We do n't make the rules .
There really shoud n't be any emotion in any of this .
I really did n't understand any of their protests or questions after that .
( I created two monsters .
) In the end we voted him guilty .
And the guy probably got life ( not deserved ) for the 3 strikes law .
So in summary ( poor to bad Composition skills BTW ) laws are really not black and white to the greater public .
They let emotion get involved and 80 \ % true might be 100 \ % true to them .
Some people just ignore the pieces that are false because they want the man to be guilty .
Does n't matter what the law says .
The guy is sick and deserves to rot in jail .
Sadly sometimes if a guy is really " bad " , 20 \ % true is enough to convict .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a math degree.
I know enough about mathematics to know that I don't think I am that good at it.
Compared to my (Math) "peers" I am probably slightly above average.
Compared to the rest of the world I am &gt;99\%.
So by that definition I would categorize myself as Excellent.
To get really good you have to study it on a daily or at least weekly basis.
I am way too lazy to do anything like that.
In school we were taught that everything has a set of rules.
For one set to be apart of another it has to follow these sets of rules.
You do each rule/law and try and prove that it is false.
Go through each rule/law and when you find ONE rule that is false you quit.
The whole thing is false.
It is black or white.
It is not gray no matter how "black" it was?
4 out of 5 rules that are true does not equal 80\% true.
It == 100\% false.
I don't think the outside (people) follow that rule.
I served in Jury duty once for a guy that was clearly guilty.
I wanted a free lunch and really wanted the day to be wasted so I didn't have to go back to work.
So I convinced 2 other people that there was a chance based on one rule that the guy had a chance of being innocent.
We just needed the judge to clarify one point of the law.
He clarified it (after lunch break) and he was by definition guilty.
I said okay by definition he is guilty lets return the verdict and go home.
And one guy looked at me and said these other 2 people still think he could be innocent.
I said no based on the letter of the law he is guilty.
Here are the rules, they are ALL true.
Based on the directions that the judge gave us by definition of the law he is guilty.
They had to talk about it for 30+ more minutes.
I just didn't get it.
It doesn't matter how we feel or if we feel sorry for the guy.
We were told these 5 "rules", if all 5 were true, by definition he is guilty.
We don't make the rules.
There really shoudn't be any emotion in any of this.
I really didn't understand any of their protests or questions after that.
(I created two monsters.
)  In the end we voted him guilty.
And the guy probably got life (not deserved) for the 3 strikes law.
So in summary (poor to bad Composition skills BTW) laws are really not black and white to the greater public.
They let emotion get involved and 80\% true might be 100\% true to them.
Some people just ignore the pieces that are false because they want the man to be guilty.
Doesn't matter what the law says.
The guy is sick and deserves to rot in jail.
Sadly sometimes if a guy is really "bad", 20\% true is enough to convict.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28598857</id>
	<title>Re:Tough one</title>
	<author>DamnStupidElf</author>
	<datestamp>1246871220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Those laws get applied all the time to recognized political, religious or commercial speech, and come up in libel, slander, and fraud cases. Even if sexually related speech should have all the protections of other speech, sexual aspects shouldn't give such speech more protection than we would give to philosophical, scientific, or political speech.</i> <br>
<br>
Private use should absolutely be more protected than public commercial use.  Unless we want to live in an inside-out society where what happens in private is everyone's business but the public things (foreign policy, lobbying, corporate influence in the government, etc.) must not be discussed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Those laws get applied all the time to recognized political , religious or commercial speech , and come up in libel , slander , and fraud cases .
Even if sexually related speech should have all the protections of other speech , sexual aspects should n't give such speech more protection than we would give to philosophical , scientific , or political speech .
Private use should absolutely be more protected than public commercial use .
Unless we want to live in an inside-out society where what happens in private is everyone 's business but the public things ( foreign policy , lobbying , corporate influence in the government , etc .
) must not be discussed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those laws get applied all the time to recognized political, religious or commercial speech, and come up in libel, slander, and fraud cases.
Even if sexually related speech should have all the protections of other speech, sexual aspects shouldn't give such speech more protection than we would give to philosophical, scientific, or political speech.
Private use should absolutely be more protected than public commercial use.
Unless we want to live in an inside-out society where what happens in private is everyone's business but the public things (foreign policy, lobbying, corporate influence in the government, etc.
) must not be discussed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595893</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595265</id>
	<title>Statistical significance in surveys</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246899120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Surveys are inherently difficult to present in a neutral fashion, especially when attempting to determine correlation. Take the following (simplified) survey for example:</p><p>I like Cheerios:<br>[Yes] [No] [Sometimes]</p><p>Rate your proficiency at math:<br>[Excellent] [Good] [Average] [Poor]</p><p>Now, let's say you found a statistically significant correlation between people who like Cheerios and people who are excellent at math. Congratulations! You just did not find a correlation related to math proficiency at all.</p><p>What you did just find is a correlation between people who selected the first option in your survey.</p><p>Now, randomizing your answers is a good start and will resolve the above issue. However, there are hundreds of other things which can affect your results and there is an entire survey industry formed around these problems. The immediate problems that spring to mind about the survey in TFA is:<br>-Respondents must have internet access<br>-Respondents must have signed up to Amazon's mechanical turk<br>-Respondents were paid for the survey<br>-Respondent proficiency at math/language was self-assessed<br>-Respondents must be able to comprehend English</p><p>Anyway, I could go on but my point here is this: despite the fact that a statistically-significant correlation that was found, that correlation may not stem from the questions themselves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Surveys are inherently difficult to present in a neutral fashion , especially when attempting to determine correlation .
Take the following ( simplified ) survey for example : I like Cheerios : [ Yes ] [ No ] [ Sometimes ] Rate your proficiency at math : [ Excellent ] [ Good ] [ Average ] [ Poor ] Now , let 's say you found a statistically significant correlation between people who like Cheerios and people who are excellent at math .
Congratulations ! You just did not find a correlation related to math proficiency at all.What you did just find is a correlation between people who selected the first option in your survey.Now , randomizing your answers is a good start and will resolve the above issue .
However , there are hundreds of other things which can affect your results and there is an entire survey industry formed around these problems .
The immediate problems that spring to mind about the survey in TFA is : -Respondents must have internet access-Respondents must have signed up to Amazon 's mechanical turk-Respondents were paid for the survey-Respondent proficiency at math/language was self-assessed-Respondents must be able to comprehend EnglishAnyway , I could go on but my point here is this : despite the fact that a statistically-significant correlation that was found , that correlation may not stem from the questions themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Surveys are inherently difficult to present in a neutral fashion, especially when attempting to determine correlation.
Take the following (simplified) survey for example:I like Cheerios:[Yes] [No] [Sometimes]Rate your proficiency at math:[Excellent] [Good] [Average] [Poor]Now, let's say you found a statistically significant correlation between people who like Cheerios and people who are excellent at math.
Congratulations! You just did not find a correlation related to math proficiency at all.What you did just find is a correlation between people who selected the first option in your survey.Now, randomizing your answers is a good start and will resolve the above issue.
However, there are hundreds of other things which can affect your results and there is an entire survey industry formed around these problems.
The immediate problems that spring to mind about the survey in TFA is:-Respondents must have internet access-Respondents must have signed up to Amazon's mechanical turk-Respondents were paid for the survey-Respondent proficiency at math/language was self-assessed-Respondents must be able to comprehend EnglishAnyway, I could go on but my point here is this: despite the fact that a statistically-significant correlation that was found, that correlation may not stem from the questions themselves.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595437</id>
	<title>Re:Sorry</title>
	<author>SatanicPuppy</author>
	<datestamp>1246900020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You need to use the </p><blockquote><div><p> <tt>&lt;em&gt;</tt></p></div> </blockquote><p> tag if you want actual italics and the </p><blockquote><div><p> <tt>&lt;strong&gt;</tt></p></div> </blockquote><p> tag if you want actual boldface.</p><p><em>Italics</em><br><strong>Boldface</strong></p><p>The "b" tag and the "i" tag both tend to get rendered incorrectly now. I think it must default to the annoying block quote...The tags above are <em>supposed</em> to be in an "ecode" tag, but it fricking blockquoted those as well.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You need to use the tag if you want actual italics and the tag if you want actual boldface.ItalicsBoldfaceThe " b " tag and the " i " tag both tend to get rendered incorrectly now .
I think it must default to the annoying block quote...The tags above are supposed to be in an " ecode " tag , but it fricking blockquoted those as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You need to use the    tag if you want actual italics and the    tag if you want actual boldface.ItalicsBoldfaceThe "b" tag and the "i" tag both tend to get rendered incorrectly now.
I think it must default to the annoying block quote...The tags above are supposed to be in an "ecode" tag, but it fricking blockquoted those as well.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595053</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28605379</id>
	<title>Re:Pic?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246962660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>er, 4chan of course. Did you even need to ask?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>er , 4chan of course .
Did you even need to ask ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>er, 4chan of course.
Did you even need to ask?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28594947</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595687</id>
	<title>doesnt change the fact</title>
	<author>onionlee</author>
	<datestamp>1246901160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>i agree what he did was absolutely legal.

doesnt change the fact that the dude is a sick pervert D:</htmltext>
<tokenext>i agree what he did was absolutely legal .
doesnt change the fact that the dude is a sick pervert D :</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i agree what he did was absolutely legal.
doesnt change the fact that the dude is a sick pervert D:</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595333</id>
	<title>Re:Austistic Spectrum</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1246899480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a ridiculous answer. Less than 1\% of the population has an autistic spectrum disorder, and even inside that tiny population there is likely quite a correlation between 'present on Mechanical turk' and 'high functioning'. Going from there, people with Asperger syndrome have a fair shot of understanding the norm, they just seem to lack the cognitive machinery to properly read other people in social situations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a ridiculous answer .
Less than 1 \ % of the population has an autistic spectrum disorder , and even inside that tiny population there is likely quite a correlation between 'present on Mechanical turk ' and 'high functioning' .
Going from there , people with Asperger syndrome have a fair shot of understanding the norm , they just seem to lack the cognitive machinery to properly read other people in social situations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a ridiculous answer.
Less than 1\% of the population has an autistic spectrum disorder, and even inside that tiny population there is likely quite a correlation between 'present on Mechanical turk' and 'high functioning'.
Going from there, people with Asperger syndrome have a fair shot of understanding the norm, they just seem to lack the cognitive machinery to properly read other people in social situations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595045</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595039</id>
	<title>Tough one</title>
	<author>RazorSharp</author>
	<datestamp>1246898160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree child porn is immoral and should be illegal, but the main reason I think it should be illegal is so the girl isn't subjected to the photo shoot. A Photoshop job like this, despite being offensive, seems to be a protected right of Americans. South Park, for example, is composed of many offensive collages but I couldn't imagine condoning censorship of the show. I'd have to take the defendant's side on this issue, even though it seems wrong to side with someone who whacks off to that type of shit. It's America, you take the good with the bad.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree child porn is immoral and should be illegal , but the main reason I think it should be illegal is so the girl is n't subjected to the photo shoot .
A Photoshop job like this , despite being offensive , seems to be a protected right of Americans .
South Park , for example , is composed of many offensive collages but I could n't imagine condoning censorship of the show .
I 'd have to take the defendant 's side on this issue , even though it seems wrong to side with someone who whacks off to that type of shit .
It 's America , you take the good with the bad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree child porn is immoral and should be illegal, but the main reason I think it should be illegal is so the girl isn't subjected to the photo shoot.
A Photoshop job like this, despite being offensive, seems to be a protected right of Americans.
South Park, for example, is composed of many offensive collages but I couldn't imagine condoning censorship of the show.
I'd have to take the defendant's side on this issue, even though it seems wrong to side with someone who whacks off to that type of shit.
It's America, you take the good with the bad.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28596063</id>
	<title>Re:Sorry</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246902600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><em> really? </em>
<strong> we'll see about this. </strong></htmltext>
<tokenext>really ?
we 'll see about this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> really?
we'll see about this. </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595437</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28596661</id>
	<title>different interpretation...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246905000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People who say he didn't commit a crime are more likely to lie about their own intelligence.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People who say he did n't commit a crime are more likely to lie about their own intelligence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People who say he didn't commit a crime are more likely to lie about their own intelligence.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595299</id>
	<title>If I may quote</title>
	<author>RenHoek</author>
	<datestamp>1246899240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What</p></div><p> the hell </p><p><div class="quote"><p>is</p></div><p> going on </p><p><div class="quote"><p>here?</p></div><p>Who made this horrible post?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What the hell is going on here ? Who made this horrible post ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the hell is going on here?Who made this horrible post?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595917</id>
	<title>Re:Sorry</title>
	<author>dingo8baby</author>
	<datestamp>1246901940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>you mean we have to use valid xhtml to get our posts to display correctly? How inconsiderate.</htmltext>
<tokenext>you mean we have to use valid xhtml to get our posts to display correctly ?
How inconsiderate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you mean we have to use valid xhtml to get our posts to display correctly?
How inconsiderate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595437</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28602057</id>
	<title>Re:Tough one</title>
	<author>Atario</author>
	<datestamp>1246886880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's clearly a misunderstanding of what crime is.  Some people remember that a crime is when you harm someone.  Others think a crime is when you do something they don't like.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's clearly a misunderstanding of what crime is .
Some people remember that a crime is when you harm someone .
Others think a crime is when you do something they do n't like .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's clearly a misunderstanding of what crime is.
Some people remember that a crime is when you harm someone.
Others think a crime is when you do something they don't like.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595641</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28605453</id>
	<title>So</title>
	<author>smoker2</author>
	<datestamp>1246963440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If I photoshop GWBs head onto a wanking bonobo, I'm guilty of homo-erotic bestiality ? <br> <br>BTW I suck at maths.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I photoshop GWBs head onto a wanking bonobo , I 'm guilty of homo-erotic bestiality ?
BTW I suck at maths .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I photoshop GWBs head onto a wanking bonobo, I'm guilty of homo-erotic bestiality ?
BTW I suck at maths.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28597655</id>
	<title>Antonio Tavares</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246908900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your statistics are interesting, and just prove that even highly instructed people can't normally do a good judgement. I'm just the son of a judge and learned one thing or two, and I'm not even English, but reading the text of this law, and applying the principles he taught me, It's very simple to decide. In the face of the written law, the guy is innocent (albeit a pervert).<br>But I can only condemn a person in court using the law and not my opinions. That's something only a few can distinguish. I just hope that those reading my words can understand that the law is to be read objectively. It's a technical thing not an opinion one. To judge with justice you may not let your opinions and prejudice come by.</p><p>By the way, even thinking like a common guy and knowing he is a pervert I have no right to try to force the application of a law to condemn a guy to an exaggerated  punishment. That would be no justice, even popular one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your statistics are interesting , and just prove that even highly instructed people ca n't normally do a good judgement .
I 'm just the son of a judge and learned one thing or two , and I 'm not even English , but reading the text of this law , and applying the principles he taught me , It 's very simple to decide .
In the face of the written law , the guy is innocent ( albeit a pervert ) .But I can only condemn a person in court using the law and not my opinions .
That 's something only a few can distinguish .
I just hope that those reading my words can understand that the law is to be read objectively .
It 's a technical thing not an opinion one .
To judge with justice you may not let your opinions and prejudice come by.By the way , even thinking like a common guy and knowing he is a pervert I have no right to try to force the application of a law to condemn a guy to an exaggerated punishment .
That would be no justice , even popular one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your statistics are interesting, and just prove that even highly instructed people can't normally do a good judgement.
I'm just the son of a judge and learned one thing or two, and I'm not even English, but reading the text of this law, and applying the principles he taught me, It's very simple to decide.
In the face of the written law, the guy is innocent (albeit a pervert).But I can only condemn a person in court using the law and not my opinions.
That's something only a few can distinguish.
I just hope that those reading my words can understand that the law is to be read objectively.
It's a technical thing not an opinion one.
To judge with justice you may not let your opinions and prejudice come by.By the way, even thinking like a common guy and knowing he is a pervert I have no right to try to force the application of a law to condemn a guy to an exaggerated  punishment.
That would be no justice, even popular one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595443</id>
	<title>Re:Off-topic, sort of, but funny</title>
	<author>nedlohs</author>
	<datestamp>1246900080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And why exactly did you look at the pictures in the first place?</p><p>Doesn't seem a required step in copying files. Did you look at every other file you copied too?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And why exactly did you look at the pictures in the first place ? Does n't seem a required step in copying files .
Did you look at every other file you copied too ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And why exactly did you look at the pictures in the first place?Doesn't seem a required step in copying files.
Did you look at every other file you copied too?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28594963</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28699001</id>
	<title>Re:Meh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247582940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>While not applicable to this, other laws that deal with similar grey area of law allow for one party to define the crime where the perpetrator might not reasonably be able to determine the legality ahead of time. Sexual harassment laws are probably the best example of that, the most egregious cases are ones which everybody can recognize, but often times it's a matter of life experience which leads to one conclusion or another.</i> </p><p>Dead right. Old joke:</p><p>Q. What's the difference between flirting and sexual harassment?</p><p>A. Are you attracted to the guy?</p><p>Another case of "victim gets to decide the severity -- computer intrusion.</p><p>It may be clear that only one system was breached, but the cops won't even return your call on that, especially if you're a private citizen. But if you listen to your computer security consultant (who clearly fucked up anyway), he'll tell you do spend $25,000 for an extensive, company-wide audit, thereby jacking up the "damages" to felony level. Then the cops will be happy to chase down "the goddamned hacker" for you.</p><p>Similar example -- the rock climbers who clean climb (no pitons or other mechanical devices, just fingers, feet and sticky rubber shoes). First they arrest the guy for trespassing, then they throw in "being a public nuisance", which means that "due to your distraction, someone <i> <b>might</b> </i> have been killed if a driver looked up and didn't notice a pedestrian in his path". Since no one actually got killed, I have to quote my sainted mother -- "Yeah,and if your aunt had balls, she'd be your uncle".</p><p>Again, the building owner will be encouraged to jack up "damages" by calling in a full team of structural engineers to make sure the building is still "safe". Shit, when they clamber out with al their safety rigging, they'll already be causing more damage than the climber could possibly have done.</p><p>His damage was likely less than would have been caused by a cold, foggy San Francisco night, followed by an unusually hot day.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>While not applicable to this , other laws that deal with similar grey area of law allow for one party to define the crime where the perpetrator might not reasonably be able to determine the legality ahead of time .
Sexual harassment laws are probably the best example of that , the most egregious cases are ones which everybody can recognize , but often times it 's a matter of life experience which leads to one conclusion or another .
Dead right .
Old joke : Q. What 's the difference between flirting and sexual harassment ? A .
Are you attracted to the guy ? Another case of " victim gets to decide the severity -- computer intrusion.It may be clear that only one system was breached , but the cops wo n't even return your call on that , especially if you 're a private citizen .
But if you listen to your computer security consultant ( who clearly fucked up anyway ) , he 'll tell you do spend $ 25,000 for an extensive , company-wide audit , thereby jacking up the " damages " to felony level .
Then the cops will be happy to chase down " the goddamned hacker " for you.Similar example -- the rock climbers who clean climb ( no pitons or other mechanical devices , just fingers , feet and sticky rubber shoes ) .
First they arrest the guy for trespassing , then they throw in " being a public nuisance " , which means that " due to your distraction , someone might have been killed if a driver looked up and did n't notice a pedestrian in his path " .
Since no one actually got killed , I have to quote my sainted mother -- " Yeah,and if your aunt had balls , she 'd be your uncle " .Again , the building owner will be encouraged to jack up " damages " by calling in a full team of structural engineers to make sure the building is still " safe " .
Shit , when they clamber out with al their safety rigging , they 'll already be causing more damage than the climber could possibly have done.His damage was likely less than would have been caused by a cold , foggy San Francisco night , followed by an unusually hot day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While not applicable to this, other laws that deal with similar grey area of law allow for one party to define the crime where the perpetrator might not reasonably be able to determine the legality ahead of time.
Sexual harassment laws are probably the best example of that, the most egregious cases are ones which everybody can recognize, but often times it's a matter of life experience which leads to one conclusion or another.
Dead right.
Old joke:Q. What's the difference between flirting and sexual harassment?A.
Are you attracted to the guy?Another case of "victim gets to decide the severity -- computer intrusion.It may be clear that only one system was breached, but the cops won't even return your call on that, especially if you're a private citizen.
But if you listen to your computer security consultant (who clearly fucked up anyway), he'll tell you do spend $25,000 for an extensive, company-wide audit, thereby jacking up the "damages" to felony level.
Then the cops will be happy to chase down "the goddamned hacker" for you.Similar example -- the rock climbers who clean climb (no pitons or other mechanical devices, just fingers, feet and sticky rubber shoes).
First they arrest the guy for trespassing, then they throw in "being a public nuisance", which means that "due to your distraction, someone  might  have been killed if a driver looked up and didn't notice a pedestrian in his path".
Since no one actually got killed, I have to quote my sainted mother -- "Yeah,and if your aunt had balls, she'd be your uncle".Again, the building owner will be encouraged to jack up "damages" by calling in a full team of structural engineers to make sure the building is still "safe".
Shit, when they clamber out with al their safety rigging, they'll already be causing more damage than the climber could possibly have done.His damage was likely less than would have been caused by a cold, foggy San Francisco night, followed by an unusually hot day.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595315</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595353</id>
	<title>Re:Great formatting in this article</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246899540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My thoughts exactly. A very patently offensive use of blockquotes</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My thoughts exactly .
A very patently offensive use of blockquotes</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My thoughts exactly.
A very patently offensive use of blockquotes</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28594957</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28603071</id>
	<title>Re:Assumptions</title>
	<author>Tycho</author>
	<datestamp>1246894380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You might want to look at this paper linked to below, titled "Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments"</p><p><a href="http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf" title="apa.org">http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf</a> [apa.org]</p><p>This paper may even help explain the situations of Bennett Haselton, who submitted this rubbish, 90\% of hardcore libertarians, 95\% of hardcore environuts, Sarah Palin, and so many more hardcore weirdos today.  However, teaching that many self-imagined geniuses that they are in fact idiots and then making it stick would be hard and a waste of time.  However teaching the actual geniuses that there are stupid people out there is another problem as well.</p><p>Heck, none of the respondents who were actually bad in either of the mentioned subjects (there had to be a few) had the guts to say that they were bad at these subjects.  This relates directly to the subject of the above linked paper itself.  I should give the clueless answering that the survey the the benefit of the doubt, the questions had extremely poor wording.  However, I still won't give the clueless the benefit of the doubt here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You might want to look at this paper linked to below , titled " Unskilled and Unaware of It : How Difficulties in Recognizing One 's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments " http : //www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf [ apa.org ] This paper may even help explain the situations of Bennett Haselton , who submitted this rubbish , 90 \ % of hardcore libertarians , 95 \ % of hardcore environuts , Sarah Palin , and so many more hardcore weirdos today .
However , teaching that many self-imagined geniuses that they are in fact idiots and then making it stick would be hard and a waste of time .
However teaching the actual geniuses that there are stupid people out there is another problem as well.Heck , none of the respondents who were actually bad in either of the mentioned subjects ( there had to be a few ) had the guts to say that they were bad at these subjects .
This relates directly to the subject of the above linked paper itself .
I should give the clueless answering that the survey the the benefit of the doubt , the questions had extremely poor wording .
However , I still wo n't give the clueless the benefit of the doubt here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You might want to look at this paper linked to below, titled "Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments"http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf [apa.org]This paper may even help explain the situations of Bennett Haselton, who submitted this rubbish, 90\% of hardcore libertarians, 95\% of hardcore environuts, Sarah Palin, and so many more hardcore weirdos today.
However, teaching that many self-imagined geniuses that they are in fact idiots and then making it stick would be hard and a waste of time.
However teaching the actual geniuses that there are stupid people out there is another problem as well.Heck, none of the respondents who were actually bad in either of the mentioned subjects (there had to be a few) had the guts to say that they were bad at these subjects.
This relates directly to the subject of the above linked paper itself.
I should give the clueless answering that the survey the the benefit of the doubt, the questions had extremely poor wording.
However, I still won't give the clueless the benefit of the doubt here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28597227</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28598873</id>
	<title>What about bestiality?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246871280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I put Miley's face on a goat, can I be charged for bestiality as well?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I put Miley 's face on a goat , can I be charged for bestiality as well ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I put Miley's face on a goat, can I be charged for bestiality as well?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28600989</id>
	<title>Re:Tough one</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246881180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think your argument is flawed in that, in the the case its possesion of the pictures; but in your simular cases its distribution thats illigal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think your argument is flawed in that , in the the case its possesion of the pictures ; but in your simular cases its distribution thats illigal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think your argument is flawed in that, in the the case its possesion of the pictures; but in your simular cases its distribution thats illigal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595893</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28604937</id>
	<title>Re:Tough one</title>
	<author>julesh</author>
	<datestamp>1246999980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Which makes you wonder what the legislators were thinking when they passed those laws</i></p><p>Generally they were thinking that either 12 or 14 was too young (as was legal in most jurisdictions at one point of time or another).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which makes you wonder what the legislators were thinking when they passed those lawsGenerally they were thinking that either 12 or 14 was too young ( as was legal in most jurisdictions at one point of time or another ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which makes you wonder what the legislators were thinking when they passed those lawsGenerally they were thinking that either 12 or 14 was too young (as was legal in most jurisdictions at one point of time or another).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28597573</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595893
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28596545
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595363
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28598375
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28594937
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28599627
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28599091
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595265
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595811
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595861
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28600569
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28594939
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595393
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595715
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28597573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28604937
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595389
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28598619
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595389
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28603045
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595237
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595265
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28596919
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28594899
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595053
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595437
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595917
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28596443
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28594963
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595443
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28599841
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28594947
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28604769
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28594963
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595443
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28596299
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28594939
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28601581
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595683
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595949
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28594957
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595223
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595715
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28603913
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28596145
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28594939
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595351
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28601515
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28597335
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595389
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28598201
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595333
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28594939
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595351
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28599539
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595893
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28598857
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28602387
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595355
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595335
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28597261
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28596515
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28599523
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595497
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28596387
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28600237
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28597235
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28597967
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595427
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595663
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595893
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28600989
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595279
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595675
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28598525
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595705
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28594933
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595091
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595599
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595499
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595977
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28597393
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28597891
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28594947
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28598637
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595893
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28601619
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28699001
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28594933
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595091
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28597189
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28596829
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28597515
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28600553
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595415
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28599947
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595363
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28601967
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28596371
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28594947
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28596957
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28594937
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28599413
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595265
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28601363
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595893
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28608385
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28601857
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28604545
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28594957
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28596435
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595885
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28597241
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28597437
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28601865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28594947
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28605379
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28594939
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595961
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595363
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28596363
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28596829
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28597547
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595439
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595279
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595837
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28594939
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28597479
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28594963
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595443
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595985
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595389
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28599021
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595389
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28598001
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28594963
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595443
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28596381
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28604413
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595487
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28602057
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595265
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28598383
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595363
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28596811
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595279
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28596155
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28598995
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28604951
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28594937
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28596589
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28594899
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595053
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595437
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28596063
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28594933
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595091
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28597135
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28594963
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595443
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28600375
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595801
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28601697
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28594939
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28596171
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28597227
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28603071
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595893
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28597259
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595801
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28597029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28594933
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595091
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595469
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28594939
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28596171
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28596581
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28594939
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28596171
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28641529
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28594963
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595443
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28596381
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28603103
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28596173
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28594957
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595353
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28594933
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28596841
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595279
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595721
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595279
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595527
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595335
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28604987
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28600451
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28596515
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28600263
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595893
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28603207
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_1429208_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28596341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28601811
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1429208.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595389
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28598001
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28598201
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28599021
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28598619
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28603045
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1429208.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595011
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1429208.36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595295
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1429208.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28594933
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595523
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28596841
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595091
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595711
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28597189
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28597135
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595599
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595469
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1429208.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595039
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595427
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595663
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28596443
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595641
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28600553
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28600451
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28596341
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28601811
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28598995
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28604951
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28602057
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595893
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28597259
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28603207
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28596545
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28608385
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28601619
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28600989
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28598857
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595715
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28597573
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28604937
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28603913
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28596173
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28597437
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28601865
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595497
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595363
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28596811
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28598375
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28601967
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28596363
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28597235
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28597967
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1429208.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28594915
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1429208.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595007
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595439
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595683
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28602387
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28597335
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595705
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595315
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28596387
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28600237
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28596145
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28699001
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28599091
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28596371
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1429208.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595801
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28597029
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28601697
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1429208.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28594939
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28596171
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28597227
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28603071
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28596581
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28641529
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595393
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28601581
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595351
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28601515
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28599539
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595961
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28597479
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1429208.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28599715
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1429208.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595299
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1429208.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28601099
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1429208.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28597185
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1429208.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595977
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28597393
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28597891
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1429208.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595279
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595721
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595527
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28596155
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595675
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28598525
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595837
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1429208.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28594963
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595443
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28596299
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28600375
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28596381
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28604413
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28603103
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595985
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28599841
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1429208.32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595477
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1429208.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595045
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595333
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595949
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595385
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28596515
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28600263
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28599523
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595415
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595499
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595355
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595237
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28601857
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1429208.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28596829
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28597515
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28597547
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1429208.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595861
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28600569
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1429208.33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595657
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1429208.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28594957
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28596435
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595353
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595223
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1429208.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595631
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28604545
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28599947
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1429208.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28596485
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1429208.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595749
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1429208.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28594937
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28596589
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28599413
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28599627
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1429208.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595025
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595487
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1429208.34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595303
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1429208.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28594945
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1429208.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28596015
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1429208.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28594947
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28598637
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28605379
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28604769
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28596957
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1429208.35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595885
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28597241
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1429208.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28598429
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1429208.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28594899
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595053
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595437
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28596063
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595917
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1429208.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28600561
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1429208.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595265
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28601363
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28596919
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28598383
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595811
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_1429208.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28595335
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28604987
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_1429208.28597261
</commentlist>
</conversation>
