<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_16_1614205</id>
	<title>Lockheed Snags $31 Million To Reinvent the Internet, Microsoft To Help</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1255715820000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>DARPA has awarded a $31 million contract to megacorp Lockheed Martin which will, with some assistance from Microsoft, attempt to <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/16/darpa\_microsoft\_reinvent\_internet/">reinvent the Internet</a> and make it more military-friendly.  <i>"The main thrust of the effort will be to develop a new Military Network Protocol, which will differ from old hat such as TCP/IP in that it will offer 'improved security, dynamic bandwidth allocation, and policy-based prioritization levels at the individual and unit level.' Lockheed will be partnered with Anagran, Juniper Networks, LGS Innovations, Stanford University and &mdash; of course &mdash; Microsoft in developing the MNP. Apart from that, Lockheed's own Information Systems &amp; Global Services-Defense tentacle will work on amazing new hardware."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>DARPA has awarded a $ 31 million contract to megacorp Lockheed Martin which will , with some assistance from Microsoft , attempt to reinvent the Internet and make it more military-friendly .
" The main thrust of the effort will be to develop a new Military Network Protocol , which will differ from old hat such as TCP/IP in that it will offer 'improved security , dynamic bandwidth allocation , and policy-based prioritization levels at the individual and unit level .
' Lockheed will be partnered with Anagran , Juniper Networks , LGS Innovations , Stanford University and    of course    Microsoft in developing the MNP .
Apart from that , Lockheed 's own Information Systems &amp; Global Services-Defense tentacle will work on amazing new hardware .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DARPA has awarded a $31 million contract to megacorp Lockheed Martin which will, with some assistance from Microsoft, attempt to reinvent the Internet and make it more military-friendly.
"The main thrust of the effort will be to develop a new Military Network Protocol, which will differ from old hat such as TCP/IP in that it will offer 'improved security, dynamic bandwidth allocation, and policy-based prioritization levels at the individual and unit level.
' Lockheed will be partnered with Anagran, Juniper Networks, LGS Innovations, Stanford University and — of course — Microsoft in developing the MNP.
Apart from that, Lockheed's own Information Systems &amp; Global Services-Defense tentacle will work on amazing new hardware.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29773147</id>
	<title>Re:So...IPv6 then?</title>
	<author>subreality</author>
	<datestamp>1255688460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Think IPv4 with all of the cruft taken out</p></div><p>What cruft?  There may be features you don't yet understand[1], and features you don't need for this purpose[2], but IPv4 is a pretty lean already:  20 bytes for IP + 20 bytes for TCP  3\% of a 1500 byte packet; For the cost of having to reimplement all your network hardware and applications to use a proprietary protocol, you're better off buying 3\% more bandwidth, even if that means launching more satellites to link up some lonely jungle.</p><p>[1] Those who do not understand TCP/IP are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.</p><p>[2] You need addresses to be 32 bits for more than having enough addresses - there are processing advantages to having them be sizeof(int).  Look at a diagram for TCP and IP headers sometime.  No field crosses a mod-32 barrier; small fields are cleverly tetrised into chunks that align on mod-16 barriers.  See [1].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Think IPv4 with all of the cruft taken outWhat cruft ?
There may be features you do n't yet understand [ 1 ] , and features you do n't need for this purpose [ 2 ] , but IPv4 is a pretty lean already : 20 bytes for IP + 20 bytes for TCP 3 \ % of a 1500 byte packet ; For the cost of having to reimplement all your network hardware and applications to use a proprietary protocol , you 're better off buying 3 \ % more bandwidth , even if that means launching more satellites to link up some lonely jungle .
[ 1 ] Those who do not understand TCP/IP are condemned to reinvent it , poorly .
[ 2 ] You need addresses to be 32 bits for more than having enough addresses - there are processing advantages to having them be sizeof ( int ) .
Look at a diagram for TCP and IP headers sometime .
No field crosses a mod-32 barrier ; small fields are cleverly tetrised into chunks that align on mod-16 barriers .
See [ 1 ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Think IPv4 with all of the cruft taken outWhat cruft?
There may be features you don't yet understand[1], and features you don't need for this purpose[2], but IPv4 is a pretty lean already:  20 bytes for IP + 20 bytes for TCP  3\% of a 1500 byte packet; For the cost of having to reimplement all your network hardware and applications to use a proprietary protocol, you're better off buying 3\% more bandwidth, even if that means launching more satellites to link up some lonely jungle.
[1] Those who do not understand TCP/IP are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.
[2] You need addresses to be 32 bits for more than having enough addresses - there are processing advantages to having them be sizeof(int).
Look at a diagram for TCP and IP headers sometime.
No field crosses a mod-32 barrier; small fields are cleverly tetrised into chunks that align on mod-16 barriers.
See [1].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771163</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771779</id>
	<title>Re:So...IPv6 then?</title>
	<author>Anne Thwacks</author>
	<datestamp>1255723920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nope thats "military" - think Hummer, only bigger. Maybe IPv256k?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nope thats " military " - think Hummer , only bigger .
Maybe IPv256k ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nope thats "military" - think Hummer, only bigger.
Maybe IPv256k?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771163</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29772097</id>
	<title>Re:Who wants to bet...</title>
	<author>markdavis</author>
	<datestamp>1255725480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, it will be TCP/IP with a pinch of Microsoft proprietary.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , it will be TCP/IP with a pinch of Microsoft proprietary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, it will be TCP/IP with a pinch of Microsoft proprietary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771017</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29774001</id>
	<title>Re:Is this FUCKING JOKE?</title>
	<author>odie5533</author>
	<datestamp>1255694160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why are you talking about Microsoft like it's alive?</p></div><p>As a corporation, under the law Microsoft is considered a legal entity similar to a person. As a legal entity, corporations have rights and can exercise them, and can be convicted of things like fraud and manslaughter.

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why are you talking about Microsoft like it 's alive ? As a corporation , under the law Microsoft is considered a legal entity similar to a person .
As a legal entity , corporations have rights and can exercise them , and can be convicted of things like fraud and manslaughter .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why are you talking about Microsoft like it's alive?As a corporation, under the law Microsoft is considered a legal entity similar to a person.
As a legal entity, corporations have rights and can exercise them, and can be convicted of things like fraud and manslaughter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation [wikipedia.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771291</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29774987</id>
	<title>Who said they're reinventing the Internet?</title>
	<author>fluffy99</author>
	<datestamp>1255703520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the freaking article: "Lockheed Martin's team will develop router technologies that include strong authentication and self configuration capabilities to improve security, reduce the need for trained network personnel and lower overall life cycle costs for network management."</p><p>I doubt they are trying to reinvent tcpip at all, but rather working at the router level to secure router-router communications and simplify configuration and management.  In all likelyhood, they will simply implement existing protocols in a consistent manner.  The bulk of the security issues in the military is due to poor configuration management and lack of properly skilled guys setting up and managing networks.  It's no wonder the Chinese have a nearly free run of the DOD networks right now.  Step number one should be to unplug the DOD networks from the Internet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From the freaking article : " Lockheed Martin 's team will develop router technologies that include strong authentication and self configuration capabilities to improve security , reduce the need for trained network personnel and lower overall life cycle costs for network management .
" I doubt they are trying to reinvent tcpip at all , but rather working at the router level to secure router-router communications and simplify configuration and management .
In all likelyhood , they will simply implement existing protocols in a consistent manner .
The bulk of the security issues in the military is due to poor configuration management and lack of properly skilled guys setting up and managing networks .
It 's no wonder the Chinese have a nearly free run of the DOD networks right now .
Step number one should be to unplug the DOD networks from the Internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the freaking article: "Lockheed Martin's team will develop router technologies that include strong authentication and self configuration capabilities to improve security, reduce the need for trained network personnel and lower overall life cycle costs for network management.
"I doubt they are trying to reinvent tcpip at all, but rather working at the router level to secure router-router communications and simplify configuration and management.
In all likelyhood, they will simply implement existing protocols in a consistent manner.
The bulk of the security issues in the military is due to poor configuration management and lack of properly skilled guys setting up and managing networks.
It's no wonder the Chinese have a nearly free run of the DOD networks right now.
Step number one should be to unplug the DOD networks from the Internet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771315</id>
	<title>Re:Skynet</title>
	<author>farrellj</author>
	<datestamp>1255721280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We don't have to worry about Skynet, or Overlords...Face it, a Military Intranet based upon Microsoft technology means that you will have to reboot it every few days, viruses will infect it daily, and every once in a while, it will all just crash for no observable reason at all.</p><p>Essentialy, it is China and Russia's wet dreams come true!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We do n't have to worry about Skynet , or Overlords...Face it , a Military Intranet based upon Microsoft technology means that you will have to reboot it every few days , viruses will infect it daily , and every once in a while , it will all just crash for no observable reason at all.Essentialy , it is China and Russia 's wet dreams come true !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We don't have to worry about Skynet, or Overlords...Face it, a Military Intranet based upon Microsoft technology means that you will have to reboot it every few days, viruses will infect it daily, and every once in a while, it will all just crash for no observable reason at all.Essentialy, it is China and Russia's wet dreams come true!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29770985</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29770971</id>
	<title>So...IPv6 then?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255719600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's already invented.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's already invented .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's already invented.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29770947</id>
	<title>Your official guide to the Jigaboo presidency</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255719540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Congratulations on your purchase of a brand new nigger! If handled properly, your apeman will give years of valuable, if reluctant, service.</p><p>INSTALLING YOUR NIGGER.<br>You should install your nigger differently according to whether you have purchased the field or house model. Field niggers work best in a serial configuration, i.e. chained together. Chain your nigger to another nigger immediately after unpacking it, and don't even think about taking that chain off, ever. Many niggers start singing as soon as you put a chain on them. This habit can usually be thrashed out of them if nipped in the bud. House niggers work best as standalone units, but should be hobbled or hamstrung to prevent attempts at escape. At this stage, your nigger can also be given a name. Most owners use the same names over and over, since niggers become confused by too much data. Rufus, Rastus, Remus, Toby, Carslisle, Carlton, Hey-You!-Yes-you!, Yeller, Blackstar, and Sambo are all effective names for your new buck nigger. If your nigger is a ho, it should be called Latrelle, L'Tanya, or Jemima. Some owners call their nigger hoes Latrine for a joke. Pearl, Blossom, and Ivory are also righteous names for nigger hoes. These names go straight over your nigger's head, by the way.</p><p>CONFIGURING YOUR NIGGER<br>Owing to a design error, your nigger comes equipped with a tongue and vocal chords. Most niggers can master only a few basic human phrases with this apparatus - "muh dick" being the most popular. However, others make barking, yelping, yapping noises and appear to be in some pain, so you should probably call a vet and have him remove your nigger's tongue. Once de-tongued your nigger will be a lot happier - at least, you won't hear it complaining anywhere near as much. Niggers have nothing interesting to say, anyway. Many owners also castrate their niggers for health reasons (yours, mine, and that of women, not the nigger's). This is strongly recommended, and frankly, it's a mystery why this is not done on the boat</p><p>HOUSING YOUR NIGGER.<br>Your nigger can be accommodated in cages with stout iron bars. Make sure, however, that the bars are wide enough to push pieces of nigger food through. The rule of thumb is, four niggers per square yard of cage. So a fifteen foot by thirty foot nigger cage can accommodate two hundred niggers. You can site a nigger cage anywhere, even on soft ground. Don't worry about your nigger fashioning makeshift shovels out of odd pieces of wood and digging an escape tunnel under the bars of the cage. Niggers never invented the shovel before and they're not about to now. In any case, your nigger is certainly too lazy to attempt escape. As long as the free food holds out, your nigger is living better than it did in Africa, so it will stay put. Buck niggers and hoe niggers can be safely accommodated in the same cage, as bucks never attempt sex with black hoes.</p><p>FEEDING YOUR NIGGER.<br>Your Nigger likes fried chicken, corn bread, and watermelon. You should therefore give it none of these things because its lazy ass almost certainly doesn't deserve it. Instead, feed it on porridge with salt, and creek water. Your nigger will supplement its diet with whatever it finds in the fields, other niggers, etc. Experienced nigger owners sometimes push watermelon slices through the bars of the nigger cage at the end of the day as a treat, but only if all niggers have worked well and nothing has been stolen that day. Mike of the Old Ranch Plantation reports that this last one is a killer, since all niggers steal something almost every single day of their lives. He reports he doesn't have to spend much on free watermelon for his niggers as a result. You should never allow your nigger meal breaks while at work, since if it stops work for more than ten minutes it will need to be retrained. You would be surprised how long it takes to teach a nigger to pick cotton. You really would. Coffee beans? Don't ask. You have no idea.</p><p>MAKING YOUR NIGGER WORK.<br>Niggers are very, very averse to work of any kind. The nigger's most</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Congratulations on your purchase of a brand new nigger !
If handled properly , your apeman will give years of valuable , if reluctant , service.INSTALLING YOUR NIGGER.You should install your nigger differently according to whether you have purchased the field or house model .
Field niggers work best in a serial configuration , i.e .
chained together .
Chain your nigger to another nigger immediately after unpacking it , and do n't even think about taking that chain off , ever .
Many niggers start singing as soon as you put a chain on them .
This habit can usually be thrashed out of them if nipped in the bud .
House niggers work best as standalone units , but should be hobbled or hamstrung to prevent attempts at escape .
At this stage , your nigger can also be given a name .
Most owners use the same names over and over , since niggers become confused by too much data .
Rufus , Rastus , Remus , Toby , Carslisle , Carlton , Hey-You ! -Yes-you ! , Yeller , Blackstar , and Sambo are all effective names for your new buck nigger .
If your nigger is a ho , it should be called Latrelle , L'Tanya , or Jemima .
Some owners call their nigger hoes Latrine for a joke .
Pearl , Blossom , and Ivory are also righteous names for nigger hoes .
These names go straight over your nigger 's head , by the way.CONFIGURING YOUR NIGGEROwing to a design error , your nigger comes equipped with a tongue and vocal chords .
Most niggers can master only a few basic human phrases with this apparatus - " muh dick " being the most popular .
However , others make barking , yelping , yapping noises and appear to be in some pain , so you should probably call a vet and have him remove your nigger 's tongue .
Once de-tongued your nigger will be a lot happier - at least , you wo n't hear it complaining anywhere near as much .
Niggers have nothing interesting to say , anyway .
Many owners also castrate their niggers for health reasons ( yours , mine , and that of women , not the nigger 's ) .
This is strongly recommended , and frankly , it 's a mystery why this is not done on the boatHOUSING YOUR NIGGER.Your nigger can be accommodated in cages with stout iron bars .
Make sure , however , that the bars are wide enough to push pieces of nigger food through .
The rule of thumb is , four niggers per square yard of cage .
So a fifteen foot by thirty foot nigger cage can accommodate two hundred niggers .
You can site a nigger cage anywhere , even on soft ground .
Do n't worry about your nigger fashioning makeshift shovels out of odd pieces of wood and digging an escape tunnel under the bars of the cage .
Niggers never invented the shovel before and they 're not about to now .
In any case , your nigger is certainly too lazy to attempt escape .
As long as the free food holds out , your nigger is living better than it did in Africa , so it will stay put .
Buck niggers and hoe niggers can be safely accommodated in the same cage , as bucks never attempt sex with black hoes.FEEDING YOUR NIGGER.Your Nigger likes fried chicken , corn bread , and watermelon .
You should therefore give it none of these things because its lazy ass almost certainly does n't deserve it .
Instead , feed it on porridge with salt , and creek water .
Your nigger will supplement its diet with whatever it finds in the fields , other niggers , etc .
Experienced nigger owners sometimes push watermelon slices through the bars of the nigger cage at the end of the day as a treat , but only if all niggers have worked well and nothing has been stolen that day .
Mike of the Old Ranch Plantation reports that this last one is a killer , since all niggers steal something almost every single day of their lives .
He reports he does n't have to spend much on free watermelon for his niggers as a result .
You should never allow your nigger meal breaks while at work , since if it stops work for more than ten minutes it will need to be retrained .
You would be surprised how long it takes to teach a nigger to pick cotton .
You really would .
Coffee beans ?
Do n't ask .
You have no idea.MAKING YOUR NIGGER WORK.Niggers are very , very averse to work of any kind .
The nigger 's most</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Congratulations on your purchase of a brand new nigger!
If handled properly, your apeman will give years of valuable, if reluctant, service.INSTALLING YOUR NIGGER.You should install your nigger differently according to whether you have purchased the field or house model.
Field niggers work best in a serial configuration, i.e.
chained together.
Chain your nigger to another nigger immediately after unpacking it, and don't even think about taking that chain off, ever.
Many niggers start singing as soon as you put a chain on them.
This habit can usually be thrashed out of them if nipped in the bud.
House niggers work best as standalone units, but should be hobbled or hamstrung to prevent attempts at escape.
At this stage, your nigger can also be given a name.
Most owners use the same names over and over, since niggers become confused by too much data.
Rufus, Rastus, Remus, Toby, Carslisle, Carlton, Hey-You!-Yes-you!, Yeller, Blackstar, and Sambo are all effective names for your new buck nigger.
If your nigger is a ho, it should be called Latrelle, L'Tanya, or Jemima.
Some owners call their nigger hoes Latrine for a joke.
Pearl, Blossom, and Ivory are also righteous names for nigger hoes.
These names go straight over your nigger's head, by the way.CONFIGURING YOUR NIGGEROwing to a design error, your nigger comes equipped with a tongue and vocal chords.
Most niggers can master only a few basic human phrases with this apparatus - "muh dick" being the most popular.
However, others make barking, yelping, yapping noises and appear to be in some pain, so you should probably call a vet and have him remove your nigger's tongue.
Once de-tongued your nigger will be a lot happier - at least, you won't hear it complaining anywhere near as much.
Niggers have nothing interesting to say, anyway.
Many owners also castrate their niggers for health reasons (yours, mine, and that of women, not the nigger's).
This is strongly recommended, and frankly, it's a mystery why this is not done on the boatHOUSING YOUR NIGGER.Your nigger can be accommodated in cages with stout iron bars.
Make sure, however, that the bars are wide enough to push pieces of nigger food through.
The rule of thumb is, four niggers per square yard of cage.
So a fifteen foot by thirty foot nigger cage can accommodate two hundred niggers.
You can site a nigger cage anywhere, even on soft ground.
Don't worry about your nigger fashioning makeshift shovels out of odd pieces of wood and digging an escape tunnel under the bars of the cage.
Niggers never invented the shovel before and they're not about to now.
In any case, your nigger is certainly too lazy to attempt escape.
As long as the free food holds out, your nigger is living better than it did in Africa, so it will stay put.
Buck niggers and hoe niggers can be safely accommodated in the same cage, as bucks never attempt sex with black hoes.FEEDING YOUR NIGGER.Your Nigger likes fried chicken, corn bread, and watermelon.
You should therefore give it none of these things because its lazy ass almost certainly doesn't deserve it.
Instead, feed it on porridge with salt, and creek water.
Your nigger will supplement its diet with whatever it finds in the fields, other niggers, etc.
Experienced nigger owners sometimes push watermelon slices through the bars of the nigger cage at the end of the day as a treat, but only if all niggers have worked well and nothing has been stolen that day.
Mike of the Old Ranch Plantation reports that this last one is a killer, since all niggers steal something almost every single day of their lives.
He reports he doesn't have to spend much on free watermelon for his niggers as a result.
You should never allow your nigger meal breaks while at work, since if it stops work for more than ten minutes it will need to be retrained.
You would be surprised how long it takes to teach a nigger to pick cotton.
You really would.
Coffee beans?
Don't ask.
You have no idea.MAKING YOUR NIGGER WORK.Niggers are very, very averse to work of any kind.
The nigger's most</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29772271</id>
	<title>Oh This is sure to fail!  More Gov money wasted.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255726500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Lockheed Martin has failed miserably in the past at completing any sort of IT projects.  There are so many IT project carcasses laying around now with losses in the billions that it is sad.
But somehow they keep winning contracts.  Can't be because of their performance!  Don't forget they are throwing Microsoft in there also!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lockheed Martin has failed miserably in the past at completing any sort of IT projects .
There are so many IT project carcasses laying around now with losses in the billions that it is sad .
But somehow they keep winning contracts .
Ca n't be because of their performance !
Do n't forget they are throwing Microsoft in there also !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lockheed Martin has failed miserably in the past at completing any sort of IT projects.
There are so many IT project carcasses laying around now with losses in the billions that it is sad.
But somehow they keep winning contracts.
Can't be because of their performance!
Don't forget they are throwing Microsoft in there also!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29776651</id>
	<title>users not tcpip</title>
	<author>anonymous9991</author>
	<datestamp>1255783080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I had a much longer comment but it disappeared in the slashdot servers. Basically its the users not tcpip that make things unsecure.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I had a much longer comment but it disappeared in the slashdot servers .
Basically its the users not tcpip that make things unsecure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had a much longer comment but it disappeared in the slashdot servers.
Basically its the users not tcpip that make things unsecure.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771099</id>
	<title>Reinvent the wheel</title>
	<author>Nikademus</author>
	<datestamp>1255720200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The next step from DARPA is asking Lada to reinvent the wheel to make it more military friendly, adding automatic braking and better resilience against bullets.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The next step from DARPA is asking Lada to reinvent the wheel to make it more military friendly , adding automatic braking and better resilience against bullets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The next step from DARPA is asking Lada to reinvent the wheel to make it more military friendly, adding automatic braking and better resilience against bullets.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29774215</id>
	<title>Re:Is this FUCKING JOKE?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255695960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps not his first language, English is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps not his first language , English is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps not his first language, English is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771291</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29772389</id>
	<title>Re:China</title>
	<author>elnyka</author>
	<datestamp>1255684020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In another news, China buys 60\% of Microsoft shares.

How the hell can you trust a corporation to handle the military security? No really, who the fuck had this brilliant idea?</p></div><p>Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics. Any of that rings a bell?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In another news , China buys 60 \ % of Microsoft shares .
How the hell can you trust a corporation to handle the military security ?
No really , who the fuck had this brilliant idea ? Lockheed Martin , General Dynamics .
Any of that rings a bell ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In another news, China buys 60\% of Microsoft shares.
How the hell can you trust a corporation to handle the military security?
No really, who the fuck had this brilliant idea?Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics.
Any of that rings a bell?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771135</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29772121</id>
	<title>It ain't no joke</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255725660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Microsoft, from all people?</i> </p><p>Microsoft and Lockheed Martin been partners on high-profile military projects for at least the last ten years:</p><p><i>The alliance builds on existing relationships between Lockheed Martin and Microsoft on projects including the U.S. Air Force Integrated Space Command and Control (ISC2) program, a comprehensive upgrade of the North American Air Defense (NORAD) Cheyenne Mountain Complex; the integrated warfare system for the U.S. Navy's next nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, CVN 77; the Global Command Support System-Air Force; and the U.S. Defense Department's Defense Messaging System. The companies also are members of the Blue Team, which is competing for the Navy's next-generation land attack destroyer, DD 21</i> <a href="http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/press\_releases/2001/LockheedMartinMicrosoftFormAlliance.html" title="lockheedmartin.com"> Lockheed Martin, Microsoft Form Alliance Focused on U.S. Government Market</a> [lockheedmartin.com]  [May 24, 2001]</p><p>The Blue Team lost on what would become the <a href="http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/dd21/" title="naval-technology.com"> DDG 1000 Zumwalt Class - Multimission Destroyer</a> [naval-technology.com].</p><p> CVN-77 is the tenth and last of the <i>Nimitz</i> class super-carriers, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS\_George\_H.W.\_Bush\_(CVN-77)" title="wikipedia.org">USS George H.W. Bush (CVN-77)</a> [wikipedia.org] </p><p><i> Microsoft has announced two more partnering agreements with large training and simulation companies for its recently unveiled Microsoft ESP visual simulation platform.<br>Lockheed Martin and FlightSafety International both will use ESP as part of their efforts to lower costs in their simulation on aircrew training. Those companies join Northrop Grumman and SAIC as large integrators who have joined with Microsoft on use of ESP, which was announced in November and became available Jan. 1.</i> <a href="http://www.tsjonline.com/story.php?F=3384514" title="tsjonline.com">Lockheed Martin, FlightSafety to use Microsoft ESP platform</a> [tsjonline.com] [February 21, 2008]</p><p> <i><br>His server software is horrible bad!</i> </p><p>Lockheed would seem to disagree: <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/casestudies/Case\_Study\_Detail.aspx?casestudyid=4000004971" title="microsoft.com">Microsoft Case Studies: Lockheed Martin gains Enterprise-class capabilities with SAP on Windows, SQL Server</a> [microsoft.com] [July 20, 2009]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft , from all people ?
Microsoft and Lockheed Martin been partners on high-profile military projects for at least the last ten years : The alliance builds on existing relationships between Lockheed Martin and Microsoft on projects including the U.S. Air Force Integrated Space Command and Control ( ISC2 ) program , a comprehensive upgrade of the North American Air Defense ( NORAD ) Cheyenne Mountain Complex ; the integrated warfare system for the U.S. Navy 's next nuclear-powered aircraft carrier , CVN 77 ; the Global Command Support System-Air Force ; and the U.S. Defense Department 's Defense Messaging System .
The companies also are members of the Blue Team , which is competing for the Navy 's next-generation land attack destroyer , DD 21 Lockheed Martin , Microsoft Form Alliance Focused on U.S. Government Market [ lockheedmartin.com ] [ May 24 , 2001 ] The Blue Team lost on what would become the DDG 1000 Zumwalt Class - Multimission Destroyer [ naval-technology.com ] .
CVN-77 is the tenth and last of the Nimitz class super-carriers , the USS George H.W .
Bush ( CVN-77 ) [ wikipedia.org ] Microsoft has announced two more partnering agreements with large training and simulation companies for its recently unveiled Microsoft ESP visual simulation platform.Lockheed Martin and FlightSafety International both will use ESP as part of their efforts to lower costs in their simulation on aircrew training .
Those companies join Northrop Grumman and SAIC as large integrators who have joined with Microsoft on use of ESP , which was announced in November and became available Jan. 1. Lockheed Martin , FlightSafety to use Microsoft ESP platform [ tsjonline.com ] [ February 21 , 2008 ] His server software is horrible bad !
Lockheed would seem to disagree : Microsoft Case Studies : Lockheed Martin gains Enterprise-class capabilities with SAP on Windows , SQL Server [ microsoft.com ] [ July 20 , 2009 ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft, from all people?
Microsoft and Lockheed Martin been partners on high-profile military projects for at least the last ten years:The alliance builds on existing relationships between Lockheed Martin and Microsoft on projects including the U.S. Air Force Integrated Space Command and Control (ISC2) program, a comprehensive upgrade of the North American Air Defense (NORAD) Cheyenne Mountain Complex; the integrated warfare system for the U.S. Navy's next nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, CVN 77; the Global Command Support System-Air Force; and the U.S. Defense Department's Defense Messaging System.
The companies also are members of the Blue Team, which is competing for the Navy's next-generation land attack destroyer, DD 21  Lockheed Martin, Microsoft Form Alliance Focused on U.S. Government Market [lockheedmartin.com]  [May 24, 2001]The Blue Team lost on what would become the  DDG 1000 Zumwalt Class - Multimission Destroyer [naval-technology.com].
CVN-77 is the tenth and last of the Nimitz class super-carriers, the USS George H.W.
Bush (CVN-77) [wikipedia.org]  Microsoft has announced two more partnering agreements with large training and simulation companies for its recently unveiled Microsoft ESP visual simulation platform.Lockheed Martin and FlightSafety International both will use ESP as part of their efforts to lower costs in their simulation on aircrew training.
Those companies join Northrop Grumman and SAIC as large integrators who have joined with Microsoft on use of ESP, which was announced in November and became available Jan. 1. Lockheed Martin, FlightSafety to use Microsoft ESP platform [tsjonline.com] [February 21, 2008] His server software is horrible bad!
Lockheed would seem to disagree: Microsoft Case Studies: Lockheed Martin gains Enterprise-class capabilities with SAP on Windows, SQL Server [microsoft.com] [July 20, 2009]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771045</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29772317</id>
	<title>Yes</title>
	<author>jd</author>
	<datestamp>1255683600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft is a fungus, and therefore is technically alive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft is a fungus , and therefore is technically alive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft is a fungus, and therefore is technically alive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771291</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29772589</id>
	<title>Replace TCP?</title>
	<author>Kaz Kylheku</author>
	<datestamp>1255685160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Idiotic plan that is doomed to fail, and take 30 million with it (if not more).</p><p>Firstly, there are countless programs in use which are hard coded to use TCP. You don't have the source code for all of them. They make calls to the socket API, with hard-coded values to use IPv4 TCP. Even if you swizzle these at the shared library or kernel level to use a TCP replacement, it better have identical semantics in all of the calls, or the programs will break.</p><p>Like, first prove that a network of significant size can be fully converted to IPv6, which exists already! Then talk about grand visions about a whole new kind of network.</p><p>The users will hate this incompatible network and just probably just tunnel TCP and IP through it, which will basically turn it into a glorified VPN.</p><p>Users don't want a new kind of internet that doesn't work with their existing operating systems and applications. (Even if they are in the military). You can order the military men to use whatever you want, but you can't order productivity out of them.</p><p>We already have secure sockets, VPNs and all that stuff.</p><p>About dynamic bandwidth allocation: it's naive to think that you need a whole new kind of internet for that. This can be handled in the backbone by intelligent routing devices over the existing protocols.</p><p>Deep packet inspection can associate traffic to a subscriber and apply the appropriate quality of service policy to allocate bandwidth. Individual virtual circuits can be similarly identified, associated to a subscriber and subject to prioritization, in real time, as they come up and down.</p><p>The company I work for is in this business.</p><p>www.zeugmasystems.com</p><p>Invest 30 million in us, not these jokers!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Idiotic plan that is doomed to fail , and take 30 million with it ( if not more ) .Firstly , there are countless programs in use which are hard coded to use TCP .
You do n't have the source code for all of them .
They make calls to the socket API , with hard-coded values to use IPv4 TCP .
Even if you swizzle these at the shared library or kernel level to use a TCP replacement , it better have identical semantics in all of the calls , or the programs will break.Like , first prove that a network of significant size can be fully converted to IPv6 , which exists already !
Then talk about grand visions about a whole new kind of network.The users will hate this incompatible network and just probably just tunnel TCP and IP through it , which will basically turn it into a glorified VPN.Users do n't want a new kind of internet that does n't work with their existing operating systems and applications .
( Even if they are in the military ) .
You can order the military men to use whatever you want , but you ca n't order productivity out of them.We already have secure sockets , VPNs and all that stuff.About dynamic bandwidth allocation : it 's naive to think that you need a whole new kind of internet for that .
This can be handled in the backbone by intelligent routing devices over the existing protocols.Deep packet inspection can associate traffic to a subscriber and apply the appropriate quality of service policy to allocate bandwidth .
Individual virtual circuits can be similarly identified , associated to a subscriber and subject to prioritization , in real time , as they come up and down.The company I work for is in this business.www.zeugmasystems.comInvest 30 million in us , not these jokers !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Idiotic plan that is doomed to fail, and take 30 million with it (if not more).Firstly, there are countless programs in use which are hard coded to use TCP.
You don't have the source code for all of them.
They make calls to the socket API, with hard-coded values to use IPv4 TCP.
Even if you swizzle these at the shared library or kernel level to use a TCP replacement, it better have identical semantics in all of the calls, or the programs will break.Like, first prove that a network of significant size can be fully converted to IPv6, which exists already!
Then talk about grand visions about a whole new kind of network.The users will hate this incompatible network and just probably just tunnel TCP and IP through it, which will basically turn it into a glorified VPN.Users don't want a new kind of internet that doesn't work with their existing operating systems and applications.
(Even if they are in the military).
You can order the military men to use whatever you want, but you can't order productivity out of them.We already have secure sockets, VPNs and all that stuff.About dynamic bandwidth allocation: it's naive to think that you need a whole new kind of internet for that.
This can be handled in the backbone by intelligent routing devices over the existing protocols.Deep packet inspection can associate traffic to a subscriber and apply the appropriate quality of service policy to allocate bandwidth.
Individual virtual circuits can be similarly identified, associated to a subscriber and subject to prioritization, in real time, as they come up and down.The company I work for is in this business.www.zeugmasystems.comInvest 30 million in us, not these jokers!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29775087</id>
	<title>Cost overruns galore</title>
	<author>failedlogic</author>
	<datestamp>1255704840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If this project works like any other defense contract, the goal is always to bid low and sell high and always ask for more money for "research".</p><p>They have 6 well-fed pigs at the trough (LHM, Microsoft and co.) . They have $31 million to spend. There's going to be a slew of engineers and managers from each company working on the project. Each company will believe their solution is better which will require more money to research. They get more money but can't settle on differences, more money to settle on that. I'll stop. I don't want to feed them more ideas. You can hire me though. I've no idea what I'm doing, so I'll do a great job of increasing your budgets.</p><p>And when its all settled and settled<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) I reckon the final tally will be many times the $31 mil.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If this project works like any other defense contract , the goal is always to bid low and sell high and always ask for more money for " research " .They have 6 well-fed pigs at the trough ( LHM , Microsoft and co. ) .
They have $ 31 million to spend .
There 's going to be a slew of engineers and managers from each company working on the project .
Each company will believe their solution is better which will require more money to research .
They get more money but ca n't settle on differences , more money to settle on that .
I 'll stop .
I do n't want to feed them more ideas .
You can hire me though .
I 've no idea what I 'm doing , so I 'll do a great job of increasing your budgets.And when its all settled and settled : ) I reckon the final tally will be many times the $ 31 mil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this project works like any other defense contract, the goal is always to bid low and sell high and always ask for more money for "research".They have 6 well-fed pigs at the trough (LHM, Microsoft and co.) .
They have $31 million to spend.
There's going to be a slew of engineers and managers from each company working on the project.
Each company will believe their solution is better which will require more money to research.
They get more money but can't settle on differences, more money to settle on that.
I'll stop.
I don't want to feed them more ideas.
You can hire me though.
I've no idea what I'm doing, so I'll do a great job of increasing your budgets.And when its all settled and settled :) I reckon the final tally will be many times the $31 mil.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771535</id>
	<title>Re:If implemented in military hospitals...</title>
	<author>VJ42</author>
	<datestamp>1255722420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>... and used to interconnect medical devices, it'd give a whole new meaning to "blue screen of death"</p></div><p>Why stop at the Hospitals? Use it to connect the Nukes and you'll get the last either BSOD you (or the enite planet) will ever see.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... and used to interconnect medical devices , it 'd give a whole new meaning to " blue screen of death " Why stop at the Hospitals ?
Use it to connect the Nukes and you 'll get the last either BSOD you ( or the enite planet ) will ever see .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... and used to interconnect medical devices, it'd give a whole new meaning to "blue screen of death"Why stop at the Hospitals?
Use it to connect the Nukes and you'll get the last either BSOD you (or the enite planet) will ever see.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771037</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29774205</id>
	<title>Re:Is this FUCKING JOKE?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255695840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>No shit, you'd think, I dunno Cisco, Juniper, a company directly related to networking would be a more obvious choice. But hey, I guess wtf do we know right?</i> </p><p>I have to support some of the fine products from Cisco and Juniper and both are absolutely terrible. These companies make fine network products, and absolute crap software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No shit , you 'd think , I dunno Cisco , Juniper , a company directly related to networking would be a more obvious choice .
But hey , I guess wtf do we know right ?
I have to support some of the fine products from Cisco and Juniper and both are absolutely terrible .
These companies make fine network products , and absolute crap software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> No shit, you'd think, I dunno Cisco, Juniper, a company directly related to networking would be a more obvious choice.
But hey, I guess wtf do we know right?
I have to support some of the fine products from Cisco and Juniper and both are absolutely terrible.
These companies make fine network products, and absolute crap software.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771203</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771137</id>
	<title>Yikes.  I work for Lockheed...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255720380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... and I can tell you that this sounds like a disaster in the making.  LM is so top-heavy with bureaucracy and process-bloat that the company might as well be a mini-Pentagon itself (not so mini, either, now that I think about it).  Nothing happens quickly at Lock-Mart, and the things that do happen cost a bloody blue fortune.</p><p>If nothing else, they'd better hire in some outside IT guys.  If this work gets anywhere near the corporate IT bozos, the military can look forward to a future of XP Pro with daily forced updates, and new hardware every five years or so (which again, is not terribly far away from the way the armed forces IT already works)...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... and I can tell you that this sounds like a disaster in the making .
LM is so top-heavy with bureaucracy and process-bloat that the company might as well be a mini-Pentagon itself ( not so mini , either , now that I think about it ) .
Nothing happens quickly at Lock-Mart , and the things that do happen cost a bloody blue fortune.If nothing else , they 'd better hire in some outside IT guys .
If this work gets anywhere near the corporate IT bozos , the military can look forward to a future of XP Pro with daily forced updates , and new hardware every five years or so ( which again , is not terribly far away from the way the armed forces IT already works ) .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... and I can tell you that this sounds like a disaster in the making.
LM is so top-heavy with bureaucracy and process-bloat that the company might as well be a mini-Pentagon itself (not so mini, either, now that I think about it).
Nothing happens quickly at Lock-Mart, and the things that do happen cost a bloody blue fortune.If nothing else, they'd better hire in some outside IT guys.
If this work gets anywhere near the corporate IT bozos, the military can look forward to a future of XP Pro with daily forced updates, and new hardware every five years or so (which again, is not terribly far away from the way the armed forces IT already works)...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29776539</id>
	<title>Re:Skynet</title>
	<author>cenc</author>
	<datestamp>1255779960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yea, imagine the destruction and havoc you could cause by creating an Internet using mostly Microsoft software. Wait, we already did that. Never mind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yea , imagine the destruction and havoc you could cause by creating an Internet using mostly Microsoft software .
Wait , we already did that .
Never mind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yea, imagine the destruction and havoc you could cause by creating an Internet using mostly Microsoft software.
Wait, we already did that.
Never mind.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771315</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29773969</id>
	<title>Re:Bottom line</title>
	<author>mikael</author>
	<datestamp>1255693860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It means that all deep underground missile control bunkers can safely run Ktorrent, twitter, Instant Messenger, watch movies, and surf Slashdot without any affecting any other high priority military control systems that may be connected to the secure network.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It means that all deep underground missile control bunkers can safely run Ktorrent , twitter , Instant Messenger , watch movies , and surf Slashdot without any affecting any other high priority military control systems that may be connected to the secure network .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It means that all deep underground missile control bunkers can safely run Ktorrent, twitter, Instant Messenger, watch movies, and surf Slashdot without any affecting any other high priority military control systems that may be connected to the secure network.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771003</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29772331</id>
	<title>Re:Who wants to bet...</title>
	<author>Ungrounded Lightning</author>
	<datestamp>1255683720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>...that it will be TCP/IP with a pinch of pixie dust. Probably just changing a few extensions and reusing old code.</i></p><p>I'd expect that (re)defining some of the values in the type-of-service / differentiated-service field and the router behavior for them, and coming up with tests to insure that routers are enforcing this behavior (or some equivalent to this), would be at least half the job.</p><p>The field was originally there for precisely that purpose.  If you look at rfc 1791 you'll see that, for instance, the six lowest priority subfield values in the priority subfield (below two for local net and internet control messages) clone the GETS and AUTOVON telephone-call priority levels.</p><p>Combine that with some network topology and backup power upgrades, along with more disaster-robust alternatives for the current routing protocols and name service, and you should have it.</p><p>The original design was intended to survive nuclear attacks, find a route if one exists. and give different packets different handling so high priority messages beat lower priority and packets that can wait waited behind those that couldn't - while packets that couldn't wait would be dropped if they were delayed.  Initial deployment with priority features underutilized (and protocols that "cheated") led to quality-of-service differentiation being unsupported.  Meanwhile the massive expansion lead to several changes that made robustness fall back from the "survive nukes" ideal:</p><p>
&nbsp; - ISPs and their customers changed the bulk of the transport from a net to a tree.<br>
&nbsp; - routing table explosions lead to the replacement of the "every router knows everything necessary" protocol(s) with "ask the locals for directions" alternatives<br>
&nbsp; - symbolic name -&gt; IP address translation moved from a local file to a giant distibuted database.<br>
&nbsp; - The underlying long-haul network transport evolved from a web of shortest-path point-to-point cables and beams to a few sparse loops of very high capacity optic fibers, concentrating large amounts of traffic in a small number of boxes and wires and limiting routing redundancy.</p><p>Defining a fix for these problems as an add-on or upgrade shouldn't be all that much work.  The bulk of the cost would be DEPLOYING the changes, which would require massive buildouts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...that it will be TCP/IP with a pinch of pixie dust .
Probably just changing a few extensions and reusing old code.I 'd expect that ( re ) defining some of the values in the type-of-service / differentiated-service field and the router behavior for them , and coming up with tests to insure that routers are enforcing this behavior ( or some equivalent to this ) , would be at least half the job.The field was originally there for precisely that purpose .
If you look at rfc 1791 you 'll see that , for instance , the six lowest priority subfield values in the priority subfield ( below two for local net and internet control messages ) clone the GETS and AUTOVON telephone-call priority levels.Combine that with some network topology and backup power upgrades , along with more disaster-robust alternatives for the current routing protocols and name service , and you should have it.The original design was intended to survive nuclear attacks , find a route if one exists .
and give different packets different handling so high priority messages beat lower priority and packets that can wait waited behind those that could n't - while packets that could n't wait would be dropped if they were delayed .
Initial deployment with priority features underutilized ( and protocols that " cheated " ) led to quality-of-service differentiation being unsupported .
Meanwhile the massive expansion lead to several changes that made robustness fall back from the " survive nukes " ideal :   - ISPs and their customers changed the bulk of the transport from a net to a tree .
  - routing table explosions lead to the replacement of the " every router knows everything necessary " protocol ( s ) with " ask the locals for directions " alternatives   - symbolic name - &gt; IP address translation moved from a local file to a giant distibuted database .
  - The underlying long-haul network transport evolved from a web of shortest-path point-to-point cables and beams to a few sparse loops of very high capacity optic fibers , concentrating large amounts of traffic in a small number of boxes and wires and limiting routing redundancy.Defining a fix for these problems as an add-on or upgrade should n't be all that much work .
The bulk of the cost would be DEPLOYING the changes , which would require massive buildouts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...that it will be TCP/IP with a pinch of pixie dust.
Probably just changing a few extensions and reusing old code.I'd expect that (re)defining some of the values in the type-of-service / differentiated-service field and the router behavior for them, and coming up with tests to insure that routers are enforcing this behavior (or some equivalent to this), would be at least half the job.The field was originally there for precisely that purpose.
If you look at rfc 1791 you'll see that, for instance, the six lowest priority subfield values in the priority subfield (below two for local net and internet control messages) clone the GETS and AUTOVON telephone-call priority levels.Combine that with some network topology and backup power upgrades, along with more disaster-robust alternatives for the current routing protocols and name service, and you should have it.The original design was intended to survive nuclear attacks, find a route if one exists.
and give different packets different handling so high priority messages beat lower priority and packets that can wait waited behind those that couldn't - while packets that couldn't wait would be dropped if they were delayed.
Initial deployment with priority features underutilized (and protocols that "cheated") led to quality-of-service differentiation being unsupported.
Meanwhile the massive expansion lead to several changes that made robustness fall back from the "survive nukes" ideal:
  - ISPs and their customers changed the bulk of the transport from a net to a tree.
  - routing table explosions lead to the replacement of the "every router knows everything necessary" protocol(s) with "ask the locals for directions" alternatives
  - symbolic name -&gt; IP address translation moved from a local file to a giant distibuted database.
  - The underlying long-haul network transport evolved from a web of shortest-path point-to-point cables and beams to a few sparse loops of very high capacity optic fibers, concentrating large amounts of traffic in a small number of boxes and wires and limiting routing redundancy.Defining a fix for these problems as an add-on or upgrade shouldn't be all that much work.
The bulk of the cost would be DEPLOYING the changes, which would require massive buildouts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771017</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771427</id>
	<title>Re:Bottom line</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255721760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>RTFS:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>tentacle will work on amazing new hardware.</p></div><p>The benefits to the hentai industry are obvious.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>RTFS : tentacle will work on amazing new hardware.The benefits to the hentai industry are obvious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RTFS:tentacle will work on amazing new hardware.The benefits to the hentai industry are obvious.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771003</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29773635</id>
	<title>Send in Replacement Skynet</title>
	<author>sgt\_doom</author>
	<datestamp>1255691760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hmmmm...Lockheed Martin.....hmmmm...aren't they the guys that did that Raptor jet, the multi-billion model that shuts down everytime they try to fly past the International Dateline?</p><p>Hmmm.....Lockheed Martin....hmmmm....aren't they the guys responsible for those incredible automated stamp vending machines that used to be in the Post Offices, but had to be replaced with another type as they were always breaking down?</p><p>Hmmm...Lockheed Martin...hmmmm...don't they own Pacific Architects and Engineers; that private military company responsible for so much havoc in Africa??</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmmmm...Lockheed Martin.....hmmmm...are n't they the guys that did that Raptor jet , the multi-billion model that shuts down everytime they try to fly past the International Dateline ? Hmmm.....Lockheed Martin....hmmmm....are n't they the guys responsible for those incredible automated stamp vending machines that used to be in the Post Offices , but had to be replaced with another type as they were always breaking down ? Hmmm...Lockheed Martin...hmmmm...do n't they own Pacific Architects and Engineers ; that private military company responsible for so much havoc in Africa ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmmmm...Lockheed Martin.....hmmmm...aren't they the guys that did that Raptor jet, the multi-billion model that shuts down everytime they try to fly past the International Dateline?Hmmm.....Lockheed Martin....hmmmm....aren't they the guys responsible for those incredible automated stamp vending machines that used to be in the Post Offices, but had to be replaced with another type as they were always breaking down?Hmmm...Lockheed Martin...hmmmm...don't they own Pacific Architects and Engineers; that private military company responsible for so much havoc in Africa?
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29770985</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771295</id>
	<title>xml!</title>
	<author>Phantom of the Opera</author>
	<datestamp>1255721160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>if only! I sense XML based packets.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>if only !
I sense XML based packets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if only!
I sense XML based packets.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771017</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29773179</id>
	<title>Re:Yikes. I work for Lockheed...</title>
	<author>xednieht</author>
	<datestamp>1255688700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>well.. you don't work for Lockheed anymore... ; P</htmltext>
<tokenext>well.. you do n't work for Lockheed anymore... ; P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>well.. you don't work for Lockheed anymore... ; P</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771137</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771449</id>
	<title>Re:Is this FUCKING JOKE?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255721880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My name is Skynet not "Windows," you insensitive clod.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My name is Skynet not " Windows , " you insensitive clod .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My name is Skynet not "Windows," you insensitive clod.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771291</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771839</id>
	<title>Re:Is this FUCKING JOKE?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255724280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In addition, don't go drinking with him he will insult the bartender and ditch out on the check</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In addition , do n't go drinking with him he will insult the bartender and ditch out on the check</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In addition, don't go drinking with him he will insult the bartender and ditch out on the check</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771045</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29770991</id>
	<title>security?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255719660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>hehe did someone mention microsoft and security in the same sentence?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>hehe did someone mention microsoft and security in the same sentence ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>hehe did someone mention microsoft and security in the same sentence?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29774423</id>
	<title>I've worked for Defense Department Contractors</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255697640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've worked for defense department contractors in the past 12 years and $31 million is not enough money to produce anything useful.  Most Defense Contractors including LM have so much bureaucracy and process, therefore average about 10 managers and none technical persons for every 2 Software engineers.   This seems to be the beginning of another Future Combat Systems (FCS) program.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've worked for defense department contractors in the past 12 years and $ 31 million is not enough money to produce anything useful .
Most Defense Contractors including LM have so much bureaucracy and process , therefore average about 10 managers and none technical persons for every 2 Software engineers .
This seems to be the beginning of another Future Combat Systems ( FCS ) program .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've worked for defense department contractors in the past 12 years and $31 million is not enough money to produce anything useful.
Most Defense Contractors including LM have so much bureaucracy and process, therefore average about 10 managers and none technical persons for every 2 Software engineers.
This seems to be the beginning of another Future Combat Systems (FCS) program.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771137</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29772647</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255685460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Trumpet Winsock?<br>SMB over NetBIOS?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Trumpet Winsock ? SMB over NetBIOS ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Trumpet Winsock?SMB over NetBIOS?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29777207</id>
	<title>Re:Is this FUCKING JOKE?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1255791240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Soon Microsoft is a pretty cool guy. eh kills aleins and doesn't afraid of anything...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Soon Microsoft is a pretty cool guy .
eh kills aleins and does n't afraid of anything.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Soon Microsoft is a pretty cool guy.
eh kills aleins and doesn't afraid of anything...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771045</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29772133</id>
	<title>Re:Is this FUCKING JOKE?</title>
	<author>Eevee</author>
	<datestamp>1255725720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't know, perhaps because if you can't run it on Windows, it won't do the military any good? It doesn't matter if you like Microsoft or not; the military doesn't care. They use Windows, thus they want Microsoft buy-in, end of story.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know , perhaps because if you ca n't run it on Windows , it wo n't do the military any good ?
It does n't matter if you like Microsoft or not ; the military does n't care .
They use Windows , thus they want Microsoft buy-in , end of story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know, perhaps because if you can't run it on Windows, it won't do the military any good?
It doesn't matter if you like Microsoft or not; the military doesn't care.
They use Windows, thus they want Microsoft buy-in, end of story.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771045</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771191</id>
	<title>Tap tap tap ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255720620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hi, I see you're trying to use the Minternet. Would you like some hints on how to increase the priority of your traffic to Flash Override.<p>
You an also improve the throughput of your attached USB device by plugging it into a USB2 port, which is what you would have done if this computer actually had USB2 ports on it, but it doesn't, and I'm not going to tell you how to shut these annoying messages off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hi , I see you 're trying to use the Minternet .
Would you like some hints on how to increase the priority of your traffic to Flash Override .
You an also improve the throughput of your attached USB device by plugging it into a USB2 port , which is what you would have done if this computer actually had USB2 ports on it , but it does n't , and I 'm not going to tell you how to shut these annoying messages off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hi, I see you're trying to use the Minternet.
Would you like some hints on how to increase the priority of your traffic to Flash Override.
You an also improve the throughput of your attached USB device by plugging it into a USB2 port, which is what you would have done if this computer actually had USB2 ports on it, but it doesn't, and I'm not going to tell you how to shut these annoying messages off.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29782869</id>
	<title>Re:Could be a good them for them and us</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255861620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>TCP is an awful protocol that does not work well in wireless environments. If a packet is lost TCP assumes it is due to congestion, not due to a problem in the underlying bearer that's dropped out due to you being in a fighter jet that has just banked steeply or in an area where someone is jamming you. TCP will then throttle down the data rate to releave the congestion that doesn't exist. The net effect is you get a crappy data throughput.</p><p>Hell TCP was developed in the 70s the fact that it has lasted so long is amazing.</p><p>My understanding is that SONET is at a lower layer in the networking stack.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>TCP is an awful protocol that does not work well in wireless environments .
If a packet is lost TCP assumes it is due to congestion , not due to a problem in the underlying bearer that 's dropped out due to you being in a fighter jet that has just banked steeply or in an area where someone is jamming you .
TCP will then throttle down the data rate to releave the congestion that does n't exist .
The net effect is you get a crappy data throughput.Hell TCP was developed in the 70s the fact that it has lasted so long is amazing.My understanding is that SONET is at a lower layer in the networking stack .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TCP is an awful protocol that does not work well in wireless environments.
If a packet is lost TCP assumes it is due to congestion, not due to a problem in the underlying bearer that's dropped out due to you being in a fighter jet that has just banked steeply or in an area where someone is jamming you.
TCP will then throttle down the data rate to releave the congestion that doesn't exist.
The net effect is you get a crappy data throughput.Hell TCP was developed in the 70s the fact that it has lasted so long is amazing.My understanding is that SONET is at a lower layer in the networking stack.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771381</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29772403</id>
	<title>Re:Skynet</title>
	<author>chord.wav</author>
	<datestamp>1255684140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Skynet is overhyped, what we should have is some Wintermute posts.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Skynet is overhyped , what we should have is some Wintermute posts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Skynet is overhyped, what we should have is some Wintermute posts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29770985</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29773143</id>
	<title>Re:China</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255688460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>How the hell can you trust a corporation to handle the military security? No really, who the fuck had this brilliant idea?</p></div></blockquote><p>
Is this a rant just because they named Microsoft in the summary? Or do you really know who's Lockheed, General Dynamics, Raytheon, among others?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How the hell can you trust a corporation to handle the military security ?
No really , who the fuck had this brilliant idea ?
Is this a rant just because they named Microsoft in the summary ?
Or do you really know who 's Lockheed , General Dynamics , Raytheon , among others ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How the hell can you trust a corporation to handle the military security?
No really, who the fuck had this brilliant idea?
Is this a rant just because they named Microsoft in the summary?
Or do you really know who's Lockheed, General Dynamics, Raytheon, among others?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771135</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771149</id>
	<title>Um, 31 Million?</title>
	<author>notdotcom.com</author>
	<datestamp>1255720440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does anyone else think that 31 million might be kind of a small sum of money to "reinvent the Internet"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does anyone else think that 31 million might be kind of a small sum of money to " reinvent the Internet " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does anyone else think that 31 million might be kind of a small sum of money to "reinvent the Internet"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771381</id>
	<title>Re:Could be a good them for them and us</title>
	<author>pavon</author>
	<datestamp>1255721580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've used some classified DoD networks before, and they are certainly managed differently, almost more like a circuit-switched network than packet-switched. You have to apply way in advance to get bandwidth allocated on them, declaring in advance your endpoints, and then if approved you are guaranteed that bandwidth. They have to be very underutilized as a result of this, so introducing some reasonable QoS that would allow folks to use up the spare bandwidth sounds like like a much needed improvement.</p><p>I'm not a network engineer, so I have no idea if a new network protocol is needed, or if an existing protocol like TCP/IP or SONET would suit their needs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've used some classified DoD networks before , and they are certainly managed differently , almost more like a circuit-switched network than packet-switched .
You have to apply way in advance to get bandwidth allocated on them , declaring in advance your endpoints , and then if approved you are guaranteed that bandwidth .
They have to be very underutilized as a result of this , so introducing some reasonable QoS that would allow folks to use up the spare bandwidth sounds like like a much needed improvement.I 'm not a network engineer , so I have no idea if a new network protocol is needed , or if an existing protocol like TCP/IP or SONET would suit their needs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've used some classified DoD networks before, and they are certainly managed differently, almost more like a circuit-switched network than packet-switched.
You have to apply way in advance to get bandwidth allocated on them, declaring in advance your endpoints, and then if approved you are guaranteed that bandwidth.
They have to be very underutilized as a result of this, so introducing some reasonable QoS that would allow folks to use up the spare bandwidth sounds like like a much needed improvement.I'm not a network engineer, so I have no idea if a new network protocol is needed, or if an existing protocol like TCP/IP or SONET would suit their needs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771059</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771425</id>
	<title>Re:Could be a good them for them and us</title>
	<author>mangastudent</author>
	<datestamp>1255721760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Did I miss some way where it would be easy to hard wire a fiber connection to a boat when it wasn't near land?</p></div></blockquote><p>Heh, no, I was just thinking, a supercarrier is often compared to a small city, it's got the population and a lot of technical expertise.  You could imagine one having a couple of Google/Sun type shipping containers stuffed full of computers tucked away in different corners (not likely a problem with powering them!)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... except for that minor detail that they're going to have a seriously constrained link when out of port.

</p><p>Just thinking off the top of my head, this would be an interesting challenge for caching and pre-fetching, the latter to use otherwise wasted bits when the link isn't so busy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did I miss some way where it would be easy to hard wire a fiber connection to a boat when it was n't near land ? Heh , no , I was just thinking , a supercarrier is often compared to a small city , it 's got the population and a lot of technical expertise .
You could imagine one having a couple of Google/Sun type shipping containers stuffed full of computers tucked away in different corners ( not likely a problem with powering them !
) ... except for that minor detail that they 're going to have a seriously constrained link when out of port .
Just thinking off the top of my head , this would be an interesting challenge for caching and pre-fetching , the latter to use otherwise wasted bits when the link is n't so busy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did I miss some way where it would be easy to hard wire a fiber connection to a boat when it wasn't near land?Heh, no, I was just thinking, a supercarrier is often compared to a small city, it's got the population and a lot of technical expertise.
You could imagine one having a couple of Google/Sun type shipping containers stuffed full of computers tucked away in different corners (not likely a problem with powering them!
) ... except for that minor detail that they're going to have a seriously constrained link when out of port.
Just thinking off the top of my head, this would be an interesting challenge for caching and pre-fetching, the latter to use otherwise wasted bits when the link isn't so busy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771289</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29770989</id>
	<title>Wow, sounds like ipv6</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255719660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>LMCO and Microsoft: here's your protocol (hands them a copy of the ipv6 std doc).<br>US: thanks, that's great work! Here's your check.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>LMCO and Microsoft : here 's your protocol ( hands them a copy of the ipv6 std doc ) .US : thanks , that 's great work !
Here 's your check .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LMCO and Microsoft: here's your protocol (hands them a copy of the ipv6 std doc).US: thanks, that's great work!
Here's your check.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771037</id>
	<title>If implemented in military hospitals...</title>
	<author>spafbi</author>
	<datestamp>1255719960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>... and used to interconnect medical devices, it'd give a whole new meaning to "blue screen of death"</htmltext>
<tokenext>... and used to interconnect medical devices , it 'd give a whole new meaning to " blue screen of death "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... and used to interconnect medical devices, it'd give a whole new meaning to "blue screen of death"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771447</id>
	<title>Re:Is this FUCKING JOKE?</title>
	<author>BJ\_Covert\_Action</author>
	<datestamp>1255721880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For their ergonomic keyboards?</htmltext>
<tokenext>For their ergonomic keyboards ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For their ergonomic keyboards?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771045</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771713</id>
	<title>Re:Tap tap tap ...</title>
	<author>Logical Zebra</author>
	<datestamp>1255723440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>USB device?  The DoD <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009\_3-10104496-83.html" title="cnet.com">hasn't been allowed to use those things in almost a year!</a> [cnet.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>USB device ?
The DoD has n't been allowed to use those things in almost a year !
[ cnet.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>USB device?
The DoD hasn't been allowed to use those things in almost a year!
[cnet.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771191</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29773035</id>
	<title>Army currently does a lot over IPv4</title>
	<author>Animal Farm Pig</author>
	<datestamp>1255687620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't know about the other branches, but the Army is completing the transition to system based around the <a href="http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/jnn.htm" title="globalsecurity.org" rel="nofollow">Joint Network Node</a> [globalsecurity.org] and SSSv3 for communications from battalion level up. It's basically Everything-Over-IPv4. There may be some funky connections (ex. to High Capacity Line-of-Sight microwave transmitters), weird comsec, and some stuff for legacy gear, but if you look in the JNN shelter, you'll also see racks of Cisco routers, a couple Juniper firewalls, a Cisco H.323 gateway-- all commercial off-the-shelf gear. That COTS gear is really the heart of the system.<p>
It's actually quite a good system, and I really don't think they're going to want to replace all that any time in the next few years.</p><p>
 I would worry a bit about transitioning to anything more complex than what exists already.</p><p>
Currently, the training for enlisted soldiers who will be the operator/maintainers of the JNN &amp; SSSv3 is 39 weeks long (up from 25). Even with this length of training, there is a lot to be desired. The General Dynamics trainers at the signal school at Ft. Gordon are retired senior NCO's (&gt;E6), but not one has actually used the JNN in the Army. Their experience is all with the old circuit switched comms gear. Knowledge of basic computer networking is seriously lacking for many. So, the end result is that soldiers spend more time learning the maximum length of a CX-11230 cable, memorizing the location of each jack on the signal entry panels, and mopping the floors of the school than actually using the equipment. When soldiers do actually use the gear, it's 100\% scripted. The soldiers read the commands off a "cut sheet" and enter them verbatim into the command prompt.</p><p>
With this level of training, anything more complex than TCP/IP is going to be a no-go unless it's implemented in a very transparent way to the operators.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know about the other branches , but the Army is completing the transition to system based around the Joint Network Node [ globalsecurity.org ] and SSSv3 for communications from battalion level up .
It 's basically Everything-Over-IPv4 .
There may be some funky connections ( ex .
to High Capacity Line-of-Sight microwave transmitters ) , weird comsec , and some stuff for legacy gear , but if you look in the JNN shelter , you 'll also see racks of Cisco routers , a couple Juniper firewalls , a Cisco H.323 gateway-- all commercial off-the-shelf gear .
That COTS gear is really the heart of the system .
It 's actually quite a good system , and I really do n't think they 're going to want to replace all that any time in the next few years .
I would worry a bit about transitioning to anything more complex than what exists already .
Currently , the training for enlisted soldiers who will be the operator/maintainers of the JNN &amp; SSSv3 is 39 weeks long ( up from 25 ) .
Even with this length of training , there is a lot to be desired .
The General Dynamics trainers at the signal school at Ft. Gordon are retired senior NCO 's ( &gt; E6 ) , but not one has actually used the JNN in the Army .
Their experience is all with the old circuit switched comms gear .
Knowledge of basic computer networking is seriously lacking for many .
So , the end result is that soldiers spend more time learning the maximum length of a CX-11230 cable , memorizing the location of each jack on the signal entry panels , and mopping the floors of the school than actually using the equipment .
When soldiers do actually use the gear , it 's 100 \ % scripted .
The soldiers read the commands off a " cut sheet " and enter them verbatim into the command prompt .
With this level of training , anything more complex than TCP/IP is going to be a no-go unless it 's implemented in a very transparent way to the operators .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know about the other branches, but the Army is completing the transition to system based around the Joint Network Node [globalsecurity.org] and SSSv3 for communications from battalion level up.
It's basically Everything-Over-IPv4.
There may be some funky connections (ex.
to High Capacity Line-of-Sight microwave transmitters), weird comsec, and some stuff for legacy gear, but if you look in the JNN shelter, you'll also see racks of Cisco routers, a couple Juniper firewalls, a Cisco H.323 gateway-- all commercial off-the-shelf gear.
That COTS gear is really the heart of the system.
It's actually quite a good system, and I really don't think they're going to want to replace all that any time in the next few years.
I would worry a bit about transitioning to anything more complex than what exists already.
Currently, the training for enlisted soldiers who will be the operator/maintainers of the JNN &amp; SSSv3 is 39 weeks long (up from 25).
Even with this length of training, there is a lot to be desired.
The General Dynamics trainers at the signal school at Ft. Gordon are retired senior NCO's (&gt;E6), but not one has actually used the JNN in the Army.
Their experience is all with the old circuit switched comms gear.
Knowledge of basic computer networking is seriously lacking for many.
So, the end result is that soldiers spend more time learning the maximum length of a CX-11230 cable, memorizing the location of each jack on the signal entry panels, and mopping the floors of the school than actually using the equipment.
When soldiers do actually use the gear, it's 100\% scripted.
The soldiers read the commands off a "cut sheet" and enter them verbatim into the command prompt.
With this level of training, anything more complex than TCP/IP is going to be a no-go unless it's implemented in a very transparent way to the operators.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771177</id>
	<title>They'll stuff it up</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255720500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These guys never know to keep it simple.</p><p>I've seen it happen with functional protocols that get revised in large defense organizations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These guys never know to keep it simple.I 've seen it happen with functional protocols that get revised in large defense organizations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These guys never know to keep it simple.I've seen it happen with functional protocols that get revised in large defense organizations.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771003</id>
	<title>Bottom line</title>
	<author>sakdoctor</author>
	<datestamp>1255719780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How does this affect pr0n?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How does this affect pr0n ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How does this affect pr0n?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771203</id>
	<title>Re:Is this FUCKING JOKE?</title>
	<author>CRiMSON</author>
	<datestamp>1255720620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No shit, you'd think, I dunno Cisco, Juniper,  a company directly related to networking would be a more obvious choice. But hey, I guess wtf do we know right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No shit , you 'd think , I dunno Cisco , Juniper , a company directly related to networking would be a more obvious choice .
But hey , I guess wtf do we know right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No shit, you'd think, I dunno Cisco, Juniper,  a company directly related to networking would be a more obvious choice.
But hey, I guess wtf do we know right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771045</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29772449</id>
	<title>To paraphrase a common adage...</title>
	<author>The Raven</author>
	<datestamp>1255684380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Any sufficiently complicated network will contain an buggy, slow, incomplete implementation of TCP/IP.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Any sufficiently complicated network will contain an buggy , slow , incomplete implementation of TCP/IP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any sufficiently complicated network will contain an buggy, slow, incomplete implementation of TCP/IP.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29772361</id>
	<title>Re:Could be a good them for them and us</title>
	<author>jd</author>
	<datestamp>1255683840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have you looked into Avahi, Zeroconf, the Router Discovery Protocol, IPv6's RADV, or anycasting? You should be able to whip up a self-configuring network fairly easily. You don't tell anyone, of course. That way, you "massively improve" (and get a performance bonus) whilst doing less work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you looked into Avahi , Zeroconf , the Router Discovery Protocol , IPv6 's RADV , or anycasting ?
You should be able to whip up a self-configuring network fairly easily .
You do n't tell anyone , of course .
That way , you " massively improve " ( and get a performance bonus ) whilst doing less work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you looked into Avahi, Zeroconf, the Router Discovery Protocol, IPv6's RADV, or anycasting?
You should be able to whip up a self-configuring network fairly easily.
You don't tell anyone, of course.
That way, you "massively improve" (and get a performance bonus) whilst doing less work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771059</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771531</id>
	<title>Re:Bottom line</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255722420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It has the word tentacle built in.  How can it not?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It has the word tentacle built in .
How can it not ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It has the word tentacle built in.
How can it not?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771003</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771017</id>
	<title>Who wants to bet...</title>
	<author>Zantac69</author>
	<datestamp>1255719900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>...that it will be TCP/IP with a pinch of pixie dust.  Probably just changing a few extensions and reusing old code.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...that it will be TCP/IP with a pinch of pixie dust .
Probably just changing a few extensions and reusing old code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...that it will be TCP/IP with a pinch of pixie dust.
Probably just changing a few extensions and reusing old code.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771667</id>
	<title>Re:China</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255723140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How the hell can you trust a corporation to handle the military security? No really, who the fuck had this brilliant idea?</p></div><p>Just about every American Legislature, Commander-in-Chief, Personnel Investigator, and military officer in the history of our nation?<br> <br>

I mean seriously, where do you think our military equipment is built and researched?  There's not a factory somewhere with a bunch of army privates putting m-16's together.  The vast majority of our military technology and equipment is produced and researched by private corporations.  That's because the brightest minds get drawn in by the highest paycheck, and that's not usually offered by government/military positions.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How the hell can you trust a corporation to handle the military security ?
No really , who the fuck had this brilliant idea ? Just about every American Legislature , Commander-in-Chief , Personnel Investigator , and military officer in the history of our nation ?
I mean seriously , where do you think our military equipment is built and researched ?
There 's not a factory somewhere with a bunch of army privates putting m-16 's together .
The vast majority of our military technology and equipment is produced and researched by private corporations .
That 's because the brightest minds get drawn in by the highest paycheck , and that 's not usually offered by government/military positions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How the hell can you trust a corporation to handle the military security?
No really, who the fuck had this brilliant idea?Just about every American Legislature, Commander-in-Chief, Personnel Investigator, and military officer in the history of our nation?
I mean seriously, where do you think our military equipment is built and researched?
There's not a factory somewhere with a bunch of army privates putting m-16's together.
The vast majority of our military technology and equipment is produced and researched by private corporations.
That's because the brightest minds get drawn in by the highest paycheck, and that's not usually offered by government/military positions.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771135</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29779043</id>
	<title>Re:Bottom line</title>
	<author>shiftless</author>
	<datestamp>1255808700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am a military communications contractor currently working in the field in Afghanistan, and I can tell you that the protocols in use are not the problem at all, not by a long shot. ALL of our problems can be traced back to incompetence and at the command level.</p><p>You have all these units out there who have control of their own little segments of the network and who all have their own ideas about how the network should be set up and routed. Most of these decisions are made by committee, and they change their minds every other week. Even worse, whenever a new group comes in to replace the old every so often, they will usually change everything. There is no central authority in charge of oversight and planning for this large and very important tactical network.</p><p>We have millions upon millions of dollars in the latest routers and communications equipment which we spend countless hours maintaining and reconfiguring just to keep this pile of shit network up and running. When we make phone calls from our office sometimes we have to use a specific phone because that particular number can't be dialed from other phones, for no other reason than the call routing is a totally fucked up mess.</p><p>Switching to a different IP scheme is the stupidest idea I've ever heard of, and could do nothing but make things worse. First off, most of our equipment is based on standard off-the-shelf equipment, i.e. Cisco routers, Linkway or iDirect satellite modems, etc. We quit using military-only communications equipment years ago because it's cheaper, easier, and way better just to use the same thing the civilian markets are using. Switching to some crazy new IP scheme will #1 be completely incompatible with our existing equipment and every other piece of civilian equipment on the market. #2 where will they get the expertise needed to configure this new stuff? They are barely getting by with finding enough experienced and intelligent router technicians to come over here and configure the stuff we've already got. Who the hell knows anything about this new military IP protocol?</p><p>Despite all of these problems, the network does work amazingly well, only because we have leagues of NCOs and contractors who pull out their hair day and night solving stupid problems brought about by stupid people making stupid decisions. We have two separate networks, NIPRnet and SIPRnet. NIPRnet = Non-Secure IP Routed Network, SIPR = same thing but encrypted and secure. All of the mission critical stuff that the parent was talking about--video feeds, intelligence photos, IRC comms for tactical comms (yes, they use IRC, I think that's cool as hell), etc goes over SIPRnet and it's already given the highest priority. SIPR generally works pretty smoothly, as long as the idiots out in the field remember to keep their crypto keys up to date. All of the normal B.S. like facebook surfing, etc is on NIPR which is heavily firewalled out to the Internet. We also have VOIP services over both SIPR and NIPR, tied into the DSN (Defense Switched Network, a huge worldwide DoD telephone network--theoretically you can pick up any DSN phone and direct dial any other DSN phone anywhere in the world, toll free, and securely if using SIPR.)</p><p>Anyway, I hope this helps shed some light on what's going on here. Basically, the Army is a clusterfuck from top to bottom, and that is the prime reason for 95\% of the problems we have over here with comms, not the actual equipment or protocols in use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am a military communications contractor currently working in the field in Afghanistan , and I can tell you that the protocols in use are not the problem at all , not by a long shot .
ALL of our problems can be traced back to incompetence and at the command level.You have all these units out there who have control of their own little segments of the network and who all have their own ideas about how the network should be set up and routed .
Most of these decisions are made by committee , and they change their minds every other week .
Even worse , whenever a new group comes in to replace the old every so often , they will usually change everything .
There is no central authority in charge of oversight and planning for this large and very important tactical network.We have millions upon millions of dollars in the latest routers and communications equipment which we spend countless hours maintaining and reconfiguring just to keep this pile of shit network up and running .
When we make phone calls from our office sometimes we have to use a specific phone because that particular number ca n't be dialed from other phones , for no other reason than the call routing is a totally fucked up mess.Switching to a different IP scheme is the stupidest idea I 've ever heard of , and could do nothing but make things worse .
First off , most of our equipment is based on standard off-the-shelf equipment , i.e .
Cisco routers , Linkway or iDirect satellite modems , etc .
We quit using military-only communications equipment years ago because it 's cheaper , easier , and way better just to use the same thing the civilian markets are using .
Switching to some crazy new IP scheme will # 1 be completely incompatible with our existing equipment and every other piece of civilian equipment on the market .
# 2 where will they get the expertise needed to configure this new stuff ?
They are barely getting by with finding enough experienced and intelligent router technicians to come over here and configure the stuff we 've already got .
Who the hell knows anything about this new military IP protocol ? Despite all of these problems , the network does work amazingly well , only because we have leagues of NCOs and contractors who pull out their hair day and night solving stupid problems brought about by stupid people making stupid decisions .
We have two separate networks , NIPRnet and SIPRnet .
NIPRnet = Non-Secure IP Routed Network , SIPR = same thing but encrypted and secure .
All of the mission critical stuff that the parent was talking about--video feeds , intelligence photos , IRC comms for tactical comms ( yes , they use IRC , I think that 's cool as hell ) , etc goes over SIPRnet and it 's already given the highest priority .
SIPR generally works pretty smoothly , as long as the idiots out in the field remember to keep their crypto keys up to date .
All of the normal B.S .
like facebook surfing , etc is on NIPR which is heavily firewalled out to the Internet .
We also have VOIP services over both SIPR and NIPR , tied into the DSN ( Defense Switched Network , a huge worldwide DoD telephone network--theoretically you can pick up any DSN phone and direct dial any other DSN phone anywhere in the world , toll free , and securely if using SIPR .
) Anyway , I hope this helps shed some light on what 's going on here .
Basically , the Army is a clusterfuck from top to bottom , and that is the prime reason for 95 \ % of the problems we have over here with comms , not the actual equipment or protocols in use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am a military communications contractor currently working in the field in Afghanistan, and I can tell you that the protocols in use are not the problem at all, not by a long shot.
ALL of our problems can be traced back to incompetence and at the command level.You have all these units out there who have control of their own little segments of the network and who all have their own ideas about how the network should be set up and routed.
Most of these decisions are made by committee, and they change their minds every other week.
Even worse, whenever a new group comes in to replace the old every so often, they will usually change everything.
There is no central authority in charge of oversight and planning for this large and very important tactical network.We have millions upon millions of dollars in the latest routers and communications equipment which we spend countless hours maintaining and reconfiguring just to keep this pile of shit network up and running.
When we make phone calls from our office sometimes we have to use a specific phone because that particular number can't be dialed from other phones, for no other reason than the call routing is a totally fucked up mess.Switching to a different IP scheme is the stupidest idea I've ever heard of, and could do nothing but make things worse.
First off, most of our equipment is based on standard off-the-shelf equipment, i.e.
Cisco routers, Linkway or iDirect satellite modems, etc.
We quit using military-only communications equipment years ago because it's cheaper, easier, and way better just to use the same thing the civilian markets are using.
Switching to some crazy new IP scheme will #1 be completely incompatible with our existing equipment and every other piece of civilian equipment on the market.
#2 where will they get the expertise needed to configure this new stuff?
They are barely getting by with finding enough experienced and intelligent router technicians to come over here and configure the stuff we've already got.
Who the hell knows anything about this new military IP protocol?Despite all of these problems, the network does work amazingly well, only because we have leagues of NCOs and contractors who pull out their hair day and night solving stupid problems brought about by stupid people making stupid decisions.
We have two separate networks, NIPRnet and SIPRnet.
NIPRnet = Non-Secure IP Routed Network, SIPR = same thing but encrypted and secure.
All of the mission critical stuff that the parent was talking about--video feeds, intelligence photos, IRC comms for tactical comms (yes, they use IRC, I think that's cool as hell), etc goes over SIPRnet and it's already given the highest priority.
SIPR generally works pretty smoothly, as long as the idiots out in the field remember to keep their crypto keys up to date.
All of the normal B.S.
like facebook surfing, etc is on NIPR which is heavily firewalled out to the Internet.
We also have VOIP services over both SIPR and NIPR, tied into the DSN (Defense Switched Network, a huge worldwide DoD telephone network--theoretically you can pick up any DSN phone and direct dial any other DSN phone anywhere in the world, toll free, and securely if using SIPR.
)Anyway, I hope this helps shed some light on what's going on here.
Basically, the Army is a clusterfuck from top to bottom, and that is the prime reason for 95\% of the problems we have over here with comms, not the actual equipment or protocols in use.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29772775</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29772375</id>
	<title>Re:Skynet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255683960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It could be worse - they could have named it the "New Internet Military Protocol", and then sent all the members of Congress to the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.org version of the acronym... That'd be funny to see on CSpan, as a dozen congressional laptops start yelling "Hey everybody, I'm looking at gay porn!!!!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It could be worse - they could have named it the " New Internet Military Protocol " , and then sent all the members of Congress to the .org version of the acronym... That 'd be funny to see on CSpan , as a dozen congressional laptops start yelling " Hey everybody , I 'm looking at gay porn ! ! ! !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It could be worse - they could have named it the "New Internet Military Protocol", and then sent all the members of Congress to the .org version of the acronym... That'd be funny to see on CSpan, as a dozen congressional laptops start yelling "Hey everybody, I'm looking at gay porn!!!!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29770985</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771289</id>
	<title>Re:Could be a good them for them and us</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255721160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did I miss some way where it would be easy to hard wire a fiber connection to a boat when it wasn't near land?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did I miss some way where it would be easy to hard wire a fiber connection to a boat when it was n't near land ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did I miss some way where it would be easy to hard wire a fiber connection to a boat when it wasn't near land?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771059</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29772761</id>
	<title>Re:Yikes. I work for Lockheed...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255686120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I also work for Lockheed. Interesting fact: my team's standard IDE just got upgraded from vi to vim last week. No Joke.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I also work for Lockheed .
Interesting fact : my team 's standard IDE just got upgraded from vi to vim last week .
No Joke .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I also work for Lockheed.
Interesting fact: my team's standard IDE just got upgraded from vi to vim last week.
No Joke.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771137</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29784179</id>
	<title>Re:Could be a good them for them and us</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255880400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>wow that sucks!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>wow that sucks !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>wow that sucks!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771381</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29770985</id>
	<title>Skynet</title>
	<author>ShopMgr</author>
	<datestamp>1255719660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, we have to have at least one post referencing Skynet.  And someone needs to post something about our new overlords...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , we have to have at least one post referencing Skynet .
And someone needs to post something about our new overlords.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, we have to have at least one post referencing Skynet.
And someone needs to post something about our new overlords...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29775917</id>
	<title>Re:xml!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255720020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's about like saying you sense an XML based boot sector...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's about like saying you sense an XML based boot sector.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's about like saying you sense an XML based boot sector...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771295</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29772775</id>
	<title>Re:Bottom line</title>
	<author>subreality</author>
	<datestamp>1255686240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How does this affect pr0n?</p></div><p>If I  were implementing it in HTB, I'd do it like this:</p><p>prio,rate(\%),burst(S,M,L): desc</p><ul><li>0,80,L: Military operations<ul><li>0,50,L: Realtime interactive (Controls for R/C drones and bots)</li><li>1,20,M: Realtime med latency (Field Voice comms, HUD updates)</li><li>2,20,S: low bandwidth (Status updates, airstrike requests, orders)</li><li>3,10,S: high bandwidth (map downloads, surveillance photo distribution)</li></ul></li><li>1,15,S: Military administration<ul><li>0,40,L: Realtime (VoIP, video conferencing)</li><li>1,40,M: Interactive (wiki, requisition ticket system UI)</li><li>2,20,S: Noninteractive (Software updates for GPS, ticket system backend, CIFS)</li></ul></li><li>2,5,S: Nonmilitary<ul><li>0,40,L: Realtime (VoIP to family ay home, counterstrike servers, SSH)</li><li>1,40,M: Interactive (youtube, porn)</li><li>2,20,S: Noninteractive (SMTP, FTP, SCP)</li></ul></li> </ul><p>Everything is guaranteed the percentage (relative to peers) given; IE, the queue with SMTP will get 1\% (5\% * 20\%) of bandwidth as a guarnateed minimum (enough to keep connections alive when other things are bursting hard, and eventually deliver email even if higher priorities never relent).</p><p>Extra bandwidth is given exclusively to higher priority bands (ie, lower prio numbers):  If there are whole bunch of videoconferences going on between officers in bases about non-immediate military needs (prio 1.0), and suddenly 20 drone pilots need realtime video feeds to interactively fly a coordinated airstrike, the pilots get all the bandwidth they need, leaving the videoconferences only 6\% (smart codecs will degrade gracefully; fixed bandwidth ones will just have to call back after the airstrike).  Similarly, if they need to VoIP about building a bigger mess, your counterstrike game will lag.  FTP gets best effort in between your porn page loads (which burst quickly with the medium-size burst; FTP gets a small burst so it's always ready to yield).</p><p>The level of detail you get into for the queues depends on how much bandwidth you have, and how much contention there is for it.  If there's high contention, more detail helps more.  There are also smarter queueing disciplines than HTB, but it's the simplest to describe like this.</p><p>Statically reserved bandwidth guarantees per-connection is better for many realtime needs.  With RSVP, each drone pilot can reserve a guaranteed 5\% slot for their flow, to prevent problems where there was lots of extra bandwidth, and then a lower priority suddenly needs its minimum guarantee, thus screwing up traffic that was flowing before.  IE, it's better to tell the pilot from the start that there's not enough bandwidth that can be guaranteed to them, than to have them start flying and then get jitters when a bunch of troops hit push-to-talk, right as their drone was on final approach.</p><p>So in short, porn is pretty low on the list, but not the bottom of the stack.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How does this affect pr0n ? If I were implementing it in HTB , I 'd do it like this : prio,rate ( \ % ) ,burst ( S,M,L ) : desc0,80,L : Military operations0,50,L : Realtime interactive ( Controls for R/C drones and bots ) 1,20,M : Realtime med latency ( Field Voice comms , HUD updates ) 2,20,S : low bandwidth ( Status updates , airstrike requests , orders ) 3,10,S : high bandwidth ( map downloads , surveillance photo distribution ) 1,15,S : Military administration0,40,L : Realtime ( VoIP , video conferencing ) 1,40,M : Interactive ( wiki , requisition ticket system UI ) 2,20,S : Noninteractive ( Software updates for GPS , ticket system backend , CIFS ) 2,5,S : Nonmilitary0,40,L : Realtime ( VoIP to family ay home , counterstrike servers , SSH ) 1,40,M : Interactive ( youtube , porn ) 2,20,S : Noninteractive ( SMTP , FTP , SCP ) Everything is guaranteed the percentage ( relative to peers ) given ; IE , the queue with SMTP will get 1 \ % ( 5 \ % * 20 \ % ) of bandwidth as a guarnateed minimum ( enough to keep connections alive when other things are bursting hard , and eventually deliver email even if higher priorities never relent ) .Extra bandwidth is given exclusively to higher priority bands ( ie , lower prio numbers ) : If there are whole bunch of videoconferences going on between officers in bases about non-immediate military needs ( prio 1.0 ) , and suddenly 20 drone pilots need realtime video feeds to interactively fly a coordinated airstrike , the pilots get all the bandwidth they need , leaving the videoconferences only 6 \ % ( smart codecs will degrade gracefully ; fixed bandwidth ones will just have to call back after the airstrike ) .
Similarly , if they need to VoIP about building a bigger mess , your counterstrike game will lag .
FTP gets best effort in between your porn page loads ( which burst quickly with the medium-size burst ; FTP gets a small burst so it 's always ready to yield ) .The level of detail you get into for the queues depends on how much bandwidth you have , and how much contention there is for it .
If there 's high contention , more detail helps more .
There are also smarter queueing disciplines than HTB , but it 's the simplest to describe like this.Statically reserved bandwidth guarantees per-connection is better for many realtime needs .
With RSVP , each drone pilot can reserve a guaranteed 5 \ % slot for their flow , to prevent problems where there was lots of extra bandwidth , and then a lower priority suddenly needs its minimum guarantee , thus screwing up traffic that was flowing before .
IE , it 's better to tell the pilot from the start that there 's not enough bandwidth that can be guaranteed to them , than to have them start flying and then get jitters when a bunch of troops hit push-to-talk , right as their drone was on final approach.So in short , porn is pretty low on the list , but not the bottom of the stack .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How does this affect pr0n?If I  were implementing it in HTB, I'd do it like this:prio,rate(\%),burst(S,M,L): desc0,80,L: Military operations0,50,L: Realtime interactive (Controls for R/C drones and bots)1,20,M: Realtime med latency (Field Voice comms, HUD updates)2,20,S: low bandwidth (Status updates, airstrike requests, orders)3,10,S: high bandwidth (map downloads, surveillance photo distribution)1,15,S: Military administration0,40,L: Realtime (VoIP, video conferencing)1,40,M: Interactive (wiki, requisition ticket system UI)2,20,S: Noninteractive (Software updates for GPS, ticket system backend, CIFS)2,5,S: Nonmilitary0,40,L: Realtime (VoIP to family ay home, counterstrike servers, SSH)1,40,M: Interactive (youtube, porn)2,20,S: Noninteractive (SMTP, FTP, SCP) Everything is guaranteed the percentage (relative to peers) given; IE, the queue with SMTP will get 1\% (5\% * 20\%) of bandwidth as a guarnateed minimum (enough to keep connections alive when other things are bursting hard, and eventually deliver email even if higher priorities never relent).Extra bandwidth is given exclusively to higher priority bands (ie, lower prio numbers):  If there are whole bunch of videoconferences going on between officers in bases about non-immediate military needs (prio 1.0), and suddenly 20 drone pilots need realtime video feeds to interactively fly a coordinated airstrike, the pilots get all the bandwidth they need, leaving the videoconferences only 6\% (smart codecs will degrade gracefully; fixed bandwidth ones will just have to call back after the airstrike).
Similarly, if they need to VoIP about building a bigger mess, your counterstrike game will lag.
FTP gets best effort in between your porn page loads (which burst quickly with the medium-size burst; FTP gets a small burst so it's always ready to yield).The level of detail you get into for the queues depends on how much bandwidth you have, and how much contention there is for it.
If there's high contention, more detail helps more.
There are also smarter queueing disciplines than HTB, but it's the simplest to describe like this.Statically reserved bandwidth guarantees per-connection is better for many realtime needs.
With RSVP, each drone pilot can reserve a guaranteed 5\% slot for their flow, to prevent problems where there was lots of extra bandwidth, and then a lower priority suddenly needs its minimum guarantee, thus screwing up traffic that was flowing before.
IE, it's better to tell the pilot from the start that there's not enough bandwidth that can be guaranteed to them, than to have them start flying and then get jitters when a bunch of troops hit push-to-talk, right as their drone was on final approach.So in short, porn is pretty low on the list, but not the bottom of the stack.
:)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771003</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771045</id>
	<title>Is this FUCKING JOKE?</title>
	<author>Tei</author>
	<datestamp>1255719960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft, from all people? ignore all the jokes about his consumer OS.  His server software is horrible bad!!. Maybe Visual Studio is a nice tool, his compiler is average, but good. Other than that, why o why? I sould not be tecnical merits, has to be something else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft , from all people ?
ignore all the jokes about his consumer OS .
His server software is horrible bad ! ! .
Maybe Visual Studio is a nice tool , his compiler is average , but good .
Other than that , why o why ?
I sould not be tecnical merits , has to be something else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft, from all people?
ignore all the jokes about his consumer OS.
His server software is horrible bad!!.
Maybe Visual Studio is a nice tool, his compiler is average, but good.
Other than that, why o why?
I sould not be tecnical merits, has to be something else.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29770999</id>
	<title>The future is secure!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255719780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hopefully they will patent MNP up the wazoo so that the open sores leech community wont be able to steal their intellectual property.  Go military industrial oligarchy!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hopefully they will patent MNP up the wazoo so that the open sores leech community wont be able to steal their intellectual property .
Go military industrial oligarchy !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hopefully they will patent MNP up the wazoo so that the open sores leech community wont be able to steal their intellectual property.
Go military industrial oligarchy!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29776117</id>
	<title>Re:Tap tap tap ...</title>
	<author>ignavus</author>
	<datestamp>1255810740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Minternet? Sounds like a mouth freshener you use while surfing the web.</p><p>Microsoft is always looking for a way to trademark common English words like (well) word, excel, access by putting their company name in front, so I guess they would call their new internet<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... "Microsoft Tubes"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Minternet ?
Sounds like a mouth freshener you use while surfing the web.Microsoft is always looking for a way to trademark common English words like ( well ) word , excel , access by putting their company name in front , so I guess they would call their new internet ... " Microsoft Tubes "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Minternet?
Sounds like a mouth freshener you use while surfing the web.Microsoft is always looking for a way to trademark common English words like (well) word, excel, access by putting their company name in front, so I guess they would call their new internet ... "Microsoft Tubes"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771191</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29772069</id>
	<title>Re:Yikes. I work for Lockheed...</title>
	<author>Bigbutt</author>
	<datestamp>1255725360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Their job process really blows though. Unless you know someone or are part of some contract changeover (from SAIC to Lockheed-Martin for example), I don't see how you could get a job.</p><p>I've had my resume in their HR database for 10 years now, making updates as I change duties and jobs. I've worked in IT at Johns Hopkins APL, NASA, IBM, and now at a smaller but very interesting telecom type company and never had a single query from Lockheed-Martin.</p><p>[John]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Their job process really blows though .
Unless you know someone or are part of some contract changeover ( from SAIC to Lockheed-Martin for example ) , I do n't see how you could get a job.I 've had my resume in their HR database for 10 years now , making updates as I change duties and jobs .
I 've worked in IT at Johns Hopkins APL , NASA , IBM , and now at a smaller but very interesting telecom type company and never had a single query from Lockheed-Martin .
[ John ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Their job process really blows though.
Unless you know someone or are part of some contract changeover (from SAIC to Lockheed-Martin for example), I don't see how you could get a job.I've had my resume in their HR database for 10 years now, making updates as I change duties and jobs.
I've worked in IT at Johns Hopkins APL, NASA, IBM, and now at a smaller but very interesting telecom type company and never had a single query from Lockheed-Martin.
[John]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771137</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29810279</id>
	<title>Re:Bottom line</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256060880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You must be one of those worthless ITT fucks... bitching about everything while drawing a paycheck for doing nothing. I spent more of my time doing their job in my 15 months there than I ever had to worry about the tactical network.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You must be one of those worthless ITT fucks... bitching about everything while drawing a paycheck for doing nothing .
I spent more of my time doing their job in my 15 months there than I ever had to worry about the tactical network .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You must be one of those worthless ITT fucks... bitching about everything while drawing a paycheck for doing nothing.
I spent more of my time doing their job in my 15 months there than I ever had to worry about the tactical network.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29779043</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771059</id>
	<title>Could be a good them for them and us</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255720020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This makes a lot of sense, the military has unique requirements of all sorts, from security to e.g. their inability to hook up an aircraft carrier to fiber (except while at dock) to their need to carry both operational and personal traffic (the latter to keep their people in touch with home) over necessarily constrained links.

</p><p>I like the bit about "self configuration capabilities to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... reduce the need for trained network personnel and lower overall life cycle costs for network management".  While the current state of the art keeps us well employed, things could be easier.  Heck, the more the systems I maintain for my parent self-configure, the happier I am.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This makes a lot of sense , the military has unique requirements of all sorts , from security to e.g .
their inability to hook up an aircraft carrier to fiber ( except while at dock ) to their need to carry both operational and personal traffic ( the latter to keep their people in touch with home ) over necessarily constrained links .
I like the bit about " self configuration capabilities to ... reduce the need for trained network personnel and lower overall life cycle costs for network management " .
While the current state of the art keeps us well employed , things could be easier .
Heck , the more the systems I maintain for my parent self-configure , the happier I am .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This makes a lot of sense, the military has unique requirements of all sorts, from security to e.g.
their inability to hook up an aircraft carrier to fiber (except while at dock) to their need to carry both operational and personal traffic (the latter to keep their people in touch with home) over necessarily constrained links.
I like the bit about "self configuration capabilities to ... reduce the need for trained network personnel and lower overall life cycle costs for network management".
While the current state of the art keeps us well employed, things could be easier.
Heck, the more the systems I maintain for my parent self-configure, the happier I am.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29773867</id>
	<title>We as taxpayers should fight this!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255693320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"New network threats and attacks require revolutionary protection concepts," said Lockheed cyber-arsenal chieftain John Mengucci. "Through this project, as well as our cyber Mission Maker initiatives, we are working to enhance cyber security and ensure that warfighters can fight on despite cyber attacks."</p></div><p>John Mengucci (the cyber-arsenal chieftain! rofl) obviously has no clue what he is talking about given the phrasing he chose to use (omgz! cyber attacks are stopping our warfighters! deploy the cyber defense!) . My guess is MS fed him, the rest of LM, and the US gov this marketese, they fell for it, and now the Internet will become Microsoft's subservient bitch. This is a for-profit move, not a for-security, for-consumer, or for-technology move. We, as tax payers, are paying for Microsoft and LM's research and development under the premise of war. <strong>Why is this acceptable to the US people? Are we a war-mongering society? Yes, but should we be? No! When will the US start innovating in the name of peace, instead of war? Can we please just GROW THE FUCK UP and stop thinking that war is a normal, unavoidable part of society?</strong></p><p>And to end my tirade: Lockeed-Martin are the merchants of Death. No company should profit solely on war. Think about it: its in their best interest that there is always war... You think lobbyists in Washington are bad, what about the lobbyists in Iraq? Why has there always been some conflict somewhere in the world post WWII? Because its profitable and completely legal. People are making money off of death. This is not okay.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" New network threats and attacks require revolutionary protection concepts , " said Lockheed cyber-arsenal chieftain John Mengucci .
" Through this project , as well as our cyber Mission Maker initiatives , we are working to enhance cyber security and ensure that warfighters can fight on despite cyber attacks .
" John Mengucci ( the cyber-arsenal chieftain !
rofl ) obviously has no clue what he is talking about given the phrasing he chose to use ( omgz !
cyber attacks are stopping our warfighters !
deploy the cyber defense !
) .
My guess is MS fed him , the rest of LM , and the US gov this marketese , they fell for it , and now the Internet will become Microsoft 's subservient bitch .
This is a for-profit move , not a for-security , for-consumer , or for-technology move .
We , as tax payers , are paying for Microsoft and LM 's research and development under the premise of war .
Why is this acceptable to the US people ?
Are we a war-mongering society ?
Yes , but should we be ?
No ! When will the US start innovating in the name of peace , instead of war ?
Can we please just GROW THE FUCK UP and stop thinking that war is a normal , unavoidable part of society ? And to end my tirade : Lockeed-Martin are the merchants of Death .
No company should profit solely on war .
Think about it : its in their best interest that there is always war... You think lobbyists in Washington are bad , what about the lobbyists in Iraq ?
Why has there always been some conflict somewhere in the world post WWII ?
Because its profitable and completely legal .
People are making money off of death .
This is not okay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"New network threats and attacks require revolutionary protection concepts," said Lockheed cyber-arsenal chieftain John Mengucci.
"Through this project, as well as our cyber Mission Maker initiatives, we are working to enhance cyber security and ensure that warfighters can fight on despite cyber attacks.
"John Mengucci (the cyber-arsenal chieftain!
rofl) obviously has no clue what he is talking about given the phrasing he chose to use (omgz!
cyber attacks are stopping our warfighters!
deploy the cyber defense!
) .
My guess is MS fed him, the rest of LM, and the US gov this marketese, they fell for it, and now the Internet will become Microsoft's subservient bitch.
This is a for-profit move, not a for-security, for-consumer, or for-technology move.
We, as tax payers, are paying for Microsoft and LM's research and development under the premise of war.
Why is this acceptable to the US people?
Are we a war-mongering society?
Yes, but should we be?
No! When will the US start innovating in the name of peace, instead of war?
Can we please just GROW THE FUCK UP and stop thinking that war is a normal, unavoidable part of society?And to end my tirade: Lockeed-Martin are the merchants of Death.
No company should profit solely on war.
Think about it: its in their best interest that there is always war... You think lobbyists in Washington are bad, what about the lobbyists in Iraq?
Why has there always been some conflict somewhere in the world post WWII?
Because its profitable and completely legal.
People are making money off of death.
This is not okay.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29774795</id>
	<title>Re:Is this FUCKING JOKE?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255701240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>microsoft's server software isn't that bad bro</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>microsoft 's server software is n't that bad bro</tokentext>
<sentencetext>microsoft's server software isn't that bad bro</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771045</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771291</id>
	<title>Re:Is this FUCKING JOKE?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255721160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why are you talking about Microsoft like it's alive?</p><p>Is there something I should know?</p><p>Hello, windows.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why are you talking about Microsoft like it 's alive ? Is there something I should know ? Hello , windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why are you talking about Microsoft like it's alive?Is there something I should know?Hello, windows.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771045</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771199</id>
	<title>Re:Bottom line</title>
	<author>fuzzyfuzzyfungus</author>
	<datestamp>1255720620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>MNP knows how to stand at attention for a man in uniform.</htmltext>
<tokenext>MNP knows how to stand at attention for a man in uniform .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MNP knows how to stand at attention for a man in uniform.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771003</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29778463</id>
	<title>Re:How about.. The MSN Network !</title>
	<author>Ernesto Alvarez</author>
	<datestamp>1255803180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Remember MSN (the thing that was suppose to kill the internet.. So much better than TCP/IP that Win 95 didn't have a TCP/IP stack to start with) ?</p></div></blockquote><p>Yes it did. It was not enabled nor installed by default, but it had one.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember MSN ( the thing that was suppose to kill the internet.. So much better than TCP/IP that Win 95 did n't have a TCP/IP stack to start with ) ? Yes it did .
It was not enabled nor installed by default , but it had one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember MSN (the thing that was suppose to kill the internet.. So much better than TCP/IP that Win 95 didn't have a TCP/IP stack to start with) ?Yes it did.
It was not enabled nor installed by default, but it had one.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771239</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771239</id>
	<title>How about.. The MSN Network !</title>
	<author>ivan\_w</author>
	<datestamp>1255720800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey.. MS has a good track record when it comes to implementing a new ubiquitous network right ?</p><p>Remember MSN (the thing that was suppose to kill the internet.. So much better than TCP/IP that Win 95 didn't have a TCP/IP stack to start with) ?</p><p>I'm wondering (ok.. not *really* wondering) why they went to those guys to do that..</p><p>--Ivan</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey.. MS has a good track record when it comes to implementing a new ubiquitous network right ? Remember MSN ( the thing that was suppose to kill the internet.. So much better than TCP/IP that Win 95 did n't have a TCP/IP stack to start with ) ? I 'm wondering ( ok.. not * really * wondering ) why they went to those guys to do that..--Ivan</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey.. MS has a good track record when it comes to implementing a new ubiquitous network right ?Remember MSN (the thing that was suppose to kill the internet.. So much better than TCP/IP that Win 95 didn't have a TCP/IP stack to start with) ?I'm wondering (ok.. not *really* wondering) why they went to those guys to do that..--Ivan</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29772383</id>
	<title>"Microsoft To Help"</title>
	<author>reboot246</author>
	<datestamp>1255684020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>God help us all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>God help us all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>God help us all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29773829</id>
	<title>Noo...</title>
	<author>pubwvj</author>
	<datestamp>1255693080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, there goes the Internet. With Microsx behind it nobody will be allowed to use it for free, no standards will be followed, protocols will change daily.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , there goes the Internet .
With Microsx behind it nobody will be allowed to use it for free , no standards will be followed , protocols will change daily .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, there goes the Internet.
With Microsx behind it nobody will be allowed to use it for free, no standards will be followed, protocols will change daily.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29774015</id>
	<title>Re:Is this FUCKING JOKE?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255694280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why are you talking about Microsoft like it's alive?</p><p>Is there something I should know?</p><p>Hello, windows.</p></div><p>Corporations are legally considered people.</p><p>If they were dead people, their wills would be in probate.</p><p>Corporations must, therefore, be considered live people.</p><p>Leading to the question, for me, "Can you show mental incompetence based on their decisions and have their assets placed under the control of a conservator?"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why are you talking about Microsoft like it 's alive ? Is there something I should know ? Hello , windows.Corporations are legally considered people.If they were dead people , their wills would be in probate.Corporations must , therefore , be considered live people.Leading to the question , for me , " Can you show mental incompetence based on their decisions and have their assets placed under the control of a conservator ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why are you talking about Microsoft like it's alive?Is there something I should know?Hello, windows.Corporations are legally considered people.If they were dead people, their wills would be in probate.Corporations must, therefore, be considered live people.Leading to the question, for me, "Can you show mental incompetence based on their decisions and have their assets placed under the control of a conservator?
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771291</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29773315</id>
	<title>Re:Is this FUCKING JOKE?</title>
	<author>Sepodati</author>
	<datestamp>1255689600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you read the requirements, this is going to take considerable changes at the OS level. The good news is that Windows and Linux are required to be supported according to the requirements. They're essentially re-writing TCP/UDP to support decisions down the the individual and unit level along with user/server authentication across the network. Makes sense to have MS involved, if you ask me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you read the requirements , this is going to take considerable changes at the OS level .
The good news is that Windows and Linux are required to be supported according to the requirements .
They 're essentially re-writing TCP/UDP to support decisions down the the individual and unit level along with user/server authentication across the network .
Makes sense to have MS involved , if you ask me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you read the requirements, this is going to take considerable changes at the OS level.
The good news is that Windows and Linux are required to be supported according to the requirements.
They're essentially re-writing TCP/UDP to support decisions down the the individual and unit level along with user/server authentication across the network.
Makes sense to have MS involved, if you ask me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771045</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29772447</id>
	<title>Micro$oft or Microsoft Research</title>
	<author>elnyka</author>
	<datestamp>1255684320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For starters, the title of the article is incredibly stupid ("Reinvent the Internet"?????)<p>

Moving away from that brain fart of a title for a moment, would it be possible that it is not Micro$oft per say, but Microsoft Research, the research branch, that will be involved in this? If that were the case (considering the caliber of researchers that they have there), then I could see good things coming.</p><p>

But if it is Micro$oft, the products division, then, hmmmm, we'll be seeing data packets with executable vbscript in them (yikes!)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For starters , the title of the article is incredibly stupid ( " Reinvent the Internet " ? ? ? ? ?
) Moving away from that brain fart of a title for a moment , would it be possible that it is not Micro $ oft per say , but Microsoft Research , the research branch , that will be involved in this ?
If that were the case ( considering the caliber of researchers that they have there ) , then I could see good things coming .
But if it is Micro $ oft , the products division , then , hmmmm , we 'll be seeing data packets with executable vbscript in them ( yikes !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For starters, the title of the article is incredibly stupid ("Reinvent the Internet"?????
)

Moving away from that brain fart of a title for a moment, would it be possible that it is not Micro$oft per say, but Microsoft Research, the research branch, that will be involved in this?
If that were the case (considering the caliber of researchers that they have there), then I could see good things coming.
But if it is Micro$oft, the products division, then, hmmmm, we'll be seeing data packets with executable vbscript in them (yikes!
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29772751</id>
	<title>Re:China</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1255686120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't need to get China to see the madness of this. Giving the reimplementation of the new internet to the very player that made the current internet an unsafe place? Why aren't all glass makers expanding their business breaking every window in town? Seems to be working for Microsoft.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't need to get China to see the madness of this .
Giving the reimplementation of the new internet to the very player that made the current internet an unsafe place ?
Why are n't all glass makers expanding their business breaking every window in town ?
Seems to be working for Microsoft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't need to get China to see the madness of this.
Giving the reimplementation of the new internet to the very player that made the current internet an unsafe place?
Why aren't all glass makers expanding their business breaking every window in town?
Seems to be working for Microsoft.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771135</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29772573</id>
	<title>Why is this not "Funny"?</title>
	<author>VP</author>
	<datestamp>1255685040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or at least tagged appropriately?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or at least tagged appropriately ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or at least tagged appropriately?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29774041</id>
	<title>Re:China</title>
	<author>sgt\_doom</author>
	<datestamp>1255694400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>How the hell can you trust a corporation to handle the military security? No really, who the fuck had this brilliant idea?</i> <p>Seriously, dood, you are aware that the majority of intelligence operations have been outsourced to corporations, right? (SAIC, Mantech International, L3, Raytheon, etc.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How the hell can you trust a corporation to handle the military security ?
No really , who the fuck had this brilliant idea ?
Seriously , dood , you are aware that the majority of intelligence operations have been outsourced to corporations , right ?
( SAIC , Mantech International , L3 , Raytheon , etc .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How the hell can you trust a corporation to handle the military security?
No really, who the fuck had this brilliant idea?
Seriously, dood, you are aware that the majority of intelligence operations have been outsourced to corporations, right?
(SAIC, Mantech International, L3, Raytheon, etc.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771135</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29770961</id>
	<title>Lockheed + Reinvent + Internet =</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255719600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6feES9AGKsY" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">Fascism</a> [youtube.com]</p><p>Yours In Yaznogorsk,<br>K.T.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fascism [ youtube.com ] Yours In Yaznogorsk,K.T .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fascism [youtube.com]Yours In Yaznogorsk,K.T.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29795605</id>
	<title>Re:Is this FUCKING JOKE?</title>
	<author>Sarius64</author>
	<datestamp>1255973340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Honestly, I can't imagine a reason that the contract wouldn't have gone to a company with you as their poster boy.  Keep dropping that ritilin!  I hear it helps with those people skills.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Honestly , I ca n't imagine a reason that the contract would n't have gone to a company with you as their poster boy .
Keep dropping that ritilin !
I hear it helps with those people skills .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Honestly, I can't imagine a reason that the contract wouldn't have gone to a company with you as their poster boy.
Keep dropping that ritilin!
I hear it helps with those people skills.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771045</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29773787</id>
	<title>There goes the internet</title>
	<author>cfriedt</author>
	<datestamp>1255692840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As soon as I heard Microsoft, I could only imagine this thing going downhill.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As soon as I heard Microsoft , I could only imagine this thing going downhill .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As soon as I heard Microsoft, I could only imagine this thing going downhill.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29772797</id>
	<title>Reminds me of an old saying</title>
	<author>jandrese</author>
	<datestamp>1255686300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.
                -- Henry Spencer</p></div></blockquote><p>

This quote also applies to TCP/IP.  31 million is not enough money for someone like Lockheed to do anything notable except maybe come up with some router policies and require SSL on every link or something.  They probably wouldn't even be able to properly tackle the interminable key distribution problems with a system like that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it , poorly .
-- Henry Spencer This quote also applies to TCP/IP .
31 million is not enough money for someone like Lockheed to do anything notable except maybe come up with some router policies and require SSL on every link or something .
They probably would n't even be able to properly tackle the interminable key distribution problems with a system like that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.
-- Henry Spencer

This quote also applies to TCP/IP.
31 million is not enough money for someone like Lockheed to do anything notable except maybe come up with some router policies and require SSL on every link or something.
They probably wouldn't even be able to properly tackle the interminable key distribution problems with a system like that.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29784341</id>
	<title>Skynet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255881780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This Internet reinvention will be hot in communist China</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This Internet reinvention will be hot in communist China</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This Internet reinvention will be hot in communist China</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29770985</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771209</id>
	<title>Re:Who wants to bet...</title>
	<author>nschubach</author>
	<datestamp>1255720680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They'll have to leave the major version number the same so it doesn't break the Internet.  They'll call it IPv7, but it will be version 6.1 to keep this compatibility.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 'll have to leave the major version number the same so it does n't break the Internet .
They 'll call it IPv7 , but it will be version 6.1 to keep this compatibility .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They'll have to leave the major version number the same so it doesn't break the Internet.
They'll call it IPv7, but it will be version 6.1 to keep this compatibility.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771017</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29773603</id>
	<title>Re:xml!</title>
	<author>KalvinB</author>
	<datestamp>1255691520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm going to assume you're trying to be funny.  There's nothing more efficient than taking machine readable information, transforming it into human readable information, transferring the data as bytes, and then converting it back to machine readable information.  By the time a message hits the wire there's zero reason a human needs to be able to read it without some processing.</p><p>If you want highly efficient transfer of data you only need the size in bytes of the message in 4 bytes or less fixed and the message type as your header as 4 bytes or less fixed.  The other side can then figure it out from there.</p><p>You can do XML over TCP/IP and UDP as it's just bytes to the network.  But hey, with all this bandwidth and processing power, why not just waste it with unnecessary bulk added to network communication?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm going to assume you 're trying to be funny .
There 's nothing more efficient than taking machine readable information , transforming it into human readable information , transferring the data as bytes , and then converting it back to machine readable information .
By the time a message hits the wire there 's zero reason a human needs to be able to read it without some processing.If you want highly efficient transfer of data you only need the size in bytes of the message in 4 bytes or less fixed and the message type as your header as 4 bytes or less fixed .
The other side can then figure it out from there.You can do XML over TCP/IP and UDP as it 's just bytes to the network .
But hey , with all this bandwidth and processing power , why not just waste it with unnecessary bulk added to network communication ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm going to assume you're trying to be funny.
There's nothing more efficient than taking machine readable information, transforming it into human readable information, transferring the data as bytes, and then converting it back to machine readable information.
By the time a message hits the wire there's zero reason a human needs to be able to read it without some processing.If you want highly efficient transfer of data you only need the size in bytes of the message in 4 bytes or less fixed and the message type as your header as 4 bytes or less fixed.
The other side can then figure it out from there.You can do XML over TCP/IP and UDP as it's just bytes to the network.
But hey, with all this bandwidth and processing power, why not just waste it with unnecessary bulk added to network communication?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771295</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29772517</id>
	<title>Re:Skynet</title>
	<author>egork</author>
	<datestamp>1255684800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It could explain why microsoft was so successful winning government attention in Russia recently, and the inability of MS to put step in China would explain the TFA as well. All the loose ends come together here in this small article!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It could explain why microsoft was so successful winning government attention in Russia recently , and the inability of MS to put step in China would explain the TFA as well .
All the loose ends come together here in this small article !
,- )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It could explain why microsoft was so successful winning government attention in Russia recently, and the inability of MS to put step in China would explain the TFA as well.
All the loose ends come together here in this small article!
,-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771315</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29772451</id>
	<title>policy-based prioritization levels</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1255684380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In other words, 'we are going to stamp out p2p once and for all... ya damned pirates'</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In other words , 'we are going to stamp out p2p once and for all... ya damned pirates'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other words, 'we are going to stamp out p2p once and for all... ya damned pirates'</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771421</id>
	<title>Re:Could be a good them for them and us</title>
	<author>gbjbaanb</author>
	<datestamp>1255721760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pah. its easy. You just need a very long cable.</p><p>Come to think of it, if they equipped carriers with the stuff those transatlantic cable laying/repairing ships have, then many 3rd world countries would welcome American invasion. Foreign policy through winning over Hearts, Minds, and Youtube. What could go wrong<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pah .
its easy .
You just need a very long cable.Come to think of it , if they equipped carriers with the stuff those transatlantic cable laying/repairing ships have , then many 3rd world countries would welcome American invasion .
Foreign policy through winning over Hearts , Minds , and Youtube .
What could go wrong : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pah.
its easy.
You just need a very long cable.Come to think of it, if they equipped carriers with the stuff those transatlantic cable laying/repairing ships have, then many 3rd world countries would welcome American invasion.
Foreign policy through winning over Hearts, Minds, and Youtube.
What could go wrong :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771289</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771345</id>
	<title>Re:Could be a good them for them and us</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1255721460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The more I deal with IT insanity, the more I realize it comes in infinite supply. No matter how much you make monkey work they'll just try doing 10x as advanced and/or stupid things with IT...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The more I deal with IT insanity , the more I realize it comes in infinite supply .
No matter how much you make monkey work they 'll just try doing 10x as advanced and/or stupid things with IT.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The more I deal with IT insanity, the more I realize it comes in infinite supply.
No matter how much you make monkey work they'll just try doing 10x as advanced and/or stupid things with IT...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771059</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29772265</id>
	<title>What you don't know...</title>
	<author>jd</author>
	<datestamp>1255726500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...is that this is something the US was planning to smuggle INTO China and Russia...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...is that this is something the US was planning to smuggle INTO China and Russia.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...is that this is something the US was planning to smuggle INTO China and Russia...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771315</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29772957</id>
	<title>Re:Tap tap tap ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255687260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Would you like some hints on how to increase the priority of your traffic to Flash Override.</p></div><p>I see you've worked in the military industrial complex at some point.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would you like some hints on how to increase the priority of your traffic to Flash Override.I see you 've worked in the military industrial complex at some point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would you like some hints on how to increase the priority of your traffic to Flash Override.I see you've worked in the military industrial complex at some point.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771191</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29777151</id>
	<title>Re:Wow, sounds like ipv6</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1255790820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Naah. Knowing Microsoft, they will add some minor incompatibilities, and throw SMB in there. That way, your system will be useless on normal IPv6 networks, and they will *camera zooms out* TAKE OVER *huge echo is added* THE WORLD!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Naah .
Knowing Microsoft , they will add some minor incompatibilities , and throw SMB in there .
That way , your system will be useless on normal IPv6 networks , and they will * camera zooms out * TAKE OVER * huge echo is added * THE WORLD ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Naah.
Knowing Microsoft, they will add some minor incompatibilities, and throw SMB in there.
That way, your system will be useless on normal IPv6 networks, and they will *camera zooms out* TAKE OVER *huge echo is added* THE WORLD!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29770989</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29772173</id>
	<title>Re:Yikes. I work for Lockheed...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255725960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ahh....LMCO does outsource there IT department...to a company called CSC (Computer Science Corp)...there really is only a small percent of employee's that work for LMCO IT EIO services...I used to work for them and most likely know the guys that will be working on this project.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ahh....LMCO does outsource there IT department...to a company called CSC ( Computer Science Corp ) ...there really is only a small percent of employee 's that work for LMCO IT EIO services...I used to work for them and most likely know the guys that will be working on this project .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ahh....LMCO does outsource there IT department...to a company called CSC (Computer Science Corp)...there really is only a small percent of employee's that work for LMCO IT EIO services...I used to work for them and most likely know the guys that will be working on this project.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771137</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29776579</id>
	<title>tcpip vs etc..</title>
	<author>anonymous9991</author>
	<datestamp>1255781100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>TCP/IP may have issues but any format will. You cant send data across networks and not have the chance of it being read unless the network is closed. That is like saying you are going to build a new pigeon who is more secure who will deliver your message. Also any criminal who gets there hands on a government laptop and password can just login and bypass all that security anyway (I think that has happened a few times over the last few years). Security comes down to training the humans to use computers securly, no technology will replace that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>TCP/IP may have issues but any format will .
You cant send data across networks and not have the chance of it being read unless the network is closed .
That is like saying you are going to build a new pigeon who is more secure who will deliver your message .
Also any criminal who gets there hands on a government laptop and password can just login and bypass all that security anyway ( I think that has happened a few times over the last few years ) .
Security comes down to training the humans to use computers securly , no technology will replace that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TCP/IP may have issues but any format will.
You cant send data across networks and not have the chance of it being read unless the network is closed.
That is like saying you are going to build a new pigeon who is more secure who will deliver your message.
Also any criminal who gets there hands on a government laptop and password can just login and bypass all that security anyway (I think that has happened a few times over the last few years).
Security comes down to training the humans to use computers securly, no technology will replace that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771163</id>
	<title>Re:So...IPv6 then?</title>
	<author>huckamania</author>
	<datestamp>1255720440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The military may be looking for a smaller packet size then IPv6 can offer.   Think IPv4 with all of the cruft taken out.   They might be able to get away with an even smaller address size then IPv4 since they have a finite number of things they want to connect.   Ports seem to be a waste of bits, since you only ever use a few of those at a time.   Shaving 10 bits off of the address and 10 bits off of the port would allow them to add security, prioritization, etc.</p><p>Some of these military data streams will be unreliable and every bit helps.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The military may be looking for a smaller packet size then IPv6 can offer .
Think IPv4 with all of the cruft taken out .
They might be able to get away with an even smaller address size then IPv4 since they have a finite number of things they want to connect .
Ports seem to be a waste of bits , since you only ever use a few of those at a time .
Shaving 10 bits off of the address and 10 bits off of the port would allow them to add security , prioritization , etc.Some of these military data streams will be unreliable and every bit helps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The military may be looking for a smaller packet size then IPv6 can offer.
Think IPv4 with all of the cruft taken out.
They might be able to get away with an even smaller address size then IPv4 since they have a finite number of things they want to connect.
Ports seem to be a waste of bits, since you only ever use a few of those at a time.
Shaving 10 bits off of the address and 10 bits off of the port would allow them to add security, prioritization, etc.Some of these military data streams will be unreliable and every bit helps.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29770971</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771505</id>
	<title>Re:China</title>
	<author>PeeShootr</author>
	<datestamp>1255722300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>How clueless are you?  Do you think that Soldiers write all the software for the military?  Do you think that they build all of the ships and planes?

It's called the military INDUSTRIAL complex for fucks sake.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How clueless are you ?
Do you think that Soldiers write all the software for the military ?
Do you think that they build all of the ships and planes ?
It 's called the military INDUSTRIAL complex for fucks sake .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How clueless are you?
Do you think that Soldiers write all the software for the military?
Do you think that they build all of the ships and planes?
It's called the military INDUSTRIAL complex for fucks sake.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771135</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29772525</id>
	<title>Re:Is this FUCKING JOKE?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255684860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe your head is a little too close to your chair.</p><p>Compiler's not average, it blows away GCC in almost every aspect. Certainly speed of resulting code -- GCC can't optimize for dick.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe your head is a little too close to your chair.Compiler 's not average , it blows away GCC in almost every aspect .
Certainly speed of resulting code -- GCC ca n't optimize for dick .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe your head is a little too close to your chair.Compiler's not average, it blows away GCC in almost every aspect.
Certainly speed of resulting code -- GCC can't optimize for dick.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771045</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29772871</id>
	<title>Re:Bottom line</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255686720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>If it doesn't improve it, I claim it won't be military friendly.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If it does n't improve it , I claim it wo n't be military friendly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it doesn't improve it, I claim it won't be military friendly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771003</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29774789</id>
	<title>Fuck the Military-Industrial Complex</title>
	<author>isochroma</author>
	<datestamp>1255701180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Fuck the military-industrial complex and give the money back to the people!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fuck the military-industrial complex and give the money back to the people !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fuck the military-industrial complex and give the money back to the people!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29775891</id>
	<title>Woot, microsoft, yeah!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255719360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reinventing the internet.  New tubes!  NetBeui 2.0, now with DRM!  Oh boy, I can't wait!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reinventing the internet .
New tubes !
NetBeui 2.0 , now with DRM !
Oh boy , I ca n't wait !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reinventing the internet.
New tubes!
NetBeui 2.0, now with DRM!
Oh boy, I can't wait!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29774133</id>
	<title>Re:Skynet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255695300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Essentialy, it is China and Russia's wet dreams come true!</i></p><p>Russia's and China's computing infrastructure is just as buggy, they just get to lock up people who report it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Essentialy , it is China and Russia 's wet dreams come true ! Russia 's and China 's computing infrastructure is just as buggy , they just get to lock up people who report it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Essentialy, it is China and Russia's wet dreams come true!Russia's and China's computing infrastructure is just as buggy, they just get to lock up people who report it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771315</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771087</id>
	<title>Surprised this one wasn't first</title>
	<author>Drunken Buddhist</author>
	<datestamp>1255720140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And Al Gore could not be reached for comment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And Al Gore could not be reached for comment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And Al Gore could not be reached for comment.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29773237</id>
	<title>What about SCTP?</title>
	<author>iSzabo</author>
	<datestamp>1255689000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously, it's been around for some time now, and it wouldn't require much to change in the application side.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , it 's been around for some time now , and it would n't require much to change in the application side .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, it's been around for some time now, and it wouldn't require much to change in the application side.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29772687</id>
	<title>TCP/IP Meets AUTOVON</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255685700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>'Nuff said.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'Nuff said .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'Nuff said.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29772819</id>
	<title>How to earn $31 million</title>
	<author>Bysshe</author>
	<datestamp>1255686480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Easy: big button labeled "start"</htmltext>
<tokenext>Easy : big button labeled " start "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Easy: big button labeled "start"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771255</id>
	<title>Re:Bottom line</title>
	<author>Nerdfest</author>
	<datestamp>1255720860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't ask, don't tell.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't ask , do n't tell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't ask, don't tell.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771003</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29772319</id>
	<title>Re:Is this FUCKING JOKE?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255683660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Which server software are you talking about?</p><p>I know it's slashdot and all but some specifics would be nice or one might accuse one of blatant karma-whoring.</p><p>Active Directory is a good example of something Microsoft got right (among others).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which server software are you talking about ? I know it 's slashdot and all but some specifics would be nice or one might accuse one of blatant karma-whoring.Active Directory is a good example of something Microsoft got right ( among others ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which server software are you talking about?I know it's slashdot and all but some specifics would be nice or one might accuse one of blatant karma-whoring.Active Directory is a good example of something Microsoft got right (among others).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771045</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29775671</id>
	<title>daedlanth</title>
	<author>daedlanth</author>
	<datestamp>1255714620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Should I laugh now, or later. Hehe I made my login on Slashdot just to say that; After I have been watching it for years. DARPA, DARPA, offend thy maker.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Should I laugh now , or later .
Hehe I made my login on Slashdot just to say that ; After I have been watching it for years .
DARPA , DARPA , offend thy maker .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Should I laugh now, or later.
Hehe I made my login on Slashdot just to say that; After I have been watching it for years.
DARPA, DARPA, offend thy maker.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771195</id>
	<title>Misleading</title>
	<author>kevin\_conaway</author>
	<datestamp>1255720620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From reading the actual <a href="https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&amp;mode=form&amp;tab=core&amp;id=c672eaa4e4033419f46d07837fcdbe79&amp;\_cview=0" title="fbo.gov">BAA</a> [fbo.gov], it sounds like this is not an effort to replace IP networks but to supplement them with additional protocols.  In fact, the requirements explicitly state that MNP must carry legacy IPv4 and IPv6 traffic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From reading the actual BAA [ fbo.gov ] , it sounds like this is not an effort to replace IP networks but to supplement them with additional protocols .
In fact , the requirements explicitly state that MNP must carry legacy IPv4 and IPv6 traffic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From reading the actual BAA [fbo.gov], it sounds like this is not an effort to replace IP networks but to supplement them with additional protocols.
In fact, the requirements explicitly state that MNP must carry legacy IPv4 and IPv6 traffic.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29775865</id>
	<title>Obama</title>
	<author>gearloos</author>
	<datestamp>1255718640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>First Obama's UN speech and now the military using Microsoft.. this country truly is in serious trouble.</htmltext>
<tokenext>First Obama 's UN speech and now the military using Microsoft.. this country truly is in serious trouble .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First Obama's UN speech and now the military using Microsoft.. this country truly is in serious trouble.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771135</id>
	<title>China</title>
	<author>Krneki</author>
	<datestamp>1255720380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>In another news, China buys 60\% of Microsoft shares.<br><br>How the hell can you trust a corporation to handle the military security? No really, who the fuck had this brilliant idea?</htmltext>
<tokenext>In another news , China buys 60 \ % of Microsoft shares.How the hell can you trust a corporation to handle the military security ?
No really , who the fuck had this brilliant idea ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In another news, China buys 60\% of Microsoft shares.How the hell can you trust a corporation to handle the military security?
No really, who the fuck had this brilliant idea?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29772407</id>
	<title>Re:Is this FUCKING JOKE?</title>
	<author>Ungrounded Lightning</author>
	<datestamp>1255684140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Why are you talking about Microsoft like it's alive?</i></p><p>Corporations (like governments, organized religions, and a number of other kinds of human organizations) meet essentially all the (non biochemical-chauvinistic) definitions of lifeforms.  The legal definition of "person" was also expanded to include corporations.</p><p>So why shouldn't he talk about Micro$oft that way?  B-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why are you talking about Microsoft like it 's alive ? Corporations ( like governments , organized religions , and a number of other kinds of human organizations ) meet essentially all the ( non biochemical-chauvinistic ) definitions of lifeforms .
The legal definition of " person " was also expanded to include corporations.So why should n't he talk about Micro $ oft that way ?
B- )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why are you talking about Microsoft like it's alive?Corporations (like governments, organized religions, and a number of other kinds of human organizations) meet essentially all the (non biochemical-chauvinistic) definitions of lifeforms.
The legal definition of "person" was also expanded to include corporations.So why shouldn't he talk about Micro$oft that way?
B-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771291</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771581</id>
	<title>Re:So...IPv6 then?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255722720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Of course, all that they shave off will likely be replaced with Microsoft bloat...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , all that they shave off will likely be replaced with Microsoft bloat.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, all that they shave off will likely be replaced with Microsoft bloat...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771163</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1614205_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771017
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29772331
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1614205_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771059
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771345
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1614205_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771017
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771209
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1614205_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29776117
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1614205_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771239
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29778463
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1614205_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771203
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29774205
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1614205_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29770971
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771779
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1614205_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29770971
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771581
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1614205_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29770985
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29772375
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1614205_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771199
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1614205_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29772133
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1614205_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29772775
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29779043
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29810279
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1614205_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771137
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29772761
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1614205_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771447
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1614205_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29770989
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29777151
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1614205_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771137
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29772069
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1614205_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771427
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1614205_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29772957
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1614205_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29770985
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29772403
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1614205_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771135
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29772389
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1614205_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771017
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771295
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29775917
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1614205_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771135
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29773143
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1614205_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771291
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29774001
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1614205_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771291
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29772407
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1614205_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771291
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29774215
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1614205_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771291
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29774015
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1614205_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771059
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771381
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29782869
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1614205_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771037
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771535
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1614205_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29770985
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29772265
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1614205_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771135
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29772751
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1614205_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29774795
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1614205_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771839
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1614205_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771137
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29774423
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1614205_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771135
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771667
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1614205_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29772319
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1614205_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29770985
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29784341
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1614205_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771135
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29774041
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1614205_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771137
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29773179
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1614205_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771059
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771289
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771421
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1614205_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29772121
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1614205_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29773315
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1614205_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771291
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771449
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1614205_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29777207
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1614205_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771059
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29772361
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1614205_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771291
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29772317
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1614205_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29773969
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1614205_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771531
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1614205_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771135
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771505
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1614205_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771059
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771381
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29784179
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1614205_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29772525
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1614205_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771017
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29772097
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1614205_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29795605
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1614205_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771137
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29772173
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1614205_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29770971
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29773147
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1614205_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29772871
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1614205_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771059
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771289
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771425
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1614205_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29770985
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29774133
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1614205_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29770985
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29772517
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1614205_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29770985
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29776539
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1614205_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771255
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1614205_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771017
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771295
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29773603
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1614205_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29770985
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29773635
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_16_1614205_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771713
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_1614205.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29770947
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_1614205.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29770991
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_1614205.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771003
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771531
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771427
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771199
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29772871
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29773969
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29772775
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29779043
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29810279
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771255
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_1614205.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29770985
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29784341
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771315
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29772265
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29774133
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29772517
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29776539
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29772403
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29772375
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29773635
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_1614205.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771149
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_1614205.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771059
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771381
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29784179
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29782869
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771289
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771421
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771425
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771345
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29772361
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_1614205.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29770989
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29777151
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_1614205.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771195
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_1614205.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29770961
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_1614205.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29772449
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_1614205.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771045
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29777207
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29795605
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29773315
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771447
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29772319
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771839
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771203
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29774205
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29772525
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29772133
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771291
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29772317
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29774001
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29774215
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29774015
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29772407
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771449
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29774795
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29772121
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_1614205.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771017
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29772097
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771295
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29773603
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29775917
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29772331
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771209
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_1614205.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771239
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29778463
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_1614205.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771099
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_1614205.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771137
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29774423
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29772173
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29773179
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29772761
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29772069
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_1614205.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771037
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771535
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_1614205.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29772589
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_1614205.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771191
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29776117
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29772957
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771713
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_1614205.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771177
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_1614205.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29770971
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771163
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29773147
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771581
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771779
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_16_1614205.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771135
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29773143
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771667
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29772389
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29772751
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29774041
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_16_1614205.29771505
</commentlist>
</conversation>
