<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_17_1115205</id>
	<title>Kaspersky CEO Wants End To Online Anonymity</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1255785480000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Andorin writes <i>"Eugene Kaspersky, CEO of well-known computer security company Kaspersky Labs, is calling for <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/16/kaspersky\_rebukes\_net\_anonymity/">an end to the anonymity of the Internet</a>, and for the creation of mandatory 'Internet passports' for anyone who wishes to browse the Web. Says Kaspersky, 'Everyone <a href="http://www.zdnetasia.com/insight/security/0,39044829,62058697,00.htm">should and must have an identification</a>, or internet passport ... the internet was designed not for public use, but for American scientists and the US military. Then it was introduced to the public, and it was wrong ... to introduce it in the same way.' He calls anonymity 'the Internet's biggest security vulnerability' and thinks any country that doesn't follow this regime should be 'cut off.' The EFF objects, and it's likely that they won't be the only ones."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Andorin writes " Eugene Kaspersky , CEO of well-known computer security company Kaspersky Labs , is calling for an end to the anonymity of the Internet , and for the creation of mandatory 'Internet passports ' for anyone who wishes to browse the Web .
Says Kaspersky , 'Everyone should and must have an identification , or internet passport ... the internet was designed not for public use , but for American scientists and the US military .
Then it was introduced to the public , and it was wrong ... to introduce it in the same way .
' He calls anonymity 'the Internet 's biggest security vulnerability ' and thinks any country that does n't follow this regime should be 'cut off .
' The EFF objects , and it 's likely that they wo n't be the only ones .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Andorin writes "Eugene Kaspersky, CEO of well-known computer security company Kaspersky Labs, is calling for an end to the anonymity of the Internet, and for the creation of mandatory 'Internet passports' for anyone who wishes to browse the Web.
Says Kaspersky, 'Everyone should and must have an identification, or internet passport ... the internet was designed not for public use, but for American scientists and the US military.
Then it was introduced to the public, and it was wrong ... to introduce it in the same way.
' He calls anonymity 'the Internet's biggest security vulnerability' and thinks any country that doesn't follow this regime should be 'cut off.
' The EFF objects, and it's likely that they won't be the only ones.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777895</id>
	<title>Complete Morons In Positions of Power</title>
	<author>flyneye</author>
	<datestamp>1255797840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With winning ideas like that he should be Hillary Clintons fluffer.<br>Comrade Kapersky had best stay out of my arms reach.<br>F**king moron.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With winning ideas like that he should be Hillary Clintons fluffer.Comrade Kapersky had best stay out of my arms reach.F * * king moron .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With winning ideas like that he should be Hillary Clintons fluffer.Comrade Kapersky had best stay out of my arms reach.F**king moron.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29781481</id>
	<title>I guess we won't be renewing..</title>
	<author>qkslvr</author>
	<datestamp>1255792260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>..our 125 licenses of kaspersky...  I'll have to find another desktop antivirus...  damnit...</htmltext>
<tokenext>..our 125 licenses of kaspersky... I 'll have to find another desktop antivirus... damnit.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>..our 125 licenses of kaspersky...  I'll have to find another desktop antivirus...  damnit...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777973</id>
	<title>Re:As you might expect</title>
	<author>The Archon V2.0</author>
	<datestamp>1255798560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Security expert wants a more secure system.  Freedom experts want a free system.  Unsurprisingly these two views clash - because they are designing things for different use cases.</p></div><p>Security and freedom are not diametrically opposed. The only freedom the lock on my door prohibits is the freedom of crooks and weirdos to mess with my stuff.</p><p>

On the other hand, the only security de-anonymizing the Internet provides is the security that people unwilling to break the law won't break it. Assuming only the government will have access to the unfiltered user info*, what will happen is this: Regular law-abiding people will continue to be law-abiding people, crooks will steal "Internet identities" and use them to do bad things just like they steal real-world identities and use them to do bad things now, and people who have reason to fear their government will have MORE reason to fear their government. So on the whole you wind up with good guys still being good guys, bad guys still being bad guys, and the powerful being <i>more</i> powerful. This is no improvement.</p><p>

(* There's a thought - who will have access to all the nice personally identifiable information? If your IP address is bound irrevocably to you then there needs to be a central database that translates IP into name/address. Who has access to this database? Who maintains it? Who fixes errors?)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Security expert wants a more secure system .
Freedom experts want a free system .
Unsurprisingly these two views clash - because they are designing things for different use cases.Security and freedom are not diametrically opposed .
The only freedom the lock on my door prohibits is the freedom of crooks and weirdos to mess with my stuff .
On the other hand , the only security de-anonymizing the Internet provides is the security that people unwilling to break the law wo n't break it .
Assuming only the government will have access to the unfiltered user info * , what will happen is this : Regular law-abiding people will continue to be law-abiding people , crooks will steal " Internet identities " and use them to do bad things just like they steal real-world identities and use them to do bad things now , and people who have reason to fear their government will have MORE reason to fear their government .
So on the whole you wind up with good guys still being good guys , bad guys still being bad guys , and the powerful being more powerful .
This is no improvement .
( * There 's a thought - who will have access to all the nice personally identifiable information ?
If your IP address is bound irrevocably to you then there needs to be a central database that translates IP into name/address .
Who has access to this database ?
Who maintains it ?
Who fixes errors ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Security expert wants a more secure system.
Freedom experts want a free system.
Unsurprisingly these two views clash - because they are designing things for different use cases.Security and freedom are not diametrically opposed.
The only freedom the lock on my door prohibits is the freedom of crooks and weirdos to mess with my stuff.
On the other hand, the only security de-anonymizing the Internet provides is the security that people unwilling to break the law won't break it.
Assuming only the government will have access to the unfiltered user info*, what will happen is this: Regular law-abiding people will continue to be law-abiding people, crooks will steal "Internet identities" and use them to do bad things just like they steal real-world identities and use them to do bad things now, and people who have reason to fear their government will have MORE reason to fear their government.
So on the whole you wind up with good guys still being good guys, bad guys still being bad guys, and the powerful being more powerful.
This is no improvement.
(* There's a thought - who will have access to all the nice personally identifiable information?
If your IP address is bound irrevocably to you then there needs to be a central database that translates IP into name/address.
Who has access to this database?
Who maintains it?
Who fixes errors?
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777287</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29783365</id>
	<title>Wow...</title>
	<author>TheReal\_sabret00the</author>
	<datestamp>1255871520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How to lose credibility in a day or less.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How to lose credibility in a day or less .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How to lose credibility in a day or less.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777399</id>
	<title>End Kapersky</title>
	<author>BrendaEM</author>
	<datestamp>1255792860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We live in an interesting time when the power of information that has far exceeded proper checks and balances, but a great protection people have from the ignorant ideas of the past--is anonymity.</p><p>Send a message to Kapersky that access to the Internet has become more a right then a privilege--by ending his company from whatever legal means possible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We live in an interesting time when the power of information that has far exceeded proper checks and balances , but a great protection people have from the ignorant ideas of the past--is anonymity.Send a message to Kapersky that access to the Internet has become more a right then a privilege--by ending his company from whatever legal means possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We live in an interesting time when the power of information that has far exceeded proper checks and balances, but a great protection people have from the ignorant ideas of the past--is anonymity.Send a message to Kapersky that access to the Internet has become more a right then a privilege--by ending his company from whatever legal means possible.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777305</id>
	<title>Re:"Papers Please"</title>
	<author>tkinnun0</author>
	<datestamp>1255792140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No it doesn't, so there's no reason NOT to require passports (aside from the slight inconvenience).</htmltext>
<tokenext>No it does n't , so there 's no reason NOT to require passports ( aside from the slight inconvenience ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No it doesn't, so there's no reason NOT to require passports (aside from the slight inconvenience).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29776951</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777293</id>
	<title>Yay for identity theft</title>
	<author>amazeofdeath</author>
	<datestamp>1255791960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hopefully this will happen, so my a-hole neighbour can finally be responsible for what I do online.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hopefully this will happen , so my a-hole neighbour can finally be responsible for what I do online .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hopefully this will happen, so my a-hole neighbour can finally be responsible for what I do online.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29781801</id>
	<title>That's a company I'll never do business with again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255798320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Amazing how stupid people can be in the pursuit of one idea, forgetting all the problems that this will cause.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Amazing how stupid people can be in the pursuit of one idea , forgetting all the problems that this will cause .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amazing how stupid people can be in the pursuit of one idea, forgetting all the problems that this will cause.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29784637</id>
	<title>Cue the ignorant masses.</title>
	<author>\_0rm\_</author>
	<datestamp>1255884780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The sad thing about this is that the majority of people who have no clue how anything on the internet works are going to jump on what he says like flies and stink on shit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The sad thing about this is that the majority of people who have no clue how anything on the internet works are going to jump on what he says like flies and stink on shit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The sad thing about this is that the majority of people who have no clue how anything on the internet works are going to jump on what he says like flies and stink on shit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29781193</id>
	<title>It's been a while.  Let's use this old gem again</title>
	<author>symbolset</author>
	<datestamp>1255788180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <tt>Your post advocates a<br> <br>( ) technical (x) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante<br> <br>approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)<br> <br>( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses<br>(x) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected<br>(x) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money<br>( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks<br>(x) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it<br>(x) Users of email will not put up with it<br>( ) Microsoft will not put up with it<br>( ) The police will not put up with it<br>(x) Requires too much cooperation from spammers<br>(x) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once<br>(x) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers<br>(x) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists<br>( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business<br> <br>Specifically, your plan fails to account for<br> <br>(x) Laws expressly prohibiting it<br>( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email<br>(x) Open relays in foreign countries<br>( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses<br>( ) Asshats<br>(x) Jurisdictional problems<br>( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes<br>( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money<br>(x) Huge existing software investment in SMTP<br>(x) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack<br>( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email<br>( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes<br>( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches<br>( ) Extreme profitability of spam<br>( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft<br>(x) Technically illiterate politicians<br>(x) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers<br>( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves<br>( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering<br>( ) Outlook<br> <br>and the following philosophical objections may also apply:<br> <br>(x) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever<br>been shown practical<br>( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable<br>(x) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation<br>( ) Blacklists suck<br>(x) Whitelists suck<br>(x) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored<br>( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud<br>(x) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks<br>( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually<br>(x) Sending email should be free<br>(x) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?<br>(x) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses<br>(x) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem<br>( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome<br>(x) I don't want the government reading my email<br>( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough<br> <br>Furthermore, this is what I think about you:<br> <br>(x) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.<br>( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.<br>( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!</tt></p></div> </blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your post advocates a ( ) technical ( x ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante approach to fighting spam .
Your idea will not work .
Here is why it wo n't work .
( One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea , and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed .
) ( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses ( x ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected ( x ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money ( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks ( x ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we 'll be stuck with it ( x ) Users of email will not put up with it ( ) Microsoft will not put up with it ( ) The police will not put up with it ( x ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers ( x ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once ( x ) Many email users can not afford to lose business or alienate potential employers ( x ) Spammers do n't care about invalid addresses in their lists ( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else 's career or business Specifically , your plan fails to account for ( x ) Laws expressly prohibiting it ( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email ( x ) Open relays in foreign countries ( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses ( ) Asshats ( x ) Jurisdictional problems ( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes ( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money ( x ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP ( x ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack ( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email ( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes ( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches ( ) Extreme profitability of spam ( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft ( x ) Technically illiterate politicians ( x ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers ( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves ( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering ( ) Outlook and the following philosophical objections may also apply : ( x ) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with , yet none have everbeen shown practical ( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable ( x ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation ( ) Blacklists suck ( x ) Whitelists suck ( x ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored ( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud ( x ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks ( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually ( x ) Sending email should be free ( x ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers ?
( x ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses ( x ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem ( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome ( x ) I do n't want the government reading my email ( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough Furthermore , this is what I think about you : ( x ) Sorry dude , but I do n't think it would work .
( ) This is a stupid idea , and you 're a stupid person for suggesting it .
( ) Nice try , assh0le !
I 'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down !</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Your post advocates a ( ) technical (x) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante approach to fighting spam.
Your idea will not work.
Here is why it won't work.
(One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.
) ( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses(x) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected(x) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks(x) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it(x) Users of email will not put up with it( ) Microsoft will not put up with it( ) The police will not put up with it(x) Requires too much cooperation from spammers(x) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once(x) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers(x) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business Specifically, your plan fails to account for (x) Laws expressly prohibiting it( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email(x) Open relays in foreign countries( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses( ) Asshats(x) Jurisdictional problems( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money(x) Huge existing software investment in SMTP(x) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches( ) Extreme profitability of spam( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft(x) Technically illiterate politicians(x) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering( ) Outlook and the following philosophical objections may also apply: (x) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have everbeen shown practical( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable(x) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation( ) Blacklists suck(x) Whitelists suck(x) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud(x) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually(x) Sending email should be free(x) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
(x) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses(x) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome(x) I don't want the government reading my email( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough Furthermore, this is what I think about you: (x) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le!
I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down! 
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777247</id>
	<title>Look at his personal history</title>
	<author>Thad Zurich</author>
	<datestamp>1255791540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't buy the Wikipedia claim that Kaspersky "worked at a multi-discipline scientific research institute", unless you consider KGB's R&amp;D organization to meet that criterion (well OK, it probably does). This appears to be a person dedicated to advancing a political agenda that does not permit dissent.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't buy the Wikipedia claim that Kaspersky " worked at a multi-discipline scientific research institute " , unless you consider KGB 's R&amp;D organization to meet that criterion ( well OK , it probably does ) .
This appears to be a person dedicated to advancing a political agenda that does not permit dissent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't buy the Wikipedia claim that Kaspersky "worked at a multi-discipline scientific research institute", unless you consider KGB's R&amp;D organization to meet that criterion (well OK, it probably does).
This appears to be a person dedicated to advancing a political agenda that does not permit dissent.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29793325</id>
	<title>Re:Look at his personal history</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255963620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I don't buy the Wikipedia claim that Kaspersky "worked at a multi-discipline scientific research institute"</i></p><p>He doesn't.  Microsoft shills and marketeers are trying to pass themselves of as 'researchers' in able to be able to roust computer science and legitimate researchers from Universities.  That makes classroms captive audiences and can prevent any barriers like facts from interfering with Microsoft sales...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't buy the Wikipedia claim that Kaspersky " worked at a multi-discipline scientific research institute " He does n't .
Microsoft shills and marketeers are trying to pass themselves of as 'researchers ' in able to be able to roust computer science and legitimate researchers from Universities .
That makes classroms captive audiences and can prevent any barriers like facts from interfering with Microsoft sales.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't buy the Wikipedia claim that Kaspersky "worked at a multi-discipline scientific research institute"He doesn't.
Microsoft shills and marketeers are trying to pass themselves of as 'researchers' in able to be able to roust computer science and legitimate researchers from Universities.
That makes classroms captive audiences and can prevent any barriers like facts from interfering with Microsoft sales...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777247</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29799361</id>
	<title>blame</title>
	<author>Ofloo</author>
	<datestamp>1255943760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>all this guy wants is some where to point his finger on who was responsible,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. this is crap what about identity theft,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. security is an illusion,

update your system on a regular basis
don't trust email
don't trust websites
only install what you need don't run services you don't know or don't need

these are the most common rules to keep a system safe, being able to identify who is connecting where will not and won't ever contribute to security,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. computers could be abused,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. the only thing this is going to do is create a way to accuse people who might be ignorant to the fact that they are being abused,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..

Security experts/administrators/.. already can contact an ISP and report abuse from specific IP, but they are to lazy to do so, they rather block the IP or even an entire netblock before they contact an ISP,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. would one think this would be any different when it comes to identity,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..

I think that this CEO who claims to be an security expert is as ignorant as the average internet user,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. the only message i can give him is to educate himself before he himself gets infected, because to me this sounds very likely, otherwise he wouldn't make such ignorant claims.</htmltext>
<tokenext>all this guy wants is some where to point his finger on who was responsible , .. this is crap what about identity theft , .. security is an illusion , update your system on a regular basis do n't trust email do n't trust websites only install what you need do n't run services you do n't know or do n't need these are the most common rules to keep a system safe , being able to identify who is connecting where will not and wo n't ever contribute to security , .. computers could be abused , .. the only thing this is going to do is create a way to accuse people who might be ignorant to the fact that they are being abused , . . Security experts/administrators/.. already can contact an ISP and report abuse from specific IP , but they are to lazy to do so , they rather block the IP or even an entire netblock before they contact an ISP , .. would one think this would be any different when it comes to identity , . . I think that this CEO who claims to be an security expert is as ignorant as the average internet user , .. the only message i can give him is to educate himself before he himself gets infected , because to me this sounds very likely , otherwise he would n't make such ignorant claims .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>all this guy wants is some where to point his finger on who was responsible, .. this is crap what about identity theft, .. security is an illusion,

update your system on a regular basis
don't trust email
don't trust websites
only install what you need don't run services you don't know or don't need

these are the most common rules to keep a system safe, being able to identify who is connecting where will not and won't ever contribute to security, .. computers could be abused, .. the only thing this is going to do is create a way to accuse people who might be ignorant to the fact that they are being abused, ..

Security experts/administrators/.. already can contact an ISP and report abuse from specific IP, but they are to lazy to do so, they rather block the IP or even an entire netblock before they contact an ISP, .. would one think this would be any different when it comes to identity, ..

I think that this CEO who claims to be an security expert is as ignorant as the average internet user, .. the only message i can give him is to educate himself before he himself gets infected, because to me this sounds very likely, otherwise he wouldn't make such ignorant claims.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777007</id>
	<title>Guess who's security software I won't be buying?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255789680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This guy apparently doesn't understand that for many, anonymity is a security <strong>feature</strong>.</p><p>Anonymity is prone to abuse, sure, but it is vital for free exchange of ideas.  People who are identifiable are less likely to make risky statements, and this is detrimental to culture.  Repression and oppression should not be the goal of Security.</p><p>Beyond that, not everything on the internet is a person.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This guy apparently does n't understand that for many , anonymity is a security feature.Anonymity is prone to abuse , sure , but it is vital for free exchange of ideas .
People who are identifiable are less likely to make risky statements , and this is detrimental to culture .
Repression and oppression should not be the goal of Security.Beyond that , not everything on the internet is a person .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This guy apparently doesn't understand that for many, anonymity is a security feature.Anonymity is prone to abuse, sure, but it is vital for free exchange of ideas.
People who are identifiable are less likely to make risky statements, and this is detrimental to culture.
Repression and oppression should not be the goal of Security.Beyond that, not everything on the internet is a person.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777569</id>
	<title>I'll Take Both, Thanks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255794300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd like a web that had both anonymity and identification.  If a web site requires that people be willing to identify themselves, it says as much.  My identification would be supplied and I would have access.  Other web sites would not require identification and folks could continue anonymously.</p><p>I'm of the opinion that even identification should have various levels of security, including the one where the web site operator can know that I am user 9238759 and should be visually presented as a certain text or graphic on the web site, but not know anything other than that.  If they have a problem with me, they can reference that user number to begin actions against me.</p><p>A major challenge that others have alluded to is that of ensuring a one-to-one relationship between people and web ids.</p><p>I am an Anonymous Coward right now because I don't feel like creating Yet Another Account.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd like a web that had both anonymity and identification .
If a web site requires that people be willing to identify themselves , it says as much .
My identification would be supplied and I would have access .
Other web sites would not require identification and folks could continue anonymously.I 'm of the opinion that even identification should have various levels of security , including the one where the web site operator can know that I am user 9238759 and should be visually presented as a certain text or graphic on the web site , but not know anything other than that .
If they have a problem with me , they can reference that user number to begin actions against me.A major challenge that others have alluded to is that of ensuring a one-to-one relationship between people and web ids.I am an Anonymous Coward right now because I do n't feel like creating Yet Another Account .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd like a web that had both anonymity and identification.
If a web site requires that people be willing to identify themselves, it says as much.
My identification would be supplied and I would have access.
Other web sites would not require identification and folks could continue anonymously.I'm of the opinion that even identification should have various levels of security, including the one where the web site operator can know that I am user 9238759 and should be visually presented as a certain text or graphic on the web site, but not know anything other than that.
If they have a problem with me, they can reference that user number to begin actions against me.A major challenge that others have alluded to is that of ensuring a one-to-one relationship between people and web ids.I am an Anonymous Coward right now because I don't feel like creating Yet Another Account.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29781559</id>
	<title>Re:Guess who's security software I won't be buying</title>
	<author>marm</author>
	<datestamp>1255793820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>His statements single-handedly changed my perception of the brand "Kaspersky" from "respected maker of Windows antivirus software" to "worse than Microsoft AIDS"</p></div><p>Agreed.  Way to screw your business up good and proper.  I'm sure Kaspersky is still effective antivirus, but I sure as hell won't be evaluating it now.  Remarkable how few corporate antivirus programs combine not creepy, effective, and reasonably resource-friendly.  Now I'm down to F-Prot, Sophos, ESET and Avira.  Clam's not bad (I use it at home and on mailservers) but I need something with realtime scanning, backed by a company that's been doing it for a few years.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Then again, I wasn't really in his potential customer pool to begin with</p></div><p>I am, I specify my company's antivirus solution.  Kaspersky got crossed off my list to replace the McAfee crap we're dumping.  I think I'm probably going to choose F-Prot, it's a highly competent product and I think my government screwed over the lovely little country of Iceland unnecessarily last year: I'd like to make some kind of amends for that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>His statements single-handedly changed my perception of the brand " Kaspersky " from " respected maker of Windows antivirus software " to " worse than Microsoft AIDS " Agreed .
Way to screw your business up good and proper .
I 'm sure Kaspersky is still effective antivirus , but I sure as hell wo n't be evaluating it now .
Remarkable how few corporate antivirus programs combine not creepy , effective , and reasonably resource-friendly .
Now I 'm down to F-Prot , Sophos , ESET and Avira .
Clam 's not bad ( I use it at home and on mailservers ) but I need something with realtime scanning , backed by a company that 's been doing it for a few years.Then again , I was n't really in his potential customer pool to begin withI am , I specify my company 's antivirus solution .
Kaspersky got crossed off my list to replace the McAfee crap we 're dumping .
I think I 'm probably going to choose F-Prot , it 's a highly competent product and I think my government screwed over the lovely little country of Iceland unnecessarily last year : I 'd like to make some kind of amends for that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>His statements single-handedly changed my perception of the brand "Kaspersky" from "respected maker of Windows antivirus software" to "worse than Microsoft AIDS"Agreed.
Way to screw your business up good and proper.
I'm sure Kaspersky is still effective antivirus, but I sure as hell won't be evaluating it now.
Remarkable how few corporate antivirus programs combine not creepy, effective, and reasonably resource-friendly.
Now I'm down to F-Prot, Sophos, ESET and Avira.
Clam's not bad (I use it at home and on mailservers) but I need something with realtime scanning, backed by a company that's been doing it for a few years.Then again, I wasn't really in his potential customer pool to begin withI am, I specify my company's antivirus solution.
Kaspersky got crossed off my list to replace the McAfee crap we're dumping.
I think I'm probably going to choose F-Prot, it's a highly competent product and I think my government screwed over the lovely little country of Iceland unnecessarily last year: I'd like to make some kind of amends for that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778091</id>
	<title>Whatever he's drinking...</title>
	<author>johsve</author>
	<datestamp>1255799700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...I want that too!</htmltext>
<tokenext>...I want that too !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...I want that too!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29781569</id>
	<title>Kaspersky CEO wants more money</title>
	<author>billcopc</author>
	<datestamp>1255794240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The real meat of the matter here is this Kaspersky guy's business is kind of in the dumps.  He's being eaten alive by AVG and Clam, so a bit of trolling gets his name around the e-rags and a few people go "WOW they're still around ?  ZOMG I'll try their A/V again".</p><p>If Kaspersky "ends online anonymity", they will end their revenue stream.  It would seem logical that a company thriving off the constant threat of malware, would not want to see that malware willed away via draconian ID mandates and exclusionary tactics.  Then we'll all know the Kaspersky guys were the ones writing viruses all along...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The real meat of the matter here is this Kaspersky guy 's business is kind of in the dumps .
He 's being eaten alive by AVG and Clam , so a bit of trolling gets his name around the e-rags and a few people go " WOW they 're still around ?
ZOMG I 'll try their A/V again " .If Kaspersky " ends online anonymity " , they will end their revenue stream .
It would seem logical that a company thriving off the constant threat of malware , would not want to see that malware willed away via draconian ID mandates and exclusionary tactics .
Then we 'll all know the Kaspersky guys were the ones writing viruses all along.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real meat of the matter here is this Kaspersky guy's business is kind of in the dumps.
He's being eaten alive by AVG and Clam, so a bit of trolling gets his name around the e-rags and a few people go "WOW they're still around ?
ZOMG I'll try their A/V again".If Kaspersky "ends online anonymity", they will end their revenue stream.
It would seem logical that a company thriving off the constant threat of malware, would not want to see that malware willed away via draconian ID mandates and exclusionary tactics.
Then we'll all know the Kaspersky guys were the ones writing viruses all along...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778389</id>
	<title>Token theft made more dangerous</title>
	<author>Sleen</author>
	<datestamp>1255802460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think Kaspersky's response through inverse advertizing is valid.  He is advertizing that he cares and that through altruism uses rationality and produces security tools that help.  As opposed to exploit.  I think he has valid reasons to communicate this to the general public and considered marketing to some extent.  He should also as a vendor of security products be asymmetrically on the side of the user, as I am, in representing good decisions.</p><p>Specifically there is a balance that must be struck and why the internet came to exist, survived and expanded so far.  The part about scientists and military - thats a distraction and artifact of intention and now fairy tale.  The beast has evolved and contains many more things and simultaneous intentions.</p><p>His proposal for trusted computing and human authentication is worthwhile and maybe will cause more people to compute with responsibility and not always be sheep.</p><p>But shifting the balance to this more strict authentication of humans on computer systems would bring about the dire consequence of token theft or compromise.  The damage and exploitation possible with this permanent token will be expanded and made more irreversible for the owner.  This is in direct contrast to dynamic authentication and a citizens right to alias as a self protective measure.</p><p>Citizens must alias.</p><p>To remove the condition of anonymity across all possible transactions is absurd and in itself a weakening of security principle.  I myself would like a system like this but its a classical or primordial arrangement for few participants.  At higher social order the system must accommodate election and the desire for members to establish trust through their actions rather than their tokens.</p><p>Security is no ones' problem but your own.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think Kaspersky 's response through inverse advertizing is valid .
He is advertizing that he cares and that through altruism uses rationality and produces security tools that help .
As opposed to exploit .
I think he has valid reasons to communicate this to the general public and considered marketing to some extent .
He should also as a vendor of security products be asymmetrically on the side of the user , as I am , in representing good decisions.Specifically there is a balance that must be struck and why the internet came to exist , survived and expanded so far .
The part about scientists and military - thats a distraction and artifact of intention and now fairy tale .
The beast has evolved and contains many more things and simultaneous intentions.His proposal for trusted computing and human authentication is worthwhile and maybe will cause more people to compute with responsibility and not always be sheep.But shifting the balance to this more strict authentication of humans on computer systems would bring about the dire consequence of token theft or compromise .
The damage and exploitation possible with this permanent token will be expanded and made more irreversible for the owner .
This is in direct contrast to dynamic authentication and a citizens right to alias as a self protective measure.Citizens must alias.To remove the condition of anonymity across all possible transactions is absurd and in itself a weakening of security principle .
I myself would like a system like this but its a classical or primordial arrangement for few participants .
At higher social order the system must accommodate election and the desire for members to establish trust through their actions rather than their tokens.Security is no ones ' problem but your own .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think Kaspersky's response through inverse advertizing is valid.
He is advertizing that he cares and that through altruism uses rationality and produces security tools that help.
As opposed to exploit.
I think he has valid reasons to communicate this to the general public and considered marketing to some extent.
He should also as a vendor of security products be asymmetrically on the side of the user, as I am, in representing good decisions.Specifically there is a balance that must be struck and why the internet came to exist, survived and expanded so far.
The part about scientists and military - thats a distraction and artifact of intention and now fairy tale.
The beast has evolved and contains many more things and simultaneous intentions.His proposal for trusted computing and human authentication is worthwhile and maybe will cause more people to compute with responsibility and not always be sheep.But shifting the balance to this more strict authentication of humans on computer systems would bring about the dire consequence of token theft or compromise.
The damage and exploitation possible with this permanent token will be expanded and made more irreversible for the owner.
This is in direct contrast to dynamic authentication and a citizens right to alias as a self protective measure.Citizens must alias.To remove the condition of anonymity across all possible transactions is absurd and in itself a weakening of security principle.
I myself would like a system like this but its a classical or primordial arrangement for few participants.
At higher social order the system must accommodate election and the desire for members to establish trust through their actions rather than their tokens.Security is no ones' problem but your own.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29781649</id>
	<title>Re:As you might expect</title>
	<author>cicho</author>
	<datestamp>1255795680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Security expert wants a more secure system. Freedom experts want a free system.<br>&gt; Unsurprisingly these two views clash</p><p>And there are technical reasons why they do - that's fine, that's tough, we understand the constraints. This isn't the problem.</p><p>The problem seems to be that some (many?) "security experts" do not **value** freedom - at all.</p><p>When you hear a government or a corporate official say "security", think "control". It makes things much clearer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Security expert wants a more secure system .
Freedom experts want a free system. &gt; Unsurprisingly these two views clashAnd there are technical reasons why they do - that 's fine , that 's tough , we understand the constraints .
This is n't the problem.The problem seems to be that some ( many ?
) " security experts " do not * * value * * freedom - at all.When you hear a government or a corporate official say " security " , think " control " .
It makes things much clearer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Security expert wants a more secure system.
Freedom experts want a free system.&gt; Unsurprisingly these two views clashAnd there are technical reasons why they do - that's fine, that's tough, we understand the constraints.
This isn't the problem.The problem seems to be that some (many?
) "security experts" do not **value** freedom - at all.When you hear a government or a corporate official say "security", think "control".
It makes things much clearer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777287</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777165</id>
	<title>Dualism</title>
	<author>renesch</author>
	<datestamp>1255790940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>quote: any country that doesn't follow this regime should be 'cut off.'

Shouldn't this rather read:
'any country that follows this regime will cut itself off' ?</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>quote : any country that does n't follow this regime should be 'cut off .
' Should n't this rather read : 'any country that follows this regime will cut itself off ' ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>quote: any country that doesn't follow this regime should be 'cut off.
'

Shouldn't this rather read:
'any country that follows this regime will cut itself off' ?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778375</id>
	<title>We should definitely do this</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1255802340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After all, why should the Internet be any different than every other communications network that we have or have ever had?</p><p>Take the telephone network... oh, wait.</p><p>Mail... oh, wait.</p><p>Pony express?  Runners?</p><p>Face-to-face oral communication?  Hey!  There's one!  (Finally)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After all , why should the Internet be any different than every other communications network that we have or have ever had ? Take the telephone network... oh , wait.Mail... oh , wait.Pony express ?
Runners ? Face-to-face oral communication ?
Hey ! There 's one !
( Finally )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After all, why should the Internet be any different than every other communications network that we have or have ever had?Take the telephone network... oh, wait.Mail... oh, wait.Pony express?
Runners?Face-to-face oral communication?
Hey!  There's one!
(Finally)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777931</id>
	<title>Dumb Idea, terrible Anti Virus software...</title>
	<author>Jackie\_Chan\_Fan</author>
	<datestamp>1255798200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I stopped using their Anti Virus software after i realized it turns your pc into a Kaspersky computer that runs everything else like crap due to its terrible resource usage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I stopped using their Anti Virus software after i realized it turns your pc into a Kaspersky computer that runs everything else like crap due to its terrible resource usage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I stopped using their Anti Virus software after i realized it turns your pc into a Kaspersky computer that runs everything else like crap due to its terrible resource usage.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29779535</id>
	<title>dystopia</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255770240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After people wise up. I would stop supporting all these one world government anti freedom and rights totalitarian banker groups.</p><p>Kaspersky is the most awlful product. If you do any form of benchmark you can see it clear as day having it on with default settings eats 50\% of your total internet bandwidth. Turn 99\% of features off drops that to 30\% but why install a product that lets you use only 70\% of what you pay for?</p><p>Never buying their shits and please don't be fooled into supporting dystopia. Only utopia for a million of worlds elites. If I'm on the top of the ponzi primid scheme I would be supporting it but thats evil.</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dystopia</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After people wise up .
I would stop supporting all these one world government anti freedom and rights totalitarian banker groups.Kaspersky is the most awlful product .
If you do any form of benchmark you can see it clear as day having it on with default settings eats 50 \ % of your total internet bandwidth .
Turn 99 \ % of features off drops that to 30 \ % but why install a product that lets you use only 70 \ % of what you pay for ? Never buying their shits and please do n't be fooled into supporting dystopia .
Only utopia for a million of worlds elites .
If I 'm on the top of the ponzi primid scheme I would be supporting it but thats evil.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dystopia</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After people wise up.
I would stop supporting all these one world government anti freedom and rights totalitarian banker groups.Kaspersky is the most awlful product.
If you do any form of benchmark you can see it clear as day having it on with default settings eats 50\% of your total internet bandwidth.
Turn 99\% of features off drops that to 30\% but why install a product that lets you use only 70\% of what you pay for?Never buying their shits and please don't be fooled into supporting dystopia.
Only utopia for a million of worlds elites.
If I'm on the top of the ponzi primid scheme I would be supporting it but thats evil.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dystopia</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777507</id>
	<title>Re:"work much like driver licenses do"</title>
	<author>arthurpaliden</author>
	<datestamp>1255793700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually in the southern United States the border police routinely put up check points tens of miles back from the border where you have to identify yourself.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually in the southern United States the border police routinely put up check points tens of miles back from the border where you have to identify yourself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually in the southern United States the border police routinely put up check points tens of miles back from the border where you have to identify yourself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777091</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29780141</id>
	<title>Looking from the other side at the quote...</title>
	<author>amn108</author>
	<datestamp>1255776240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Funny how he calls lack of anonymity the "biggest security vulnerability of Internet" Who's security? It is that very anonymity that protects thousands of Internet users from being identified and dealt with by whoever has most interest in them - a much graver danger than simply getting a computer virus. People blogging anonymously from conflict areas under threat of government prosecution, hired media journalists exposing stuff that should be exposed for benefit of all - that kind of anonymity can mean the difference between living and dying.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny how he calls lack of anonymity the " biggest security vulnerability of Internet " Who 's security ?
It is that very anonymity that protects thousands of Internet users from being identified and dealt with by whoever has most interest in them - a much graver danger than simply getting a computer virus .
People blogging anonymously from conflict areas under threat of government prosecution , hired media journalists exposing stuff that should be exposed for benefit of all - that kind of anonymity can mean the difference between living and dying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny how he calls lack of anonymity the "biggest security vulnerability of Internet" Who's security?
It is that very anonymity that protects thousands of Internet users from being identified and dealt with by whoever has most interest in them - a much graver danger than simply getting a computer virus.
People blogging anonymously from conflict areas under threat of government prosecution, hired media journalists exposing stuff that should be exposed for benefit of all - that kind of anonymity can mean the difference between living and dying.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777189</id>
	<title>It's called your ip</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255791120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ipv6 anyone?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ipv6 anyone ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ipv6 anyone?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777105</id>
	<title>If he wants to go there...</title>
	<author>NoYob</author>
	<datestamp>1255790460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The CEO of Russia's No. 1 anti-virus package has said that the internet's biggest security vulnerability is anonymity, calling for mandatory internet passports that would work much like driver licenses do in the offline world.</p></div><p><div class="quote"><p>"The internet was designed not for public use, but for American scientists and the US military. Then it was introduced to the public and it was wrong...to introduce it in the same way.</p></div><p>I wold like to point out that a <i>Russian</i> company wouldn't have any place either with a US Military controlled piece of technology. It sounds like what he's saying is the existence of his company is wrong.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The CEO of Russia 's No .
1 anti-virus package has said that the internet 's biggest security vulnerability is anonymity , calling for mandatory internet passports that would work much like driver licenses do in the offline world .
" The internet was designed not for public use , but for American scientists and the US military .
Then it was introduced to the public and it was wrong...to introduce it in the same way.I wold like to point out that a Russian company would n't have any place either with a US Military controlled piece of technology .
It sounds like what he 's saying is the existence of his company is wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The CEO of Russia's No.
1 anti-virus package has said that the internet's biggest security vulnerability is anonymity, calling for mandatory internet passports that would work much like driver licenses do in the offline world.
"The internet was designed not for public use, but for American scientists and the US military.
Then it was introduced to the public and it was wrong...to introduce it in the same way.I wold like to point out that a Russian company wouldn't have any place either with a US Military controlled piece of technology.
It sounds like what he's saying is the existence of his company is wrong.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29781959</id>
	<title>Bring on the Dark Nets</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255801140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Keep pushing the agenda and it will happen stupid governments it's all going to backfire on you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Keep pushing the agenda and it will happen stupid governments it 's all going to backfire on you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Keep pushing the agenda and it will happen stupid governments it's all going to backfire on you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29783333</id>
	<title>Global Internet security vigilantism?</title>
	<author>Max\_W</author>
	<datestamp>1255870860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We are to earn our money on the market. How to do this, how to work productively if every day we have got tons of messages from "banks" offering us big money, "lotteries" informing of wins? The work-flow is being constantly interrupted.</p><p>Let alone attacks on our websites.</p><p>It seems that the dissidents in exotic lands use the IP obfuscation software not in a way that it was generally hoped. Because regimes in those parts are not changing a bit, but the volume of spam and malware is only increasing.</p><p>Internet should remain anonymous and global, and the same time the fight against malware and spam should get global and also grassroots. Everyone should take part: patching an OS of a relative, installing anti-virus software, updating browsers and other programs, providing consultation on Internet security. There is a lot everyone of us can do.</p><p>If we do not do it ourselves, someone may start doing it "on our behalf" with an unpredictable outcome.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We are to earn our money on the market .
How to do this , how to work productively if every day we have got tons of messages from " banks " offering us big money , " lotteries " informing of wins ?
The work-flow is being constantly interrupted.Let alone attacks on our websites.It seems that the dissidents in exotic lands use the IP obfuscation software not in a way that it was generally hoped .
Because regimes in those parts are not changing a bit , but the volume of spam and malware is only increasing.Internet should remain anonymous and global , and the same time the fight against malware and spam should get global and also grassroots .
Everyone should take part : patching an OS of a relative , installing anti-virus software , updating browsers and other programs , providing consultation on Internet security .
There is a lot everyone of us can do.If we do not do it ourselves , someone may start doing it " on our behalf " with an unpredictable outcome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We are to earn our money on the market.
How to do this, how to work productively if every day we have got tons of messages from "banks" offering us big money, "lotteries" informing of wins?
The work-flow is being constantly interrupted.Let alone attacks on our websites.It seems that the dissidents in exotic lands use the IP obfuscation software not in a way that it was generally hoped.
Because regimes in those parts are not changing a bit, but the volume of spam and malware is only increasing.Internet should remain anonymous and global, and the same time the fight against malware and spam should get global and also grassroots.
Everyone should take part: patching an OS of a relative, installing anti-virus software, updating browsers and other programs, providing consultation on Internet security.
There is a lot everyone of us can do.If we do not do it ourselves, someone may start doing it "on our behalf" with an unpredictable outcome.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777289</id>
	<title>Re:Guess who's security software I won't be buying</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255791900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The only thing you really need for free exchange of ideas is a society where that its respected, and a government that protects it rather than prosecutes it.</p></div></blockquote><p>You say that like it was easier to achieve than anonymity.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only thing you really need for free exchange of ideas is a society where that its respected , and a government that protects it rather than prosecutes it.You say that like it was easier to achieve than anonymity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only thing you really need for free exchange of ideas is a society where that its respected, and a government that protects it rather than prosecutes it.You say that like it was easier to achieve than anonymity.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777147</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29776999</id>
	<title>A great idea...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255789680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... if and only if all computers in the network were fully secure and unhackable. Else it's a layer of hassle for the normal citizen without benefits for fighting crime.<br>The irony is that Kaspersky business is based on the opposite of the premise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... if and only if all computers in the network were fully secure and unhackable .
Else it 's a layer of hassle for the normal citizen without benefits for fighting crime.The irony is that Kaspersky business is based on the opposite of the premise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... if and only if all computers in the network were fully secure and unhackable.
Else it's a layer of hassle for the normal citizen without benefits for fighting crime.The irony is that Kaspersky business is based on the opposite of the premise.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29781759</id>
	<title>Re:What, no part time psychoanalysts?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255797420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I do wish people who didn't know about something wouldn't write about it. You don't mean Slovak, you mean Slavic (sometimes called Slavonic). Slovaks are people from Slovakia. As in the former Czechoslovakia. That has about as much to do with USSR as, say, Equador has to do Washington.</p><p>And actually, God help as if his nationality matters, his last name is probably (Slavicized Germanic) Jewish.</p><p>You know, one of the guys who runs Google is from the former USSR too.</p><p>Have you ever been to Russia? Or any former SSR? Or anywhere at all?</p><p>No offense, but I hope you feel like an ass. If you do, that would be sort of redeeming.</p><p>Disclosure: I've traveled extensively in communist countries and speak pretty fluent Russian. So I'm a baddy too.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Kaspersky.  See the name?  He's a Slovak - I would say Polish, but Slovak for sure.  He lives in Russia.  He's no young puppy.  The man grew up under the old Soviet.  His values are not the values of the western world.  I don't mean to be judgemental, per se, but I recognize that he ain't like me.</p><p>While most of us in the western world tend to deny it, there is comfort to be had inside of a totalitarian regime.  You know your place, you know everyone else's place, you do your job and keep your nose to yourself, and everyone gets along.  It's easy to sell to the masses, and Joe Sixpack manages alright unless and until some silly sumbitch decides to sacrifice Joe for the "good of the party".</p><p>So, Mr. Kaspersky has a touch of nostalgia for the good things from the Soviet, and forgets about the bad things.  People tend to do that.  Right here in the US, we have all kinds of people who remember the '50's (or whichever decade they were teenagers in) as Utopia.  Life was simpler then - mostly because they were kids with no responsibilities.</p><p>For that matter, I can probably find a few million people right here in the US why would fall right in line with Mr. Kaspersky's ideas, because it just makes sense.  No one needs to be anonymous, unless they are up to no good.  Hell, with my own relatively open mind, I think kids are goofy for wearing hoodies.  Why cover your face, and try to hide your features, if you're not ashamed of what you are doing?  But, I don't make a big deal of the hoodies, because I know the cops aren't always right, or even always honest.</p><p>Yeah, I could easily find several million people in the US who will agree with Mr. Kasperski.  Some kind of a psychological analysis would be nice to look at.  Or, the conclusions drawn by the psych people, anyway.</p><p>Any takers?</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do wish people who did n't know about something would n't write about it .
You do n't mean Slovak , you mean Slavic ( sometimes called Slavonic ) .
Slovaks are people from Slovakia .
As in the former Czechoslovakia .
That has about as much to do with USSR as , say , Equador has to do Washington.And actually , God help as if his nationality matters , his last name is probably ( Slavicized Germanic ) Jewish.You know , one of the guys who runs Google is from the former USSR too.Have you ever been to Russia ?
Or any former SSR ?
Or anywhere at all ? No offense , but I hope you feel like an ass .
If you do , that would be sort of redeeming.Disclosure : I 've traveled extensively in communist countries and speak pretty fluent Russian .
So I 'm a baddy too.Kaspersky .
See the name ?
He 's a Slovak - I would say Polish , but Slovak for sure .
He lives in Russia .
He 's no young puppy .
The man grew up under the old Soviet .
His values are not the values of the western world .
I do n't mean to be judgemental , per se , but I recognize that he ai n't like me.While most of us in the western world tend to deny it , there is comfort to be had inside of a totalitarian regime .
You know your place , you know everyone else 's place , you do your job and keep your nose to yourself , and everyone gets along .
It 's easy to sell to the masses , and Joe Sixpack manages alright unless and until some silly sumbitch decides to sacrifice Joe for the " good of the party " .So , Mr. Kaspersky has a touch of nostalgia for the good things from the Soviet , and forgets about the bad things .
People tend to do that .
Right here in the US , we have all kinds of people who remember the '50 's ( or whichever decade they were teenagers in ) as Utopia .
Life was simpler then - mostly because they were kids with no responsibilities.For that matter , I can probably find a few million people right here in the US why would fall right in line with Mr. Kaspersky 's ideas , because it just makes sense .
No one needs to be anonymous , unless they are up to no good .
Hell , with my own relatively open mind , I think kids are goofy for wearing hoodies .
Why cover your face , and try to hide your features , if you 're not ashamed of what you are doing ?
But , I do n't make a big deal of the hoodies , because I know the cops are n't always right , or even always honest.Yeah , I could easily find several million people in the US who will agree with Mr. Kasperski. Some kind of a psychological analysis would be nice to look at .
Or , the conclusions drawn by the psych people , anyway.Any takers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do wish people who didn't know about something wouldn't write about it.
You don't mean Slovak, you mean Slavic (sometimes called Slavonic).
Slovaks are people from Slovakia.
As in the former Czechoslovakia.
That has about as much to do with USSR as, say, Equador has to do Washington.And actually, God help as if his nationality matters, his last name is probably (Slavicized Germanic) Jewish.You know, one of the guys who runs Google is from the former USSR too.Have you ever been to Russia?
Or any former SSR?
Or anywhere at all?No offense, but I hope you feel like an ass.
If you do, that would be sort of redeeming.Disclosure: I've traveled extensively in communist countries and speak pretty fluent Russian.
So I'm a baddy too.Kaspersky.
See the name?
He's a Slovak - I would say Polish, but Slovak for sure.
He lives in Russia.
He's no young puppy.
The man grew up under the old Soviet.
His values are not the values of the western world.
I don't mean to be judgemental, per se, but I recognize that he ain't like me.While most of us in the western world tend to deny it, there is comfort to be had inside of a totalitarian regime.
You know your place, you know everyone else's place, you do your job and keep your nose to yourself, and everyone gets along.
It's easy to sell to the masses, and Joe Sixpack manages alright unless and until some silly sumbitch decides to sacrifice Joe for the "good of the party".So, Mr. Kaspersky has a touch of nostalgia for the good things from the Soviet, and forgets about the bad things.
People tend to do that.
Right here in the US, we have all kinds of people who remember the '50's (or whichever decade they were teenagers in) as Utopia.
Life was simpler then - mostly because they were kids with no responsibilities.For that matter, I can probably find a few million people right here in the US why would fall right in line with Mr. Kaspersky's ideas, because it just makes sense.
No one needs to be anonymous, unless they are up to no good.
Hell, with my own relatively open mind, I think kids are goofy for wearing hoodies.
Why cover your face, and try to hide your features, if you're not ashamed of what you are doing?
But, I don't make a big deal of the hoodies, because I know the cops aren't always right, or even always honest.Yeah, I could easily find several million people in the US who will agree with Mr. Kasperski.  Some kind of a psychological analysis would be nice to look at.
Or, the conclusions drawn by the psych people, anyway.Any takers?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778779</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777617</id>
	<title>Kaspersky CEO</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255794600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Can fuck himself</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can fuck himself</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can fuck himself</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777765</id>
	<title>What the Internet was Designed For...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255796280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>"the internet was designed not for public use, but for American scientists and the US military."</b></p><p>IMHO, the internet was not designed as someone designs a wheel or a building.  The internet grew out of an idea of interconnectivity between people.  As such, the internet has grown because people choose to use it.  Had the internet not been anonymous, its growth and prosperity would not have necessarily been the same.  In any case, the internet is not a network.  The internet is people.  The moment you put restrictions on the internet, you will see people stop its use.  I for one welcome the return of a sneaker net.</p><p>For this individual, who happens to be from the higher class of the world economy, to feel he has the right to dictate policy on something which is everyone's business, is presumptuous at best.  As most IT professionals know, the security of a system does not depend on how well the system recognizes the person, but on how secure the system itself is built.  For as long as companies feel they have something to hide, people will continue trying to break down walls.  Knowing the identity of those individuals will not help the cause, mostly because ghosting your identity is common practice anyways.</p><p>In the end, nobody is any safer with the internet knowing my name or not.  My ip address can be traced to my identity just as easily by "government" security agencies (since we the people should be the government, I don't necessarily deny this as a good thing for national security), which he fails to mention.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" the internet was designed not for public use , but for American scientists and the US military .
" IMHO , the internet was not designed as someone designs a wheel or a building .
The internet grew out of an idea of interconnectivity between people .
As such , the internet has grown because people choose to use it .
Had the internet not been anonymous , its growth and prosperity would not have necessarily been the same .
In any case , the internet is not a network .
The internet is people .
The moment you put restrictions on the internet , you will see people stop its use .
I for one welcome the return of a sneaker net.For this individual , who happens to be from the higher class of the world economy , to feel he has the right to dictate policy on something which is everyone 's business , is presumptuous at best .
As most IT professionals know , the security of a system does not depend on how well the system recognizes the person , but on how secure the system itself is built .
For as long as companies feel they have something to hide , people will continue trying to break down walls .
Knowing the identity of those individuals will not help the cause , mostly because ghosting your identity is common practice anyways.In the end , nobody is any safer with the internet knowing my name or not .
My ip address can be traced to my identity just as easily by " government " security agencies ( since we the people should be the government , I do n't necessarily deny this as a good thing for national security ) , which he fails to mention .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"the internet was designed not for public use, but for American scientists and the US military.
"IMHO, the internet was not designed as someone designs a wheel or a building.
The internet grew out of an idea of interconnectivity between people.
As such, the internet has grown because people choose to use it.
Had the internet not been anonymous, its growth and prosperity would not have necessarily been the same.
In any case, the internet is not a network.
The internet is people.
The moment you put restrictions on the internet, you will see people stop its use.
I for one welcome the return of a sneaker net.For this individual, who happens to be from the higher class of the world economy, to feel he has the right to dictate policy on something which is everyone's business, is presumptuous at best.
As most IT professionals know, the security of a system does not depend on how well the system recognizes the person, but on how secure the system itself is built.
For as long as companies feel they have something to hide, people will continue trying to break down walls.
Knowing the identity of those individuals will not help the cause, mostly because ghosting your identity is common practice anyways.In the end, nobody is any safer with the internet knowing my name or not.
My ip address can be traced to my identity just as easily by "government" security agencies (since we the people should be the government, I don't necessarily deny this as a good thing for national security), which he fails to mention.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777299</id>
	<title>In russian internet...</title>
	<author>binaryseraph</author>
	<datestamp>1255792020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In russian internet we know who you are when you scream.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In russian internet we know who you are when you scream .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In russian internet we know who you are when you scream.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778089</id>
	<title>Re:Open letter to Eugene Kaspersky</title>
	<author>aztektum</author>
	<datestamp>1255799700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yup. Time to stop recommending his companies products.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yup .
Time to stop recommending his companies products .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yup.
Time to stop recommending his companies products.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29776991</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777445</id>
	<title>Official answer from Anonymous:</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1255793160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anonymous Wants End to Online Kaspersky CEO.</p><p>Anonymous Coward writes "Anonymous, from the well-known Internets, is calling for an end to the Kaspersky CEO on the Internet, and for the creation of mandatory 'Brains and common sense' for any CEO who wishes to browse the Web. Says Anonymous, 'Every CEO should and must have a brain, or common sense<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... the internet was designed not for retard Nazis, but for porn and free thought. Then it was introduced to the commerce, and it was wrong<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... to introduce it in the same way.' He calls the Kaspersky CEO 'the Internet's biggest freedom vulnerability' and thinks any community that wants to limit this freedom should be 'cut off.' The PMF (Political Marionettes Foundation) objects, and it's likely that they won't be the only ones."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anonymous Wants End to Online Kaspersky CEO.Anonymous Coward writes " Anonymous , from the well-known Internets , is calling for an end to the Kaspersky CEO on the Internet , and for the creation of mandatory 'Brains and common sense ' for any CEO who wishes to browse the Web .
Says Anonymous , 'Every CEO should and must have a brain , or common sense ... the internet was designed not for retard Nazis , but for porn and free thought .
Then it was introduced to the commerce , and it was wrong ... to introduce it in the same way .
' He calls the Kaspersky CEO 'the Internet 's biggest freedom vulnerability ' and thinks any community that wants to limit this freedom should be 'cut off .
' The PMF ( Political Marionettes Foundation ) objects , and it 's likely that they wo n't be the only ones .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anonymous Wants End to Online Kaspersky CEO.Anonymous Coward writes "Anonymous, from the well-known Internets, is calling for an end to the Kaspersky CEO on the Internet, and for the creation of mandatory 'Brains and common sense' for any CEO who wishes to browse the Web.
Says Anonymous, 'Every CEO should and must have a brain, or common sense ... the internet was designed not for retard Nazis, but for porn and free thought.
Then it was introduced to the commerce, and it was wrong ... to introduce it in the same way.
' He calls the Kaspersky CEO 'the Internet's biggest freedom vulnerability' and thinks any community that wants to limit this freedom should be 'cut off.
' The PMF (Political Marionettes Foundation) objects, and it's likely that they won't be the only ones.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777215</id>
	<title>Re:too late</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1255791300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>And that's still true on the Minitel network.  Now compare uptake of the Minitel and the Internet.  In fact, compare the Internet to any other network which didn't have anonymity, and you'll see that the Internet grew much faster.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And that 's still true on the Minitel network .
Now compare uptake of the Minitel and the Internet .
In fact , compare the Internet to any other network which did n't have anonymity , and you 'll see that the Internet grew much faster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And that's still true on the Minitel network.
Now compare uptake of the Minitel and the Internet.
In fact, compare the Internet to any other network which didn't have anonymity, and you'll see that the Internet grew much faster.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777025</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777683</id>
	<title>You can have my tor node</title>
	<author>Arancaytar</author>
	<datestamp>1255795500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When you pry my cold, dead fingers off the keyboard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When you pry my cold , dead fingers off the keyboard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you pry my cold, dead fingers off the keyboard.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777021</id>
	<title>Quote:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255789800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>from TFA: <p><div class="quote"><p>Eugene Kaspersky once told a competitor to his face: "I will eat you." The co-founder and CEO of Kaspersky Lab was certainly not into cannibalism,[...]</p></div><p>He only wanted to eat him.  Then eat him Eugene!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>from TFA : Eugene Kaspersky once told a competitor to his face : " I will eat you .
" The co-founder and CEO of Kaspersky Lab was certainly not into cannibalism , [ ... ] He only wanted to eat him .
Then eat him Eugene !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>from TFA: Eugene Kaspersky once told a competitor to his face: "I will eat you.
" The co-founder and CEO of Kaspersky Lab was certainly not into cannibalism,[...]He only wanted to eat him.
Then eat him Eugene!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777431</id>
	<title>Voting System</title>
	<author>DanielB</author>
	<datestamp>1255793040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As I read this post about Kaspersky's opinion, I thought to myself, wouldn't it be cool if "opinion" posts had an "agree/disagree" button that users could click if they were logged in, and after a few hundred votes had been collected, a little graphical indicator would appear on the story to indicate how Slashdot users felt about something.</p><p>That would add an easy interactive component that I think would both be informative and fun.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As I read this post about Kaspersky 's opinion , I thought to myself , would n't it be cool if " opinion " posts had an " agree/disagree " button that users could click if they were logged in , and after a few hundred votes had been collected , a little graphical indicator would appear on the story to indicate how Slashdot users felt about something.That would add an easy interactive component that I think would both be informative and fun .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As I read this post about Kaspersky's opinion, I thought to myself, wouldn't it be cool if "opinion" posts had an "agree/disagree" button that users could click if they were logged in, and after a few hundred votes had been collected, a little graphical indicator would appear on the story to indicate how Slashdot users felt about something.That would add an easy interactive component that I think would both be informative and fun.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777761</id>
	<title>Re:Open letter to Eugene Kaspersky</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255796220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Preferably with a cactus.<br>
<br>
All the best,<br>
Anonymous</htmltext>
<tokenext>Preferably with a cactus .
All the best , Anonymous</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Preferably with a cactus.
All the best,
Anonymous</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29776991</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29783951</id>
	<title>Laughable</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255878420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All I can say is "LOL".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All I can say is " LOL " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All I can say is "LOL".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778595</id>
	<title>Kaspersky has gone mental</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255804440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Kaspersky has lost his credibility.  All of it.  Among friends, family, colleagues, and netizens the world over.  He has lost all sense of reason, thought and logic.  The ability to protest something in anonymity ensures atrocities carried out in the name of the leader or the state or anyone or anything else is vital to free speech, democracy and absolute corruption of the state.  Better to have the truth out and deal with it, rather than living in fear/hatred oblivion.  Anonymous protest allows this.  The beauty, the power of the internet is in protesting in anonymity.  What happens when Iranian protesters post what they think and the state knows exactly where they are?  DEAD IRANIAN PROTESTERS!  Is this a positive thing?  Only if you live in and love the POLICE STATE!  NO!  The United States under George W. Bush got closer to Soviet Russia than most Americans would like to admit, but at least they could protest stupidity on the internet.  The Great Firewall of China is a bad thing.  The Onion Router is a good thing.  Kaspersky is either really trying to play devils advocate, or has gone utter mental.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Kaspersky has lost his credibility .
All of it .
Among friends , family , colleagues , and netizens the world over .
He has lost all sense of reason , thought and logic .
The ability to protest something in anonymity ensures atrocities carried out in the name of the leader or the state or anyone or anything else is vital to free speech , democracy and absolute corruption of the state .
Better to have the truth out and deal with it , rather than living in fear/hatred oblivion .
Anonymous protest allows this .
The beauty , the power of the internet is in protesting in anonymity .
What happens when Iranian protesters post what they think and the state knows exactly where they are ?
DEAD IRANIAN PROTESTERS !
Is this a positive thing ?
Only if you live in and love the POLICE STATE !
NO ! The United States under George W. Bush got closer to Soviet Russia than most Americans would like to admit , but at least they could protest stupidity on the internet .
The Great Firewall of China is a bad thing .
The Onion Router is a good thing .
Kaspersky is either really trying to play devils advocate , or has gone utter mental .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kaspersky has lost his credibility.
All of it.
Among friends, family, colleagues, and netizens the world over.
He has lost all sense of reason, thought and logic.
The ability to protest something in anonymity ensures atrocities carried out in the name of the leader or the state or anyone or anything else is vital to free speech, democracy and absolute corruption of the state.
Better to have the truth out and deal with it, rather than living in fear/hatred oblivion.
Anonymous protest allows this.
The beauty, the power of the internet is in protesting in anonymity.
What happens when Iranian protesters post what they think and the state knows exactly where they are?
DEAD IRANIAN PROTESTERS!
Is this a positive thing?
Only if you live in and love the POLICE STATE!
NO!  The United States under George W. Bush got closer to Soviet Russia than most Americans would like to admit, but at least they could protest stupidity on the internet.
The Great Firewall of China is a bad thing.
The Onion Router is a good thing.
Kaspersky is either really trying to play devils advocate, or has gone utter mental.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29780977</id>
	<title>Cutting *themselves* off</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255785000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"He calls anonymity 'the Internet's biggest security vulnerability' and thinks any country that doesn't follow this regime should be 'cut off.'"<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; I view it as the opposite -- any country or locality that decides to "cut off" everyone else will simply be cutting THEMSELVES off.  Everyone else will have a free, open, and vibrant internet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" He calls anonymity 'the Internet 's biggest security vulnerability ' and thinks any country that does n't follow this regime should be 'cut off .
' "           I view it as the opposite -- any country or locality that decides to " cut off " everyone else will simply be cutting THEMSELVES off .
Everyone else will have a free , open , and vibrant internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"He calls anonymity 'the Internet's biggest security vulnerability' and thinks any country that doesn't follow this regime should be 'cut off.
'"
          I view it as the opposite -- any country or locality that decides to "cut off" everyone else will simply be cutting THEMSELVES off.
Everyone else will have a free, open, and vibrant internet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778347</id>
	<title>Cut Kaspersky off</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255802100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can we just cut Kaspersky off? Put him in a tightly sealed room where he can be safe and happy, and securely identified, free to send authenticated packets to himself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can we just cut Kaspersky off ?
Put him in a tightly sealed room where he can be safe and happy , and securely identified , free to send authenticated packets to himself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can we just cut Kaspersky off?
Put him in a tightly sealed room where he can be safe and happy, and securely identified, free to send authenticated packets to himself.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778845</id>
	<title>Re:Guess who's security software I won't be buying</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255806600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pro tip: Never trust an former-USSR company for computer security. They're the ones creating the viruses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pro tip : Never trust an former-USSR company for computer security .
They 're the ones creating the viruses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pro tip: Never trust an former-USSR company for computer security.
They're the ones creating the viruses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778333</id>
	<title>Re:I agree!</title>
	<author>IronChef</author>
	<datestamp>1255802040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After the anthrax deal I was sure that the idea of no more anonymous mail would at least be discussed. But I guess the mail system is too big a target.</p><p>I'll bet a dollar though that the end of the anonymous internet lies within the next couple of decades--at least within meddling, overbearing first-world nations with control issues.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After the anthrax deal I was sure that the idea of no more anonymous mail would at least be discussed .
But I guess the mail system is too big a target.I 'll bet a dollar though that the end of the anonymous internet lies within the next couple of decades--at least within meddling , overbearing first-world nations with control issues .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After the anthrax deal I was sure that the idea of no more anonymous mail would at least be discussed.
But I guess the mail system is too big a target.I'll bet a dollar though that the end of the anonymous internet lies within the next couple of decades--at least within meddling, overbearing first-world nations with control issues.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777005</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29787585</id>
	<title>Hey Kaspersky...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255865040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey Kaspersky...</p><p>FUCK YOU !</p><p>Singned,<br>Anonymous</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey Kaspersky...FUCK YOU ! Singned,Anonymous</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey Kaspersky...FUCK YOU !Singned,Anonymous</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777147</id>
	<title>Re:Guess who's security software I won't be buying</title>
	<author>tverbeek</author>
	<datestamp>1255790820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Anonymity is prone to abuse, sure, but it is vital for free exchange of ideas.</p></div></blockquote><p>Bullshit.<br>The only thing you really <i>need</i> for free exchange of ideas is a society where that its respected, and a government that protects it rather than prosecutes it.  Oh... and the courage to speak up and own your own words. Anonymity is a fallback tactic for use in oppressive societies, needed only in extreme circumstances.  We managed to freely exchange ideas long before the internet gave everyone an anonymous soapbox, kids.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anonymity is prone to abuse , sure , but it is vital for free exchange of ideas.Bullshit.The only thing you really need for free exchange of ideas is a society where that its respected , and a government that protects it rather than prosecutes it .
Oh... and the courage to speak up and own your own words .
Anonymity is a fallback tactic for use in oppressive societies , needed only in extreme circumstances .
We managed to freely exchange ideas long before the internet gave everyone an anonymous soapbox , kids .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anonymity is prone to abuse, sure, but it is vital for free exchange of ideas.Bullshit.The only thing you really need for free exchange of ideas is a society where that its respected, and a government that protects it rather than prosecutes it.
Oh... and the courage to speak up and own your own words.
Anonymity is a fallback tactic for use in oppressive societies, needed only in extreme circumstances.
We managed to freely exchange ideas long before the internet gave everyone an anonymous soapbox, kids.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777007</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778023</id>
	<title>For one reason I agree with Kaspersky</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255798860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>In this way virus writers would be accountable for their activities and be arrested, provided that non-anonymity is enforced rigorously and the amount of work needed to bypass the system is prohibitive for someone who just wants to spread some virus. There are an outrageous number of viruses in the wild but millions of criminal programmers escape punishment.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In this way virus writers would be accountable for their activities and be arrested , provided that non-anonymity is enforced rigorously and the amount of work needed to bypass the system is prohibitive for someone who just wants to spread some virus .
There are an outrageous number of viruses in the wild but millions of criminal programmers escape punishment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In this way virus writers would be accountable for their activities and be arrested, provided that non-anonymity is enforced rigorously and the amount of work needed to bypass the system is prohibitive for someone who just wants to spread some virus.
There are an outrageous number of viruses in the wild but millions of criminal programmers escape punishment.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777395</id>
	<title>Screw the honest guy,  Make rich the bad guy!</title>
	<author>upuv</author>
	<datestamp>1255792800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Great the honest guy who goes through the process of being a legit passported internet user is going to get screwed as everything he does skimmed by 20 people for cash.</p><p>The bad guy on the other hand with 5k forged identities makes out like a bandit.</p><p>Anonymity is the only thing that makes the internet work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Great the honest guy who goes through the process of being a legit passported internet user is going to get screwed as everything he does skimmed by 20 people for cash.The bad guy on the other hand with 5k forged identities makes out like a bandit.Anonymity is the only thing that makes the internet work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great the honest guy who goes through the process of being a legit passported internet user is going to get screwed as everything he does skimmed by 20 people for cash.The bad guy on the other hand with 5k forged identities makes out like a bandit.Anonymity is the only thing that makes the internet work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778185</id>
	<title>Re:Guess who's security software I won't be buying</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255800780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My company's anti-spam firewall has Kaspersky and it constantly misses all those new virus, which are all picked up by the anti-virus software from another vendor on the e-mail server. The contract for the Kaspersky will end soon and certainly I will not renew it. Even his best product gives this kind of result and I would not expect the "passport" system he suggested will work anything better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My company 's anti-spam firewall has Kaspersky and it constantly misses all those new virus , which are all picked up by the anti-virus software from another vendor on the e-mail server .
The contract for the Kaspersky will end soon and certainly I will not renew it .
Even his best product gives this kind of result and I would not expect the " passport " system he suggested will work anything better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My company's anti-spam firewall has Kaspersky and it constantly misses all those new virus, which are all picked up by the anti-virus software from another vendor on the e-mail server.
The contract for the Kaspersky will end soon and certainly I will not renew it.
Even his best product gives this kind of result and I would not expect the "passport" system he suggested will work anything better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777323</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29779199</id>
	<title>Don't feed the Streisand Effect</title>
	<author>sleepdev</author>
	<datestamp>1255810020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>If only there was a way to flag entire press releases as flamebait... I have a hard time seeing this as anything more than a desperate cry for attention.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If only there was a way to flag entire press releases as flamebait... I have a hard time seeing this as anything more than a desperate cry for attention .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If only there was a way to flag entire press releases as flamebait... I have a hard time seeing this as anything more than a desperate cry for attention.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777257</id>
	<title>Eugene Kaspersky does not understand the Internet.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255791660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Eugene Kaspersky does not understand the Internet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Eugene Kaspersky does not understand the Internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eugene Kaspersky does not understand the Internet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29782365</id>
	<title>Would be done just like with his software</title>
	<author>Casandro</author>
	<datestamp>1255808700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well it's the same as with "security" software. Most people don't care. The large majority don't know what it is and does. A minority cares and knows that it's a bad idea.<br>However there's a small, but powerful minority able to convince large parts of the society about something. He only needs to convince them to reach the big market.</p><p>Applied to the AV industry it looks like that. Most people don't know that that kind of software is doing. The ones that do understand what it's doing and are slightly into security know that it's mostly snake-oil. However there are a few powerfull people like authors who can be convinced that AV software does anything useful. And those people will act as multipliers for your idea.</p><p>On the Internet this looks a bit differently. Here we have ISPs which can simply force any kind of policy onto their users. And those are easily convinced that anonymity is a bad thing. Especially when you tell them that your system also allows billing for content. So he'd only have to convince them to get his system through. As in many places there is no competition on Internet access, the ISPs have little reason to not do that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well it 's the same as with " security " software .
Most people do n't care .
The large majority do n't know what it is and does .
A minority cares and knows that it 's a bad idea.However there 's a small , but powerful minority able to convince large parts of the society about something .
He only needs to convince them to reach the big market.Applied to the AV industry it looks like that .
Most people do n't know that that kind of software is doing .
The ones that do understand what it 's doing and are slightly into security know that it 's mostly snake-oil .
However there are a few powerfull people like authors who can be convinced that AV software does anything useful .
And those people will act as multipliers for your idea.On the Internet this looks a bit differently .
Here we have ISPs which can simply force any kind of policy onto their users .
And those are easily convinced that anonymity is a bad thing .
Especially when you tell them that your system also allows billing for content .
So he 'd only have to convince them to get his system through .
As in many places there is no competition on Internet access , the ISPs have little reason to not do that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well it's the same as with "security" software.
Most people don't care.
The large majority don't know what it is and does.
A minority cares and knows that it's a bad idea.However there's a small, but powerful minority able to convince large parts of the society about something.
He only needs to convince them to reach the big market.Applied to the AV industry it looks like that.
Most people don't know that that kind of software is doing.
The ones that do understand what it's doing and are slightly into security know that it's mostly snake-oil.
However there are a few powerfull people like authors who can be convinced that AV software does anything useful.
And those people will act as multipliers for your idea.On the Internet this looks a bit differently.
Here we have ISPs which can simply force any kind of policy onto their users.
And those are easily convinced that anonymity is a bad thing.
Especially when you tell them that your system also allows billing for content.
So he'd only have to convince them to get his system through.
As in many places there is no competition on Internet access, the ISPs have little reason to not do that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778889</id>
	<title>Re:Guess who's security software I won't be buying</title>
	<author>ceifeira</author>
	<datestamp>1255807260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>add the United States to that list too with that wannabe Hugo Chavez in the white house. His people also want to regulate speech on the internet and have a goon in the FCC already proposing it.</p></div><p>You seem to be (deliberately?) confusing issues here...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>add the United States to that list too with that wannabe Hugo Chavez in the white house .
His people also want to regulate speech on the internet and have a goon in the FCC already proposing it.You seem to be ( deliberately ?
) confusing issues here.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>add the United States to that list too with that wannabe Hugo Chavez in the white house.
His people also want to regulate speech on the internet and have a goon in the FCC already proposing it.You seem to be (deliberately?
) confusing issues here...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777323</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777243</id>
	<title>I, Publius</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255791480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>the internet was designed not for public use, but for American scientists and the US military.</i></p><p>My Dearest Kaspersky,</p><p>While that may be what the Internet was designed for, you seem to be forgetting what America was designed for. Please take a few moments to re-familiarize yourself with the objectives that motivated my contemporaries and I to create this country:</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist\_Papers" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist\_Papers</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Publius.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the internet was designed not for public use , but for American scientists and the US military.My Dearest Kaspersky,While that may be what the Internet was designed for , you seem to be forgetting what America was designed for .
Please take a few moments to re-familiarize yourself with the objectives that motivated my contemporaries and I to create this country : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist \ _Papers [ wikipedia.org ] Sincerely,Publius .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the internet was designed not for public use, but for American scientists and the US military.My Dearest Kaspersky,While that may be what the Internet was designed for, you seem to be forgetting what America was designed for.
Please take a few moments to re-familiarize yourself with the objectives that motivated my contemporaries and I to create this country:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist\_Papers [wikipedia.org]Sincerely,Publius.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778475</id>
	<title>Re:Guess who's security software I won't be buying</title>
	<author>symbolic</author>
	<datestamp>1255803300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt; McAfee contract has (thank God) ended</p><p>I envy you. If there is ever a reason to down a cold beer after work, this is one of them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; McAfee contract has ( thank God ) endedI envy you .
If there is ever a reason to down a cold beer after work , this is one of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt; McAfee contract has (thank God) endedI envy you.
If there is ever a reason to down a cold beer after work, this is one of them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777323</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777321</id>
	<title>Re:Guess who's security software I won't be buying</title>
	<author>Junior J. Junior III</author>
	<datestamp>1255792260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uh, OK.  How do you propose to bring about a society in which everyone respects the free exchange of ideas, and a government that can perfectly protect everyone who expresses an unpopular opinion?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh , OK. How do you propose to bring about a society in which everyone respects the free exchange of ideas , and a government that can perfectly protect everyone who expresses an unpopular opinion ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh, OK.  How do you propose to bring about a society in which everyone respects the free exchange of ideas, and a government that can perfectly protect everyone who expresses an unpopular opinion?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777147</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778817</id>
	<title>why needed the early Internet users anonymity?</title>
	<author>kubitus</author>
	<datestamp>1255806420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>and why should current Internet users not need anonymity?<p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>.</p><p>
it is too late anyhow - even if at tier 1 they would be willing to do identification checks,</p><p>
most traffic is already routed at tier 2 and below!</p><p>

I trust that people needing connectivity will even use the moon
as their relay.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and why should current Internet users not need anonymity ?
. it is too late anyhow - even if at tier 1 they would be willing to do identification checks , most traffic is already routed at tier 2 and below !
I trust that people needing connectivity will even use the moon as their relay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and why should current Internet users not need anonymity?
.
it is too late anyhow - even if at tier 1 they would be willing to do identification checks,
most traffic is already routed at tier 2 and below!
I trust that people needing connectivity will even use the moon
as their relay.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777085</id>
	<title>Re:"Papers Please"</title>
	<author>Smegly</author>
	<datestamp>1255790400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yes, because requiring passports to entry countries stops all terrorism and crime.</p></div><p>Exactly. But then creating a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture\_of\_fear" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">fear based "papers please" society</a> [wikipedia.org] was never about stopping crime or terrorism to begin with, anyway. Thats just a convenient for voters to believe so various profitable <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War\_on\_drugs#Efficacy" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">charades</a> [wikipedia.org] can <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War\_on\_terrorism#Criticisms\_of\_U.S.\_objectives\_and\_strategies" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">continue</a> [wikipedia.org] and profits <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War\_is\_a\_Racket" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">continue</a> [wikipedia.org] to flow in...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , because requiring passports to entry countries stops all terrorism and crime.Exactly .
But then creating a fear based " papers please " society [ wikipedia.org ] was never about stopping crime or terrorism to begin with , anyway .
Thats just a convenient for voters to believe so various profitable charades [ wikipedia.org ] can continue [ wikipedia.org ] and profits continue [ wikipedia.org ] to flow in.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, because requiring passports to entry countries stops all terrorism and crime.Exactly.
But then creating a fear based "papers please" society [wikipedia.org] was never about stopping crime or terrorism to begin with, anyway.
Thats just a convenient for voters to believe so various profitable charades [wikipedia.org] can continue [wikipedia.org] and profits continue [wikipedia.org] to flow in...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29776951</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777679</id>
	<title>We Are One World</title>
	<author>fast turtle</author>
	<datestamp>1255795500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We Are One People</p><p>We Are Borg</p><p>Resistance is Futile as you will be assimulated</p><p>Total Transparency of thought and Action. Anything not according to the Group mind will be punished. Any Deviation from accepted behaviour or function will be corrected.</p></div><p>Seems that this is exactly what he wants. Well I want full transparency of all of his email, including corporate as there is nothing to fear except fear itself. Step up and accept the fate you demand and become one with the Collective.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We Are One PeopleWe Are BorgResistance is Futile as you will be assimulatedTotal Transparency of thought and Action .
Anything not according to the Group mind will be punished .
Any Deviation from accepted behaviour or function will be corrected.Seems that this is exactly what he wants .
Well I want full transparency of all of his email , including corporate as there is nothing to fear except fear itself .
Step up and accept the fate you demand and become one with the Collective .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We Are One PeopleWe Are BorgResistance is Futile as you will be assimulatedTotal Transparency of thought and Action.
Anything not according to the Group mind will be punished.
Any Deviation from accepted behaviour or function will be corrected.Seems that this is exactly what he wants.
Well I want full transparency of all of his email, including corporate as there is nothing to fear except fear itself.
Step up and accept the fate you demand and become one with the Collective.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778361</id>
	<title>Thank you Eugene</title>
	<author>sconeu</author>
	<datestamp>1255802220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now I know where I <b>won't</b> be buying antivirus software from.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now I know where I wo n't be buying antivirus software from .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now I know where I won't be buying antivirus software from.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777027</id>
	<title>Yes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255789920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777401</id>
	<title>What else does he believe</title>
	<author>EmperorOfCanada</author>
	<datestamp>1255792920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>If he believes this then what privacy violations will he do to users of his software. I can be certain that his software is now blacklisted from my company network. Who knows what self righteous use he might make of being behind my firewalls?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If he believes this then what privacy violations will he do to users of his software .
I can be certain that his software is now blacklisted from my company network .
Who knows what self righteous use he might make of being behind my firewalls ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If he believes this then what privacy violations will he do to users of his software.
I can be certain that his software is now blacklisted from my company network.
Who knows what self righteous use he might make of being behind my firewalls?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29780179</id>
	<title>Re:What, no part time psychoanalysts?</title>
	<author>nacturation</author>
	<datestamp>1255776480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yeah, I could easily find several million people in the US who will agree with Mr. Kasperski.  Some kind of a psychological analysis would be nice to look at.  Or, the conclusions drawn by the psych people, anyway. Any takers?</p></div><p>I agree with what I assume to be Kasperski's motive: without anonymity, we'd know who controls all these spambots or who is involved in identity theft, or who's writing all this malware, or who writes all those racist trolls on Slashdot.  The <a href="http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19/" title="penny-arcade.com">Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory</a> [penny-arcade.com] is undeniably true... make someone attach their name to what they write and they're more civil, more reasoned, and they generally tend to take responsibility for their words.  Throw anonymity into the mix with an audience and you get a total fuckwad.</p><p>Imagine if people could drive a vehicle on the roads and be guaranteed that nobody could ever find out whose vehicle it was or who the driver was?  Can you imagine the level of road rage that would result if someone pissed you off and you could simply ram them off the road with no repercussion?  Today, the only anonymity we have on the roads is by walking, using a bicycle, or through a proxy such as a bus or taxi where someone else's identity is responsible for the driving.</p><p>The problem with Kasperski's approach is that it's completely impossible to retrofit the entire Internet for this kind of identification.  Not only that, but there's no technical way to guarantee that it's unhackable.  Your computer gets compromised somehow and now someone has the ability to do anything using your identity.  And it fails to take into account a family computer, for example.  Did John Smith really write that, or was it one of his kids fooling around?</p><p>So unless we want to turn the Internet into a place as highly regulated and enforced as the average Western nation's public roads, mostly anonymous it is.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , I could easily find several million people in the US who will agree with Mr. Kasperski. Some kind of a psychological analysis would be nice to look at .
Or , the conclusions drawn by the psych people , anyway .
Any takers ? I agree with what I assume to be Kasperski 's motive : without anonymity , we 'd know who controls all these spambots or who is involved in identity theft , or who 's writing all this malware , or who writes all those racist trolls on Slashdot .
The Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory [ penny-arcade.com ] is undeniably true... make someone attach their name to what they write and they 're more civil , more reasoned , and they generally tend to take responsibility for their words .
Throw anonymity into the mix with an audience and you get a total fuckwad.Imagine if people could drive a vehicle on the roads and be guaranteed that nobody could ever find out whose vehicle it was or who the driver was ?
Can you imagine the level of road rage that would result if someone pissed you off and you could simply ram them off the road with no repercussion ?
Today , the only anonymity we have on the roads is by walking , using a bicycle , or through a proxy such as a bus or taxi where someone else 's identity is responsible for the driving.The problem with Kasperski 's approach is that it 's completely impossible to retrofit the entire Internet for this kind of identification .
Not only that , but there 's no technical way to guarantee that it 's unhackable .
Your computer gets compromised somehow and now someone has the ability to do anything using your identity .
And it fails to take into account a family computer , for example .
Did John Smith really write that , or was it one of his kids fooling around ? So unless we want to turn the Internet into a place as highly regulated and enforced as the average Western nation 's public roads , mostly anonymous it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, I could easily find several million people in the US who will agree with Mr. Kasperski.  Some kind of a psychological analysis would be nice to look at.
Or, the conclusions drawn by the psych people, anyway.
Any takers?I agree with what I assume to be Kasperski's motive: without anonymity, we'd know who controls all these spambots or who is involved in identity theft, or who's writing all this malware, or who writes all those racist trolls on Slashdot.
The Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory [penny-arcade.com] is undeniably true... make someone attach their name to what they write and they're more civil, more reasoned, and they generally tend to take responsibility for their words.
Throw anonymity into the mix with an audience and you get a total fuckwad.Imagine if people could drive a vehicle on the roads and be guaranteed that nobody could ever find out whose vehicle it was or who the driver was?
Can you imagine the level of road rage that would result if someone pissed you off and you could simply ram them off the road with no repercussion?
Today, the only anonymity we have on the roads is by walking, using a bicycle, or through a proxy such as a bus or taxi where someone else's identity is responsible for the driving.The problem with Kasperski's approach is that it's completely impossible to retrofit the entire Internet for this kind of identification.
Not only that, but there's no technical way to guarantee that it's unhackable.
Your computer gets compromised somehow and now someone has the ability to do anything using your identity.
And it fails to take into account a family computer, for example.
Did John Smith really write that, or was it one of his kids fooling around?So unless we want to turn the Internet into a place as highly regulated and enforced as the average Western nation's public roads, mostly anonymous it is.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778779</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777013</id>
	<title>Internet Police Force</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255789740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They can call it the Kaspersky Guardian Bureau.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They can call it the Kaspersky Guardian Bureau .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They can call it the Kaspersky Guardian Bureau.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29792439</id>
	<title>don't buy Kaspersky</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255958580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The solution is simple , dont' buy kaspersky ever !!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The solution is simple , dont ' buy kaspersky ever ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The solution is simple , dont' buy kaspersky ever !!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777175</id>
	<title>Chillingly reminded of ...</title>
	<author>just\_another\_sean</author>
	<datestamp>1255791000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reminds of two things, <a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html" title="gnu.org">RMS's parapble</a> [gnu.org] and one of my favorite <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy" title="wikipedia.org">depressing but funny movies</a> [wikipedia.org].</p><p>Between this and reading that Microsoft is assisting Lockheed-Martin with the "new" internet I've decided it's best<br>I just go back to bed for a few years...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reminds of two things , RMS 's parapble [ gnu.org ] and one of my favorite depressing but funny movies [ wikipedia.org ] .Between this and reading that Microsoft is assisting Lockheed-Martin with the " new " internet I 've decided it 's bestI just go back to bed for a few years.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reminds of two things, RMS's parapble [gnu.org] and one of my favorite depressing but funny movies [wikipedia.org].Between this and reading that Microsoft is assisting Lockheed-Martin with the "new" internet I've decided it's bestI just go back to bed for a few years...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777369</id>
	<title>It is never all or nothing.</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1255792560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Yes, because requiring passports to entry countries stops all terrorism and crime.</i> </p><p>It is never all or nothing.</p><p>Which is why the geek tends to lose more in the political arena then he wins.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , because requiring passports to entry countries stops all terrorism and crime .
It is never all or nothing.Which is why the geek tends to lose more in the political arena then he wins .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, because requiring passports to entry countries stops all terrorism and crime.
It is never all or nothing.Which is why the geek tends to lose more in the political arena then he wins.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29776951</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777585</id>
	<title>An end to the anonymity of the Internet,</title>
	<author>rodgek</author>
	<datestamp>1255794480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&ldquo;Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security&rdquo;

Benjamin Franklin</htmltext>
<tokenext>   Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security    Benjamin Franklin</tokentext>
<sentencetext>“Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security”

Benjamin Franklin</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29781645</id>
	<title>Greedy self interest</title>
	<author>bl968</author>
	<datestamp>1255795620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They want this because they would be one of the companies profiting off of selling them to people. It's a revenue stream to them and nothing more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They want this because they would be one of the companies profiting off of selling them to people .
It 's a revenue stream to them and nothing more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They want this because they would be one of the companies profiting off of selling them to people.
It's a revenue stream to them and nothing more.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29779041</id>
	<title>Re:Open letter to Eugene Kaspersky</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255808700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seconded.</p><p>He just lost my personal and family and friends business for his products.</p><p>I am ALL FOR improving the infrastructure of the internet, but not in ways that impede the facility and right of global anonymous 'free' communication between any participating sender and receiver.  If he wants to improve the internet, maybe he should start with championing IPv6, mobile IPv6, DNSSEC, the provisioning of FREE wildcard domain SSL certificates with each domain registration as part of the registration benefit, good for the term of the domain registration, FREE personal email / code signing / document signing / key signing certificates either with a domain purchase or via any institution like a bank / municipal agency et. al.  Let's keep it going and get ISPs to support multicast.  Further, champion email clients to all EASILY and CORRECTLY support digital signature checking / usage via PGP, GPG, DSS, and others.  Champion making all web traffic HTTPS/TLS by DEFAULT.  Champion using digital signing and executable signing for most software out there.  Champion the use of MANAGED / SANDBOXED code in JAVA or CLR instead of the unstable/insecure mess we have now.  Champion the acceptance of transparent compression of virtually all web and email traffic.  Champion supporting binary XML encoding for "web pages" to save an enormous amoung of internet resources / bandwidth.  Champion the semantic web / internet so people can actually contextually FIND the information they're looking for in a meaningful context with rich metadata; why with appropriate metadata one could even CHOOSE to read anonymous or particular categories of authors' content or not at the point of searching / browsing / filtering.  Go to a library and you can select works by a particular personal / corporate author or publisher easily enough, but you can't effectively do that online.  If you don't want to see SPAM and 'irrelevant' anonymous traffic, why not start by making it possible to be smarter and more selective about ALL content you actually retrieve?</p><p>Right now it is next to technically / practically IMPOSSIBLE to CHOOSE to be "not anonymous" -- most email clients don't support digital signature use / checking well or at all.  Most email SERVERS don't bother to use SMTP over TLS with certificate based authentication between mail exchangers.  Most domains don't use DNSSEC to assert their authenticated identity.  Most web servers won't permit the use of HTTPS/TLS connections for 99.999\% of their traffic, this leaving no opportunity for the server to be authenticated (e.g. not effectively anonymous) or for the client to be certificate authenticated even if the client so wished.  Most "web mail" systems not only transmit private information in the clear but also defeat the use of signing certificates.</p><p>Most web sites don't support OpenID based authentication even if the user wanted to use it so they could be identified / authenticated in that way.</p><p>Most ISPs themselves engage in plenty of port blocking, protocol blocking, packet spying, et. al.  Champion the use of VPNs between the ISP and the customer and non-interference with (indeed support of) encrypted / authenticated traffic from endpoint to endpoint.  Just try even using IPSEC even if you wanted to.  If you're lucky maybe you can get SSL to work.</p><p>For the most part this is all stuff that pretty trivially could be done today to improve the internet, its capacity, its security against forgery / eavesdropping, and to give people and organizations the tools they need to effectively communicate with more trust, reliability, and usability.  The semantic advancements of using better library science / metadata / semantic web techniques would allow better selectivity about what kinds of content one does and does not want to experience, while reducing wasted time and bandwidth by about two orders of magnitude.</p><p>Don't want people to be "anonymous" behind NATed generic IP addresses?  Well I don't suggest taking away the OPTION, but if it bothers you so much, how about championin</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seconded.He just lost my personal and family and friends business for his products.I am ALL FOR improving the infrastructure of the internet , but not in ways that impede the facility and right of global anonymous 'free ' communication between any participating sender and receiver .
If he wants to improve the internet , maybe he should start with championing IPv6 , mobile IPv6 , DNSSEC , the provisioning of FREE wildcard domain SSL certificates with each domain registration as part of the registration benefit , good for the term of the domain registration , FREE personal email / code signing / document signing / key signing certificates either with a domain purchase or via any institution like a bank / municipal agency et .
al. Let 's keep it going and get ISPs to support multicast .
Further , champion email clients to all EASILY and CORRECTLY support digital signature checking / usage via PGP , GPG , DSS , and others .
Champion making all web traffic HTTPS/TLS by DEFAULT .
Champion using digital signing and executable signing for most software out there .
Champion the use of MANAGED / SANDBOXED code in JAVA or CLR instead of the unstable/insecure mess we have now .
Champion the acceptance of transparent compression of virtually all web and email traffic .
Champion supporting binary XML encoding for " web pages " to save an enormous amoung of internet resources / bandwidth .
Champion the semantic web / internet so people can actually contextually FIND the information they 're looking for in a meaningful context with rich metadata ; why with appropriate metadata one could even CHOOSE to read anonymous or particular categories of authors ' content or not at the point of searching / browsing / filtering .
Go to a library and you can select works by a particular personal / corporate author or publisher easily enough , but you ca n't effectively do that online .
If you do n't want to see SPAM and 'irrelevant ' anonymous traffic , why not start by making it possible to be smarter and more selective about ALL content you actually retrieve ? Right now it is next to technically / practically IMPOSSIBLE to CHOOSE to be " not anonymous " -- most email clients do n't support digital signature use / checking well or at all .
Most email SERVERS do n't bother to use SMTP over TLS with certificate based authentication between mail exchangers .
Most domains do n't use DNSSEC to assert their authenticated identity .
Most web servers wo n't permit the use of HTTPS/TLS connections for 99.999 \ % of their traffic , this leaving no opportunity for the server to be authenticated ( e.g .
not effectively anonymous ) or for the client to be certificate authenticated even if the client so wished .
Most " web mail " systems not only transmit private information in the clear but also defeat the use of signing certificates.Most web sites do n't support OpenID based authentication even if the user wanted to use it so they could be identified / authenticated in that way.Most ISPs themselves engage in plenty of port blocking , protocol blocking , packet spying , et .
al. Champion the use of VPNs between the ISP and the customer and non-interference with ( indeed support of ) encrypted / authenticated traffic from endpoint to endpoint .
Just try even using IPSEC even if you wanted to .
If you 're lucky maybe you can get SSL to work.For the most part this is all stuff that pretty trivially could be done today to improve the internet , its capacity , its security against forgery / eavesdropping , and to give people and organizations the tools they need to effectively communicate with more trust , reliability , and usability .
The semantic advancements of using better library science / metadata / semantic web techniques would allow better selectivity about what kinds of content one does and does not want to experience , while reducing wasted time and bandwidth by about two orders of magnitude.Do n't want people to be " anonymous " behind NATed generic IP addresses ?
Well I do n't suggest taking away the OPTION , but if it bothers you so much , how about championin</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seconded.He just lost my personal and family and friends business for his products.I am ALL FOR improving the infrastructure of the internet, but not in ways that impede the facility and right of global anonymous 'free' communication between any participating sender and receiver.
If he wants to improve the internet, maybe he should start with championing IPv6, mobile IPv6, DNSSEC, the provisioning of FREE wildcard domain SSL certificates with each domain registration as part of the registration benefit, good for the term of the domain registration, FREE personal email / code signing / document signing / key signing certificates either with a domain purchase or via any institution like a bank / municipal agency et.
al.  Let's keep it going and get ISPs to support multicast.
Further, champion email clients to all EASILY and CORRECTLY support digital signature checking / usage via PGP, GPG, DSS, and others.
Champion making all web traffic HTTPS/TLS by DEFAULT.
Champion using digital signing and executable signing for most software out there.
Champion the use of MANAGED / SANDBOXED code in JAVA or CLR instead of the unstable/insecure mess we have now.
Champion the acceptance of transparent compression of virtually all web and email traffic.
Champion supporting binary XML encoding for "web pages" to save an enormous amoung of internet resources / bandwidth.
Champion the semantic web / internet so people can actually contextually FIND the information they're looking for in a meaningful context with rich metadata; why with appropriate metadata one could even CHOOSE to read anonymous or particular categories of authors' content or not at the point of searching / browsing / filtering.
Go to a library and you can select works by a particular personal / corporate author or publisher easily enough, but you can't effectively do that online.
If you don't want to see SPAM and 'irrelevant' anonymous traffic, why not start by making it possible to be smarter and more selective about ALL content you actually retrieve?Right now it is next to technically / practically IMPOSSIBLE to CHOOSE to be "not anonymous" -- most email clients don't support digital signature use / checking well or at all.
Most email SERVERS don't bother to use SMTP over TLS with certificate based authentication between mail exchangers.
Most domains don't use DNSSEC to assert their authenticated identity.
Most web servers won't permit the use of HTTPS/TLS connections for 99.999\% of their traffic, this leaving no opportunity for the server to be authenticated (e.g.
not effectively anonymous) or for the client to be certificate authenticated even if the client so wished.
Most "web mail" systems not only transmit private information in the clear but also defeat the use of signing certificates.Most web sites don't support OpenID based authentication even if the user wanted to use it so they could be identified / authenticated in that way.Most ISPs themselves engage in plenty of port blocking, protocol blocking, packet spying, et.
al.  Champion the use of VPNs between the ISP and the customer and non-interference with (indeed support of) encrypted / authenticated traffic from endpoint to endpoint.
Just try even using IPSEC even if you wanted to.
If you're lucky maybe you can get SSL to work.For the most part this is all stuff that pretty trivially could be done today to improve the internet, its capacity, its security against forgery / eavesdropping, and to give people and organizations the tools they need to effectively communicate with more trust, reliability, and usability.
The semantic advancements of using better library science / metadata / semantic web techniques would allow better selectivity about what kinds of content one does and does not want to experience, while reducing wasted time and bandwidth by about two orders of magnitude.Don't want people to be "anonymous" behind NATed generic IP addresses?
Well I don't suggest taking away the OPTION, but if it bothers you so much, how about championin</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29776991</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777689</id>
	<title>Oi! There's this thing called "other countries"!</title>
	<author>BlueParrot</author>
	<datestamp>1255795560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In order to actually enforce what he is suggesting you would have to effectively ban or censor all private individuals and companies from using protocols not endorsed by the government, all countries would have to agree on the bans and rules, and you would have to block traffic from non-cooperating countries.</p><p>However that is not enough, because some of the countries from which you want to allow traffic may be allowing proxies used by countries that don't cooperate. So if Switzerland were to allow the Swedish to use Swiss proxies, and if the US didn't like Sweden's way to do things, then not only would they have to refuse all traffic from Sweden, they would have to refuse all traffic from Switzerland too. And if the UK allowed the Swiss to use UK proxies, you'd have to ban the UK too.</p><p>Then there is the practical problems. How do you stop people from stealing each others "passports"?. How do you stop people peeking over each others back when they type in passwords ? How do you stop man in the middle attacks? Are you going to encrypt every single transmission ? And all countries will agree to encrypt all their traffic too? How do you manage the keys across international boundaries? What happens when I go on vacation in a country that doesn't agree with your rules ?</p><p>Now what about compromised systems? What do you do when you get packages from Russia, Nigeria and China flooding your key servers with false requests? What do you do when the attacks come from compromised systems in Australia, Norway, Israel and France? Do you block all those countries, do you disconnect all your citizens that can't access your key servers? Do you allow everybody access if the key-servers are flooded? Do you cut foreign countries off from your citizens thereby screwing over all your international trade?</p><p>Somebody didn't think this through...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In order to actually enforce what he is suggesting you would have to effectively ban or censor all private individuals and companies from using protocols not endorsed by the government , all countries would have to agree on the bans and rules , and you would have to block traffic from non-cooperating countries.However that is not enough , because some of the countries from which you want to allow traffic may be allowing proxies used by countries that do n't cooperate .
So if Switzerland were to allow the Swedish to use Swiss proxies , and if the US did n't like Sweden 's way to do things , then not only would they have to refuse all traffic from Sweden , they would have to refuse all traffic from Switzerland too .
And if the UK allowed the Swiss to use UK proxies , you 'd have to ban the UK too.Then there is the practical problems .
How do you stop people from stealing each others " passports " ? .
How do you stop people peeking over each others back when they type in passwords ?
How do you stop man in the middle attacks ?
Are you going to encrypt every single transmission ?
And all countries will agree to encrypt all their traffic too ?
How do you manage the keys across international boundaries ?
What happens when I go on vacation in a country that does n't agree with your rules ? Now what about compromised systems ?
What do you do when you get packages from Russia , Nigeria and China flooding your key servers with false requests ?
What do you do when the attacks come from compromised systems in Australia , Norway , Israel and France ?
Do you block all those countries , do you disconnect all your citizens that ca n't access your key servers ?
Do you allow everybody access if the key-servers are flooded ?
Do you cut foreign countries off from your citizens thereby screwing over all your international trade ? Somebody did n't think this through.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In order to actually enforce what he is suggesting you would have to effectively ban or censor all private individuals and companies from using protocols not endorsed by the government, all countries would have to agree on the bans and rules, and you would have to block traffic from non-cooperating countries.However that is not enough, because some of the countries from which you want to allow traffic may be allowing proxies used by countries that don't cooperate.
So if Switzerland were to allow the Swedish to use Swiss proxies, and if the US didn't like Sweden's way to do things, then not only would they have to refuse all traffic from Sweden, they would have to refuse all traffic from Switzerland too.
And if the UK allowed the Swiss to use UK proxies, you'd have to ban the UK too.Then there is the practical problems.
How do you stop people from stealing each others "passports"?.
How do you stop people peeking over each others back when they type in passwords ?
How do you stop man in the middle attacks?
Are you going to encrypt every single transmission ?
And all countries will agree to encrypt all their traffic too?
How do you manage the keys across international boundaries?
What happens when I go on vacation in a country that doesn't agree with your rules ?Now what about compromised systems?
What do you do when you get packages from Russia, Nigeria and China flooding your key servers with false requests?
What do you do when the attacks come from compromised systems in Australia, Norway, Israel and France?
Do you block all those countries, do you disconnect all your citizens that can't access your key servers?
Do you allow everybody access if the key-servers are flooded?
Do you cut foreign countries off from your citizens thereby screwing over all your international trade?Somebody didn't think this through...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777037</id>
	<title>Testing ideas</title>
	<author>IF\_I\_was\_G*d</author>
	<datestamp>1255790040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who is the CEO of Kaspersky to claim authority on these issues? Why does he feel entitled to to be in a position to even make suggestions, affecting basically the entire human population?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who is the CEO of Kaspersky to claim authority on these issues ?
Why does he feel entitled to to be in a position to even make suggestions , affecting basically the entire human population ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who is the CEO of Kaspersky to claim authority on these issues?
Why does he feel entitled to to be in a position to even make suggestions, affecting basically the entire human population?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29779235</id>
	<title>Boycott</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255810440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Boycott Kaspersky!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Boycott Kaspersky !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Boycott Kaspersky!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29784997</id>
	<title>Re: What, no part time psychoanalysts?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255888320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>But the Internet isn't a road; that's just a lame 1990s metaphor. The Internet is a publisher, and anonymous publishing has been the foundation for Western democracy - all those cranky religious nuts putting out their one-page pamphlets decrying the King, that sort of thing.<p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...and they generally tend to take responsibility for their words.</p></div><p>OK, sure. All it takes on an non-Anonymous Internet is to say something that your employer disagrees with and you're screwed -- human rights, dissing the government, sexuality, etc. Employers in the US already claim rights to your bodily fluids and will fire you *without a conviction* if you have drugs in your system. Imagine if you're a gay rights activist and work in Utah? Or whatever. You just wouldn't use the Internet to discuss anything even mildly controversial.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But the Internet is n't a road ; that 's just a lame 1990s metaphor .
The Internet is a publisher , and anonymous publishing has been the foundation for Western democracy - all those cranky religious nuts putting out their one-page pamphlets decrying the King , that sort of thing .
...and they generally tend to take responsibility for their words.OK , sure .
All it takes on an non-Anonymous Internet is to say something that your employer disagrees with and you 're screwed -- human rights , dissing the government , sexuality , etc .
Employers in the US already claim rights to your bodily fluids and will fire you * without a conviction * if you have drugs in your system .
Imagine if you 're a gay rights activist and work in Utah ?
Or whatever .
You just would n't use the Internet to discuss anything even mildly controversial .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But the Internet isn't a road; that's just a lame 1990s metaphor.
The Internet is a publisher, and anonymous publishing has been the foundation for Western democracy - all those cranky religious nuts putting out their one-page pamphlets decrying the King, that sort of thing.
...and they generally tend to take responsibility for their words.OK, sure.
All it takes on an non-Anonymous Internet is to say something that your employer disagrees with and you're screwed -- human rights, dissing the government, sexuality, etc.
Employers in the US already claim rights to your bodily fluids and will fire you *without a conviction* if you have drugs in your system.
Imagine if you're a gay rights activist and work in Utah?
Or whatever.
You just wouldn't use the Internet to discuss anything even mildly controversial.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29780179</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778999</id>
	<title>Re:I agree!</title>
	<author>KZigurs</author>
	<datestamp>1255808340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Technically in some countries there are laws that only postman can operate your mailbox. Doesn't do much good thou...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Technically in some countries there are laws that only postman can operate your mailbox .
Does n't do much good thou.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Technically in some countries there are laws that only postman can operate your mailbox.
Doesn't do much good thou...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777005</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777897</id>
	<title>Re:"work much like driver licenses do"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255797900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Umm where do you live that you don't have a license plate? You didn't say it-but if they can track you and a license plate makes that simple you've already been stopped for all intensive purposes. Actual checkpoints aren't really much worse than this. Both are disturbing. Cops can already pull you over at will in the USA-without any real justification beyond speeding or some other minor traffic violation and then they use that to legally harass you about non-existent drugs and other things. I'm under 30 and it has happened to me a few times now. I've never even smoked a cigarette in the USA let along taken/possesed drugs illegally (not to say I haven't tried marijuana or other substances outside the county in places where its legal). I was also harassed at random at the airport for a continental (within USA) flight once now. We're all harassed at the airport needlessly-but some people are pulled out for extra searching.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Umm where do you live that you do n't have a license plate ?
You did n't say it-but if they can track you and a license plate makes that simple you 've already been stopped for all intensive purposes .
Actual checkpoints are n't really much worse than this .
Both are disturbing .
Cops can already pull you over at will in the USA-without any real justification beyond speeding or some other minor traffic violation and then they use that to legally harass you about non-existent drugs and other things .
I 'm under 30 and it has happened to me a few times now .
I 've never even smoked a cigarette in the USA let along taken/possesed drugs illegally ( not to say I have n't tried marijuana or other substances outside the county in places where its legal ) .
I was also harassed at random at the airport for a continental ( within USA ) flight once now .
We 're all harassed at the airport needlessly-but some people are pulled out for extra searching .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Umm where do you live that you don't have a license plate?
You didn't say it-but if they can track you and a license plate makes that simple you've already been stopped for all intensive purposes.
Actual checkpoints aren't really much worse than this.
Both are disturbing.
Cops can already pull you over at will in the USA-without any real justification beyond speeding or some other minor traffic violation and then they use that to legally harass you about non-existent drugs and other things.
I'm under 30 and it has happened to me a few times now.
I've never even smoked a cigarette in the USA let along taken/possesed drugs illegally (not to say I haven't tried marijuana or other substances outside the county in places where its legal).
I was also harassed at random at the airport for a continental (within USA) flight once now.
We're all harassed at the airport needlessly-but some people are pulled out for extra searching.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777091</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29779339</id>
	<title>Re:"work much like driver licenses do"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255811400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No license plates where you live? Interesting.</p><p>Besides driving is one area where anonymity should be banned. Perhaps people would be more cooperative while driving, if anyone could turn them in for driving in a dangerous manner.</p><p>For most people out there, anonymity encourages the "its only illegal if I get caught" mentality. Yes there are instances where anonymity is important, but why optimize the system for the corner case. Optimize it for the standard case. The standard case is that people are stupid, and don't think about the repercussions of their actions or words, unless confronted with a threat to their person. Hell, most people don't even think that deeply about the opinions they hold, and have no business spouting off about them.</p><p>Just to go a bit further, I am tired of living in a society where I cannot trust anyone or anything. Anonymity is not going to increase trust it will decrease it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No license plates where you live ?
Interesting.Besides driving is one area where anonymity should be banned .
Perhaps people would be more cooperative while driving , if anyone could turn them in for driving in a dangerous manner.For most people out there , anonymity encourages the " its only illegal if I get caught " mentality .
Yes there are instances where anonymity is important , but why optimize the system for the corner case .
Optimize it for the standard case .
The standard case is that people are stupid , and do n't think about the repercussions of their actions or words , unless confronted with a threat to their person .
Hell , most people do n't even think that deeply about the opinions they hold , and have no business spouting off about them.Just to go a bit further , I am tired of living in a society where I can not trust anyone or anything .
Anonymity is not going to increase trust it will decrease it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No license plates where you live?
Interesting.Besides driving is one area where anonymity should be banned.
Perhaps people would be more cooperative while driving, if anyone could turn them in for driving in a dangerous manner.For most people out there, anonymity encourages the "its only illegal if I get caught" mentality.
Yes there are instances where anonymity is important, but why optimize the system for the corner case.
Optimize it for the standard case.
The standard case is that people are stupid, and don't think about the repercussions of their actions or words, unless confronted with a threat to their person.
Hell, most people don't even think that deeply about the opinions they hold, and have no business spouting off about them.Just to go a bit further, I am tired of living in a society where I cannot trust anyone or anything.
Anonymity is not going to increase trust it will decrease it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777091</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777101</id>
	<title>Re:Guess who's security software I won't be buying</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255790460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The guy obviously never lived under the Stasi but instead, wants to become one</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The guy obviously never lived under the Stasi but instead , wants to become one</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The guy obviously never lived under the Stasi but instead, wants to become one</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777007</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777919</id>
	<title>What is this internet thing anyway?</title>
	<author>FrozenGeek</author>
	<datestamp>1255798020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Clearly Mr Kaspersky does not understand what the internet is today.  He clearly does not understand how people want to use it today.<br>That, in and of itself is not a bad thing.  However, combine it with the fact that he wants to sell software to help internet users do so securely, and you've got a problem.  I won't be using his software for two reasons:<br>
1.  I do not wish to support his viewpoint.<br>
2.  Since he clearly does not understand the internet as it stands today, I do not believe he is competent to help secure my computers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Clearly Mr Kaspersky does not understand what the internet is today .
He clearly does not understand how people want to use it today.That , in and of itself is not a bad thing .
However , combine it with the fact that he wants to sell software to help internet users do so securely , and you 've got a problem .
I wo n't be using his software for two reasons : 1 .
I do not wish to support his viewpoint .
2. Since he clearly does not understand the internet as it stands today , I do not believe he is competent to help secure my computers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clearly Mr Kaspersky does not understand what the internet is today.
He clearly does not understand how people want to use it today.That, in and of itself is not a bad thing.
However, combine it with the fact that he wants to sell software to help internet users do so securely, and you've got a problem.
I won't be using his software for two reasons:
1.
I do not wish to support his viewpoint.
2.  Since he clearly does not understand the internet as it stands today, I do not believe he is competent to help secure my computers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29780569</id>
	<title>Re:Guess who's security software I won't be buying</title>
	<author>orkysoft</author>
	<datestamp>1255780140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"worse than Microsoft AIDS" (a hypothetical product with the combined potential of causing sever harm to both your computer and your own personal well-being).</p></div><p>It's not hypothetical, it's just that they release it under pseudonyms.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" worse than Microsoft AIDS " ( a hypothetical product with the combined potential of causing sever harm to both your computer and your own personal well-being ) .It 's not hypothetical , it 's just that they release it under pseudonyms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"worse than Microsoft AIDS" (a hypothetical product with the combined potential of causing sever harm to both your computer and your own personal well-being).It's not hypothetical, it's just that they release it under pseudonyms.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29782817</id>
	<title>New Product from Kaspersky Labs</title>
	<author>goldmaneye</author>
	<datestamp>1255860660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From: Kaspersky Labs<br>
Date: The Future<br>
<br>
Governments of the World,<br>
<br>
Anonymity on the Internet is a problem. It has been linked to obesity, cancer, global warming, and other really bad things.* That is why Kaspersky Labs is pleased to announce a new product for the citizens of your country: the Internet Passport! No more do you or your citizens have to fear the terrible ills of anonymous Internet browsing. Now, you might be thinking, what will this incredible new technology cost me? For such an important application, a trillion dollars is not an outlandish price. However, given the critical importance of this technology in today's world, Kaspersky Labs is offering it for the low, low price of a billion dollars.** Sign up today and you'll also receive an offer for free antivirus software for you and a million of your citizens!*** Don't let this incredible opportunity pass you by!<br>
<br>
Sincerely,<br>
<br>
Kasperky Labs Marketing Dept.<br>
<br>
* In that the Internet and the various terrible things listed and hinted at have existed together, at some point in their histories.<br>
<br>
** Cost of software only; installation, management, and troubleshooting costs extra. Does not include annual per-user Internet passport licensing fees, which will be very high.<br>
<br>
*** Contingent on the purchase of Kaspersky Labs antivirus software for the rest of your citizenry.</htmltext>
<tokenext>From : Kaspersky Labs Date : The Future Governments of the World , Anonymity on the Internet is a problem .
It has been linked to obesity , cancer , global warming , and other really bad things .
* That is why Kaspersky Labs is pleased to announce a new product for the citizens of your country : the Internet Passport !
No more do you or your citizens have to fear the terrible ills of anonymous Internet browsing .
Now , you might be thinking , what will this incredible new technology cost me ?
For such an important application , a trillion dollars is not an outlandish price .
However , given the critical importance of this technology in today 's world , Kaspersky Labs is offering it for the low , low price of a billion dollars .
* * Sign up today and you 'll also receive an offer for free antivirus software for you and a million of your citizens !
* * * Do n't let this incredible opportunity pass you by !
Sincerely , Kasperky Labs Marketing Dept .
* In that the Internet and the various terrible things listed and hinted at have existed together , at some point in their histories .
* * Cost of software only ; installation , management , and troubleshooting costs extra .
Does not include annual per-user Internet passport licensing fees , which will be very high .
* * * Contingent on the purchase of Kaspersky Labs antivirus software for the rest of your citizenry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From: Kaspersky Labs
Date: The Future

Governments of the World,

Anonymity on the Internet is a problem.
It has been linked to obesity, cancer, global warming, and other really bad things.
* That is why Kaspersky Labs is pleased to announce a new product for the citizens of your country: the Internet Passport!
No more do you or your citizens have to fear the terrible ills of anonymous Internet browsing.
Now, you might be thinking, what will this incredible new technology cost me?
For such an important application, a trillion dollars is not an outlandish price.
However, given the critical importance of this technology in today's world, Kaspersky Labs is offering it for the low, low price of a billion dollars.
** Sign up today and you'll also receive an offer for free antivirus software for you and a million of your citizens!
*** Don't let this incredible opportunity pass you by!
Sincerely,

Kasperky Labs Marketing Dept.
* In that the Internet and the various terrible things listed and hinted at have existed together, at some point in their histories.
** Cost of software only; installation, management, and troubleshooting costs extra.
Does not include annual per-user Internet passport licensing fees, which will be very high.
*** Contingent on the purchase of Kaspersky Labs antivirus software for the rest of your citizenry.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29783549</id>
	<title>to be frank</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255873980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>to be frank, I am tired of kaspersky.</p><p>the AV is getting so much slower, lag and lag.</p><p>Plus with this comment, i am not sure if kaspersky will be compromising my anonymousity anything for their big plan ahead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>to be frank , I am tired of kaspersky.the AV is getting so much slower , lag and lag.Plus with this comment , i am not sure if kaspersky will be compromising my anonymousity anything for their big plan ahead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>to be frank, I am tired of kaspersky.the AV is getting so much slower, lag and lag.Plus with this comment, i am not sure if kaspersky will be compromising my anonymousity anything for their big plan ahead.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778167</id>
	<title>Re:Guess who's security software I won't be buying</title>
	<author>ultranova</author>
	<datestamp>1255800540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The only thing you really <em>need</em> for free exchange of ideas is a society where that its respected, and a government that protects it rather than prosecutes it. Oh... and the courage to speak up and own your own words.</p></div> </blockquote><p>Well now Mr. tverbeek, why don't you post your real name and address here, just to show us how it's done? Unless, of course, you have less than complete faith in this society and its government or your own courage?</p><blockquote><div><p>Anonymity is a fallback tactic for use in oppressive societies, needed only in extreme circumstances.</p></div> </blockquote><p>Exactly. Anonymity is <em>guaranteed</em> to work even in imperfect societies made of and led by imperfect people. Relying on the niceness and tolerance of people isn't.</p><blockquote><div><p>We managed to freely exchange ideas long before the internet gave everyone an anonymous soapbox, kids.</p></div> </blockquote><p>And quite a few of those ideas were signed by pseudonyms, or not signed at all.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only thing you really need for free exchange of ideas is a society where that its respected , and a government that protects it rather than prosecutes it .
Oh... and the courage to speak up and own your own words .
Well now Mr. tverbeek , why do n't you post your real name and address here , just to show us how it 's done ?
Unless , of course , you have less than complete faith in this society and its government or your own courage ? Anonymity is a fallback tactic for use in oppressive societies , needed only in extreme circumstances .
Exactly. Anonymity is guaranteed to work even in imperfect societies made of and led by imperfect people .
Relying on the niceness and tolerance of people is n't.We managed to freely exchange ideas long before the internet gave everyone an anonymous soapbox , kids .
And quite a few of those ideas were signed by pseudonyms , or not signed at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only thing you really need for free exchange of ideas is a society where that its respected, and a government that protects it rather than prosecutes it.
Oh... and the courage to speak up and own your own words.
Well now Mr. tverbeek, why don't you post your real name and address here, just to show us how it's done?
Unless, of course, you have less than complete faith in this society and its government or your own courage?Anonymity is a fallback tactic for use in oppressive societies, needed only in extreme circumstances.
Exactly. Anonymity is guaranteed to work even in imperfect societies made of and led by imperfect people.
Relying on the niceness and tolerance of people isn't.We managed to freely exchange ideas long before the internet gave everyone an anonymous soapbox, kids.
And quite a few of those ideas were signed by pseudonyms, or not signed at all.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777147</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777627</id>
	<title>Where you do you com from, where do you go ..</title>
	<author>roguegramma</author>
	<datestamp>1255794780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't exactly agree, but I know where he is coming from<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..</p><p>Ever found out your favorite website was hacked, you looked at the logs and find out that the attackers cannot be tracked down becaused they used tor or anonymizing proxies?</p><p>That is when a network where people are resonsible for their actions would be useful. I wouldn't even mind if the culprits stayed anonymous, as long as I would know the proxy would not accept any more traffic from them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't exactly agree , but I know where he is coming from ..Ever found out your favorite website was hacked , you looked at the logs and find out that the attackers can not be tracked down becaused they used tor or anonymizing proxies ? That is when a network where people are resonsible for their actions would be useful .
I would n't even mind if the culprits stayed anonymous , as long as I would know the proxy would not accept any more traffic from them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't exactly agree, but I know where he is coming from ..Ever found out your favorite website was hacked, you looked at the logs and find out that the attackers cannot be tracked down becaused they used tor or anonymizing proxies?That is when a network where people are resonsible for their actions would be useful.
I wouldn't even mind if the culprits stayed anonymous, as long as I would know the proxy would not accept any more traffic from them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29779167</id>
	<title>Oh how convenient.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255809780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He names all his software after himself, so just avoid anything with a big "K".</p><p>That's right, I'm anonymous, bitch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He names all his software after himself , so just avoid anything with a big " K " .That 's right , I 'm anonymous , bitch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He names all his software after himself, so just avoid anything with a big "K".That's right, I'm anonymous, bitch.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777613</id>
	<title>I've been worried about this for a long time...</title>
	<author>moxley</author>
	<datestamp>1255794600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I knew this was coming, i've posted about it here before, that one day the powers that be are going to want people to have a virtual, verifiable online ID that traces everything you do online back to your real identity that everyone who wants to go online will be forced to have. .</p><p>This absolutely has to be stopped, it obviously won't work, any system can be gamed or hacked p but the real issue (even if you believe something like this would help) is that it will stifle free speech - so many people go online to learn, to anonymously get info and talk to people about health issues and personal things  that should always be anonymous if the person involved wants it this way.</p><p>Just think about political speech and organizing...Say goodbye to that - with the way the US federal government now behaves, just look at Pittsburg - tons of innocent people ]bombarded with LRADs (which can cause permanent hearing damage) for just coming out of their hosue to see what was going on...Police or agent provocateurs dressed up in black and knocking over trash cans - then riot police (and even hired military contractors like blackwater drressed as police) brtualizing innocent people... - SO with all of that sort of behavior, if this sort of thing gets mandated it will be the end of the last truly free medium of communication we have.</p><p>I believe that this is the biggest threat to freedom and to the internet, bigger even than network neutrality (which, in some respects can cause similar problems, with certain types of information being "downgraded" or even not served).</p><p>If this becomes a reality it will destroy the culture of the internet - digital culture will be dealt a death blow - and I expect now that it's been mentioned every organization from the RIAA and similar groups to the national security organizations to the financial sector will hop on board.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I knew this was coming , i 've posted about it here before , that one day the powers that be are going to want people to have a virtual , verifiable online ID that traces everything you do online back to your real identity that everyone who wants to go online will be forced to have .
.This absolutely has to be stopped , it obviously wo n't work , any system can be gamed or hacked p but the real issue ( even if you believe something like this would help ) is that it will stifle free speech - so many people go online to learn , to anonymously get info and talk to people about health issues and personal things that should always be anonymous if the person involved wants it this way.Just think about political speech and organizing...Say goodbye to that - with the way the US federal government now behaves , just look at Pittsburg - tons of innocent people ] bombarded with LRADs ( which can cause permanent hearing damage ) for just coming out of their hosue to see what was going on...Police or agent provocateurs dressed up in black and knocking over trash cans - then riot police ( and even hired military contractors like blackwater drressed as police ) brtualizing innocent people... - SO with all of that sort of behavior , if this sort of thing gets mandated it will be the end of the last truly free medium of communication we have.I believe that this is the biggest threat to freedom and to the internet , bigger even than network neutrality ( which , in some respects can cause similar problems , with certain types of information being " downgraded " or even not served ) .If this becomes a reality it will destroy the culture of the internet - digital culture will be dealt a death blow - and I expect now that it 's been mentioned every organization from the RIAA and similar groups to the national security organizations to the financial sector will hop on board .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I knew this was coming, i've posted about it here before, that one day the powers that be are going to want people to have a virtual, verifiable online ID that traces everything you do online back to your real identity that everyone who wants to go online will be forced to have.
.This absolutely has to be stopped, it obviously won't work, any system can be gamed or hacked p but the real issue (even if you believe something like this would help) is that it will stifle free speech - so many people go online to learn, to anonymously get info and talk to people about health issues and personal things  that should always be anonymous if the person involved wants it this way.Just think about political speech and organizing...Say goodbye to that - with the way the US federal government now behaves, just look at Pittsburg - tons of innocent people ]bombarded with LRADs (which can cause permanent hearing damage) for just coming out of their hosue to see what was going on...Police or agent provocateurs dressed up in black and knocking over trash cans - then riot police (and even hired military contractors like blackwater drressed as police) brtualizing innocent people... - SO with all of that sort of behavior, if this sort of thing gets mandated it will be the end of the last truly free medium of communication we have.I believe that this is the biggest threat to freedom and to the internet, bigger even than network neutrality (which, in some respects can cause similar problems, with certain types of information being "downgraded" or even not served).If this becomes a reality it will destroy the culture of the internet - digital culture will be dealt a death blow - and I expect now that it's been mentioned every organization from the RIAA and similar groups to the national security organizations to the financial sector will hop on board.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778779</id>
	<title>What, no part time psychoanalysts?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255806000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Kaspersky.  See the name?  He's a Slovak - I would say Polish, but Slovak for sure.  He lives in Russia.  He's no young puppy.  The man grew up under the old Soviet.  His values are not the values of the western world.  I don't mean to be judgemental, per se, but I recognize that he ain't like me.</p><p>While most of us in the western world tend to deny it, there is comfort to be had inside of a totalitarian regime.  You know your place, you know everyone else's place, you do your job and keep your nose to yourself, and everyone gets along.  It's easy to sell to the masses, and Joe Sixpack manages alright unless and until some silly sumbitch decides to sacrifice Joe for the "good of the party".</p><p>So, Mr. Kaspersky has a touch of nostalgia for the good things from the Soviet, and forgets about the bad things.  People tend to do that.  Right here in the US, we have all kinds of people who remember the '50's (or whichever decade they were teenagers in) as Utopia.  Life was simpler then - mostly because they were kids with no responsibilities.</p><p>For that matter, I can probably find a few million people right here in the US why would fall right in line with Mr. Kaspersky's ideas, because it just makes sense.  No one needs to be anonymous, unless they are up to no good.  Hell, with my own relatively open mind, I think kids are goofy for wearing hoodies.  Why cover your face, and try to hide your features, if you're not ashamed of what you are doing?  But, I don't make a big deal of the hoodies, because I know the cops aren't always right, or even always honest.</p><p>Yeah, I could easily find several million people in the US who will agree with Mr. Kasperski.  Some kind of a psychological analysis would be nice to look at.  Or, the conclusions drawn by the psych people, anyway.</p><p>Any takers?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Kaspersky .
See the name ?
He 's a Slovak - I would say Polish , but Slovak for sure .
He lives in Russia .
He 's no young puppy .
The man grew up under the old Soviet .
His values are not the values of the western world .
I do n't mean to be judgemental , per se , but I recognize that he ai n't like me.While most of us in the western world tend to deny it , there is comfort to be had inside of a totalitarian regime .
You know your place , you know everyone else 's place , you do your job and keep your nose to yourself , and everyone gets along .
It 's easy to sell to the masses , and Joe Sixpack manages alright unless and until some silly sumbitch decides to sacrifice Joe for the " good of the party " .So , Mr. Kaspersky has a touch of nostalgia for the good things from the Soviet , and forgets about the bad things .
People tend to do that .
Right here in the US , we have all kinds of people who remember the '50 's ( or whichever decade they were teenagers in ) as Utopia .
Life was simpler then - mostly because they were kids with no responsibilities.For that matter , I can probably find a few million people right here in the US why would fall right in line with Mr. Kaspersky 's ideas , because it just makes sense .
No one needs to be anonymous , unless they are up to no good .
Hell , with my own relatively open mind , I think kids are goofy for wearing hoodies .
Why cover your face , and try to hide your features , if you 're not ashamed of what you are doing ?
But , I do n't make a big deal of the hoodies , because I know the cops are n't always right , or even always honest.Yeah , I could easily find several million people in the US who will agree with Mr. Kasperski. Some kind of a psychological analysis would be nice to look at .
Or , the conclusions drawn by the psych people , anyway.Any takers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kaspersky.
See the name?
He's a Slovak - I would say Polish, but Slovak for sure.
He lives in Russia.
He's no young puppy.
The man grew up under the old Soviet.
His values are not the values of the western world.
I don't mean to be judgemental, per se, but I recognize that he ain't like me.While most of us in the western world tend to deny it, there is comfort to be had inside of a totalitarian regime.
You know your place, you know everyone else's place, you do your job and keep your nose to yourself, and everyone gets along.
It's easy to sell to the masses, and Joe Sixpack manages alright unless and until some silly sumbitch decides to sacrifice Joe for the "good of the party".So, Mr. Kaspersky has a touch of nostalgia for the good things from the Soviet, and forgets about the bad things.
People tend to do that.
Right here in the US, we have all kinds of people who remember the '50's (or whichever decade they were teenagers in) as Utopia.
Life was simpler then - mostly because they were kids with no responsibilities.For that matter, I can probably find a few million people right here in the US why would fall right in line with Mr. Kaspersky's ideas, because it just makes sense.
No one needs to be anonymous, unless they are up to no good.
Hell, with my own relatively open mind, I think kids are goofy for wearing hoodies.
Why cover your face, and try to hide your features, if you're not ashamed of what you are doing?
But, I don't make a big deal of the hoodies, because I know the cops aren't always right, or even always honest.Yeah, I could easily find several million people in the US who will agree with Mr. Kasperski.  Some kind of a psychological analysis would be nice to look at.
Or, the conclusions drawn by the psych people, anyway.Any takers?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29776951</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778029</id>
	<title>When anonymity is outlawed...</title>
	<author>nitehawk214</author>
	<datestamp>1255798920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When anonymity is outlawed... Anonymous will be outlaws.</p><p>Seriously though, does he actually think that the criminals, fraudsters, libelers, and the worst of the worst, the copyright breakers will not find a way to get around his passport system? Assuming every country in the world would even go for this, the best they could do is find a way to sue everyone who says a bad word about Kaspersky or his clients.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When anonymity is outlawed... Anonymous will be outlaws.Seriously though , does he actually think that the criminals , fraudsters , libelers , and the worst of the worst , the copyright breakers will not find a way to get around his passport system ?
Assuming every country in the world would even go for this , the best they could do is find a way to sue everyone who says a bad word about Kaspersky or his clients .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When anonymity is outlawed... Anonymous will be outlaws.Seriously though, does he actually think that the criminals, fraudsters, libelers, and the worst of the worst, the copyright breakers will not find a way to get around his passport system?
Assuming every country in the world would even go for this, the best they could do is find a way to sue everyone who says a bad word about Kaspersky or his clients.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778501</id>
	<title>with freedom comes risk</title>
	<author>iccaros</author>
	<datestamp>1255803540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>and I for one accept the risk freedom brings..</htmltext>
<tokenext>and I for one accept the risk freedom brings. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and I for one accept the risk freedom brings..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777307</id>
	<title>When anonymity is outlawed...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255792140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>...only criminals will be anonymous.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...only criminals will be anonymous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...only criminals will be anonymous.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777985</id>
	<title>Uhh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255798680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And I am sure, just like real identities, these can't be falsified or spoofed...righhhtt.  Kaspersky, of all companies, should know this.  Sad...their virus scanners blow anyways...NOD32 ftw.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And I am sure , just like real identities , these ca n't be falsified or spoofed...righhhtt .
Kaspersky , of all companies , should know this .
Sad...their virus scanners blow anyways...NOD32 ftw .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And I am sure, just like real identities, these can't be falsified or spoofed...righhhtt.
Kaspersky, of all companies, should know this.
Sad...their virus scanners blow anyways...NOD32 ftw.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778775</id>
	<title>It's a deep rooted Soviet mentality =)</title>
	<author>c00p3r</author>
	<datestamp>1255805940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>or it might be a child's dream to become a militioner.</htmltext>
<tokenext>or it might be a child 's dream to become a militioner .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>or it might be a child's dream to become a militioner.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777225</id>
	<title>What a surprise!</title>
	<author>rindeee</author>
	<datestamp>1255791300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The former head of 'cyber' for the communist Soviet KGB doesn't believe in people right to privacy.  I for one am shocked.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The former head of 'cyber ' for the communist Soviet KGB does n't believe in people right to privacy .
I for one am shocked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The former head of 'cyber' for the communist Soviet KGB doesn't believe in people right to privacy.
I for one am shocked.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29780873</id>
	<title>Anonymous #13576452</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255783740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Kaspersky? So many idiots, so few comets.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Kaspersky ?
So many idiots , so few comets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kaspersky?
So many idiots, so few comets.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778615</id>
	<title>Und Propiska, of corz</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255804620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>ya, ya, Comrad YuGene!

Und vee vill azk everyovone to receive a Propiska(in the glroious Country Comrad Eugene happened to born, EVERYONE was required to have a permission to live in any place, called propiska) UND we vill vant everyone to request for premision to look for information outside of ze Mazerland (in the glorious Fraterland of the named Comrad one needed special permission to visit anything outside of the country AND it was a felony to read wat is not permitted to read by some organization one can describe as pre-Intenet anti-virus+anti-spam agency).

This company is ready to join Revolutionary Guard (or, probably, they already?)

Hope to see the clawns in Guy Fawks masks visiting KgbSPERSKY offices rather than riding the (curious) fame of the Hubbard and Cruise.</htmltext>
<tokenext>ya , ya , Comrad YuGene !
Und vee vill azk everyovone to receive a Propiska ( in the glroious Country Comrad Eugene happened to born , EVERYONE was required to have a permission to live in any place , called propiska ) UND we vill vant everyone to request for premision to look for information outside of ze Mazerland ( in the glorious Fraterland of the named Comrad one needed special permission to visit anything outside of the country AND it was a felony to read wat is not permitted to read by some organization one can describe as pre-Intenet anti-virus + anti-spam agency ) .
This company is ready to join Revolutionary Guard ( or , probably , they already ?
) Hope to see the clawns in Guy Fawks masks visiting KgbSPERSKY offices rather than riding the ( curious ) fame of the Hubbard and Cruise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ya, ya, Comrad YuGene!
Und vee vill azk everyovone to receive a Propiska(in the glroious Country Comrad Eugene happened to born, EVERYONE was required to have a permission to live in any place, called propiska) UND we vill vant everyone to request for premision to look for information outside of ze Mazerland (in the glorious Fraterland of the named Comrad one needed special permission to visit anything outside of the country AND it was a felony to read wat is not permitted to read by some organization one can describe as pre-Intenet anti-virus+anti-spam agency).
This company is ready to join Revolutionary Guard (or, probably, they already?
)

Hope to see the clawns in Guy Fawks masks visiting KgbSPERSKY offices rather than riding the (curious) fame of the Hubbard and Cruise.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777637</id>
	<title>Anonymous Internet wants an End to Kaspersky-AV</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255795020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ha! Take that!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ha !
Take that !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ha!
Take that!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777715</id>
	<title>Re:"work much like driver licenses do"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255795800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Where he lives (in Russia), a car must have insurance, and insurance has a list of approved drivers. Also every &ldquo;passport&rdquo; works as an ID, it has address on it. When you move to the other part of the country for a long period of time (longer than 3 month), you're supposed to register.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Where he lives ( in Russia ) , a car must have insurance , and insurance has a list of approved drivers .
Also every    passport    works as an ID , it has address on it .
When you move to the other part of the country for a long period of time ( longer than 3 month ) , you 're supposed to register .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where he lives (in Russia), a car must have insurance, and insurance has a list of approved drivers.
Also every “passport” works as an ID, it has address on it.
When you move to the other part of the country for a long period of time (longer than 3 month), you're supposed to register.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777091</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777795</id>
	<title>Hypocritical much?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255796700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So people complain about him wanting to remove anonymity but I get smashed into the ground for posting as Anonymous Coward?</p><p>Hypocritical much?</p><p>Yeah.. not the same thing (I have the option to post anon) but it was the first thing that popped into my mind after reading the standard cut-n-paste<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. crowd responses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So people complain about him wanting to remove anonymity but I get smashed into the ground for posting as Anonymous Coward ? Hypocritical much ? Yeah.. not the same thing ( I have the option to post anon ) but it was the first thing that popped into my mind after reading the standard cut-n-paste / .
crowd responses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So people complain about him wanting to remove anonymity but I get smashed into the ground for posting as Anonymous Coward?Hypocritical much?Yeah.. not the same thing (I have the option to post anon) but it was the first thing that popped into my mind after reading the standard cut-n-paste /.
crowd responses.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29786215</id>
	<title>STUPID words from someone brilliant</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1255898160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>its even more disturbing when someone smart utters stupid shit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>its even more disturbing when someone smart utters stupid shit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>its even more disturbing when someone smart utters stupid shit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777009</id>
	<title>Follow the money!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255789680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After Microsoft has released free anti-virus, Eugene Kaspersky needs to find out other ways how to make money online</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After Microsoft has released free anti-virus , Eugene Kaspersky needs to find out other ways how to make money online</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After Microsoft has released free anti-virus, Eugene Kaspersky needs to find out other ways how to make money online</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29780517</id>
	<title>Re:Guess who's security software I won't be buying</title>
	<author>Mex</author>
	<datestamp>1255779660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So Kaspersky is KGB, Panda Antivirus is Scientology, who are you going with?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So Kaspersky is KGB , Panda Antivirus is Scientology , who are you going with ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So Kaspersky is KGB, Panda Antivirus is Scientology, who are you going with?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777323</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778287</id>
	<title>His wish is already granted</title>
	<author>MikeURL</author>
	<datestamp>1255801560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is already virtually impossible to "hide" on the internet IF you want your activities to benefit you in the real world.  If you just want to surf anonymously that is possible but that doesn't hurt anyone.
<br> <br>
There is this common misconception that the TCP/IP allows people to do things anonymously with impunity.  Tracking down bad actors is more a lack of political will than a lack of the technical ability to do so.  If the various government and quasi-government agencies used all the tools they already have they would be able to shut down botnets overnight.  That would turn off the vast majority of the space that allows for phishers, et al, to operate.
<br> <br>
Going after end users to try to make them even more identifiable is like the EPA going after carmakers while they ignore the MUCH larger problem of legacy diesel engines.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is already virtually impossible to " hide " on the internet IF you want your activities to benefit you in the real world .
If you just want to surf anonymously that is possible but that does n't hurt anyone .
There is this common misconception that the TCP/IP allows people to do things anonymously with impunity .
Tracking down bad actors is more a lack of political will than a lack of the technical ability to do so .
If the various government and quasi-government agencies used all the tools they already have they would be able to shut down botnets overnight .
That would turn off the vast majority of the space that allows for phishers , et al , to operate .
Going after end users to try to make them even more identifiable is like the EPA going after carmakers while they ignore the MUCH larger problem of legacy diesel engines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is already virtually impossible to "hide" on the internet IF you want your activities to benefit you in the real world.
If you just want to surf anonymously that is possible but that doesn't hurt anyone.
There is this common misconception that the TCP/IP allows people to do things anonymously with impunity.
Tracking down bad actors is more a lack of political will than a lack of the technical ability to do so.
If the various government and quasi-government agencies used all the tools they already have they would be able to shut down botnets overnight.
That would turn off the vast majority of the space that allows for phishers, et al, to operate.
Going after end users to try to make them even more identifiable is like the EPA going after carmakers while they ignore the MUCH larger problem of legacy diesel engines.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29779517</id>
	<title>stalker, authoritarian dream</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255770060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This does little to slow any problems, it slightly raises the ante.</p><p>However such a requirement would open us to stalkers, vexatious lawsuits, petty bureaucrats and serious authoritarian types.</p><p>Imagine simply saying, "Hitler is an ass" loudly to the German public 65-70 years ago...  Anons only please.  Oh, and don't buy Kaperasky software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This does little to slow any problems , it slightly raises the ante.However such a requirement would open us to stalkers , vexatious lawsuits , petty bureaucrats and serious authoritarian types.Imagine simply saying , " Hitler is an ass " loudly to the German public 65-70 years ago... Anons only please .
Oh , and do n't buy Kaperasky software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This does little to slow any problems, it slightly raises the ante.However such a requirement would open us to stalkers, vexatious lawsuits, petty bureaucrats and serious authoritarian types.Imagine simply saying, "Hitler is an ass" loudly to the German public 65-70 years ago...  Anons only please.
Oh, and don't buy Kaperasky software.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777143</id>
	<title>Please no</title>
	<author>ReneeJade</author>
	<datestamp>1255790760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>OK, so this would make everything nice and safe... but it would ruin all the fun! <br> <br> Half the charm of the Internet is that it's a jungle out there. If it were to be regulated in this way it just wouldn't the Internet anymore. You use the web at your own risk. It's like riding a motorbike - not as safe as the train but way cooler. <br> <br>Cool. I just figured out how to put newlines in. Story: "Slashdot teaches young C coder HTML by accident"</htmltext>
<tokenext>OK , so this would make everything nice and safe... but it would ruin all the fun !
Half the charm of the Internet is that it 's a jungle out there .
If it were to be regulated in this way it just would n't the Internet anymore .
You use the web at your own risk .
It 's like riding a motorbike - not as safe as the train but way cooler .
Cool. I just figured out how to put newlines in .
Story : " Slashdot teaches young C coder HTML by accident "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK, so this would make everything nice and safe... but it would ruin all the fun!
Half the charm of the Internet is that it's a jungle out there.
If it were to be regulated in this way it just wouldn't the Internet anymore.
You use the web at your own risk.
It's like riding a motorbike - not as safe as the train but way cooler.
Cool. I just figured out how to put newlines in.
Story: "Slashdot teaches young C coder HTML by accident"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29781681</id>
	<title>Anonymity causes 99\% of the internet to be pure sh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255796100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So a question for you IT professionals.  You all only have guest accounts set up your network and allow anonymous logins for anyone, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So a question for you IT professionals .
You all only have guest accounts set up your network and allow anonymous logins for anyone , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So a question for you IT professionals.
You all only have guest accounts set up your network and allow anonymous logins for anyone, right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777567</id>
	<title>umpf</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255794300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Remember how western countries were mocking eastern block for having ID cards?<br>Guess what, now UK, Netherlands, and others are closer to "eastern block" then you think. US is practically there.</p><p>Issuing such passports will only promote identity theft. More than that, freedom for all will be gone.</p><p>"Those who would give up Essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." B. Franklin</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember how western countries were mocking eastern block for having ID cards ? Guess what , now UK , Netherlands , and others are closer to " eastern block " then you think .
US is practically there.Issuing such passports will only promote identity theft .
More than that , freedom for all will be gone .
" Those who would give up Essential Liberty , to purchase a little temporary Safety , deserve neither Liberty nor Safety .
" B. Franklin</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember how western countries were mocking eastern block for having ID cards?Guess what, now UK, Netherlands, and others are closer to "eastern block" then you think.
US is practically there.Issuing such passports will only promote identity theft.
More than that, freedom for all will be gone.
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
" B. Franklin</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29782617</id>
	<title>I support Kaspersky</title>
	<author>Profane MuthaFucka</author>
	<datestamp>1255899480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's right, I hope he really pushes his plan as far as he can.</p><p>Because I've got a shit-ton of popcorn and a lot of time to kill. This should be a really fukking entertaining train wreck to watch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's right , I hope he really pushes his plan as far as he can.Because I 've got a shit-ton of popcorn and a lot of time to kill .
This should be a really fukking entertaining train wreck to watch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's right, I hope he really pushes his plan as far as he can.Because I've got a shit-ton of popcorn and a lot of time to kill.
This should be a really fukking entertaining train wreck to watch.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29781997</id>
	<title>Resistance is futile</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255802280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>We are Anonymous, Resistance is Futile</htmltext>
<tokenext>We are Anonymous , Resistance is Futile</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We are Anonymous, Resistance is Futile</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29780211</id>
	<title>Hey Eugene!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255776660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're a festering pustule on a donkey's donger!</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're a festering pustule on a donkey 's donger !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're a festering pustule on a donkey's donger!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777499</id>
	<title>what's wrong with the design of the Internet?</title>
	<author>viralMeme</author>
	<datestamp>1255793640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><strong>If you had the power to change up to three things in the world today that are related to IT security, what would they be?</strong> <br> <br>

Internet design--that's enough.<br> <br>

<strong>That's it? What's wrong with the design of the Internet?</strong> <br> <br>

There's anonymity. Everyone should and must have an identification, or Internet passport. The Internet was designed not for public use, but for American scientists and the U.S. military. That was just a limited group of people--hundreds, or maybe thousands. Then it was introduced to the public and it was wrong...to introduce it in the same way.<br>
-- unquote --<br> <br>

That's total BS, what's wrong with the Internet is the vast networks of compromised desktop computers co-opted to be used as botnets to provide spamming and phishing services to the criminal sector. The vast majority of which run on Microsoft Windows. And people like you making a good living out of selling 'security' solutions. If everyone on the planet switched off their office 'computer' when they went home from work, the amount of spam/malware on the Internet would drop by over a half.<br> <br>

There is nothing wrong with the Internet, it performs as designed. It delivers packets to-and-from IP addresses. It doesn't know or care what's in 'em. Nor should it, that would break the design. Security should be handled at the end connections. What would cure the current smam/phishing/malware infestation is to design a desktop 'computer' that don't get infected by opening an email attachment or clicking on a URL.<br> <br>

"<i>If I were Bill Gates, I'd run another company--100 percent owned by Microsoft--that produces the antivirus under a different brand</i>"<br> <br>

It's never occured to Kaspersky to suggest that Bill Gates design an Operating System that don't rely on AV to protect. As <a href="http://www.ranum.com/security/computer\_security/editorials/dumb/" title="ranum.com">Marcus Ranum</a> [ranum.com] once said enumerating badness is a bad idea since, '<i> <strong>the amount of Badness in the Internet began to vastly outweigh the amount of Goodness</strong> </i>'.<br> <br>

So basically because people like Kaspersky have failed at security, and want to implement an Internet Stasi (<strong>Staa</strong>ts<strong>si</strong>cherheit). I don't think so. There are enough people out there that'll see it don't ever happen.

--<br> <br>

'<i>Kaspersky Lab UK <strong>provides</strong> the leading <a href="http://www.reviewcentre.com/fi2167-brand-Kaspersky.html" title="reviewcentre.com">antivirus</a> [reviewcentre.com] and spyware software</i>'<br> <br>

<i>please by more of my bogus 'security' solutions</i> - nuff said<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you had the power to change up to three things in the world today that are related to IT security , what would they be ?
Internet design--that 's enough .
That 's it ?
What 's wrong with the design of the Internet ?
There 's anonymity .
Everyone should and must have an identification , or Internet passport .
The Internet was designed not for public use , but for American scientists and the U.S. military. That was just a limited group of people--hundreds , or maybe thousands .
Then it was introduced to the public and it was wrong...to introduce it in the same way .
-- unquote -- That 's total BS , what 's wrong with the Internet is the vast networks of compromised desktop computers co-opted to be used as botnets to provide spamming and phishing services to the criminal sector .
The vast majority of which run on Microsoft Windows .
And people like you making a good living out of selling 'security ' solutions .
If everyone on the planet switched off their office 'computer ' when they went home from work , the amount of spam/malware on the Internet would drop by over a half .
There is nothing wrong with the Internet , it performs as designed .
It delivers packets to-and-from IP addresses .
It does n't know or care what 's in 'em .
Nor should it , that would break the design .
Security should be handled at the end connections .
What would cure the current smam/phishing/malware infestation is to design a desktop 'computer ' that do n't get infected by opening an email attachment or clicking on a URL .
" If I were Bill Gates , I 'd run another company--100 percent owned by Microsoft--that produces the antivirus under a different brand " It 's never occured to Kaspersky to suggest that Bill Gates design an Operating System that do n't rely on AV to protect .
As Marcus Ranum [ ranum.com ] once said enumerating badness is a bad idea since , ' the amount of Badness in the Internet began to vastly outweigh the amount of Goodness ' .
So basically because people like Kaspersky have failed at security , and want to implement an Internet Stasi ( Staatssicherheit ) .
I do n't think so .
There are enough people out there that 'll see it do n't ever happen .
-- 'Kaspersky Lab UK provides the leading antivirus [ reviewcentre.com ] and spyware software ' please by more of my bogus 'security ' solutions - nuff said .. : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you had the power to change up to three things in the world today that are related to IT security, what would they be?
Internet design--that's enough.
That's it?
What's wrong with the design of the Internet?
There's anonymity.
Everyone should and must have an identification, or Internet passport.
The Internet was designed not for public use, but for American scientists and the U.S. military. That was just a limited group of people--hundreds, or maybe thousands.
Then it was introduced to the public and it was wrong...to introduce it in the same way.
-- unquote -- 

That's total BS, what's wrong with the Internet is the vast networks of compromised desktop computers co-opted to be used as botnets to provide spamming and phishing services to the criminal sector.
The vast majority of which run on Microsoft Windows.
And people like you making a good living out of selling 'security' solutions.
If everyone on the planet switched off their office 'computer' when they went home from work, the amount of spam/malware on the Internet would drop by over a half.
There is nothing wrong with the Internet, it performs as designed.
It delivers packets to-and-from IP addresses.
It doesn't know or care what's in 'em.
Nor should it, that would break the design.
Security should be handled at the end connections.
What would cure the current smam/phishing/malware infestation is to design a desktop 'computer' that don't get infected by opening an email attachment or clicking on a URL.
"If I were Bill Gates, I'd run another company--100 percent owned by Microsoft--that produces the antivirus under a different brand" 

It's never occured to Kaspersky to suggest that Bill Gates design an Operating System that don't rely on AV to protect.
As Marcus Ranum [ranum.com] once said enumerating badness is a bad idea since, ' the amount of Badness in the Internet began to vastly outweigh the amount of Goodness '.
So basically because people like Kaspersky have failed at security, and want to implement an Internet Stasi (Staatssicherheit).
I don't think so.
There are enough people out there that'll see it don't ever happen.
-- 

'Kaspersky Lab UK provides the leading antivirus [reviewcentre.com] and spyware software' 

please by more of my bogus 'security' solutions - nuff said .. :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29779195</id>
	<title>KGB</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255810020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What are you wont from ex(?)agent of KGB?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What are you wont from ex ( ?
) agent of KGB ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What are you wont from ex(?
)agent of KGB?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29793635</id>
	<title>I dont agree...</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1255965060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I already have my account with sprint, so they have my account info, if I am logging unto the web to go look for info on tigers, what the f*ck do YOU need my info for, stop trying to put your incompetence as AV designers aside, and look at the big picture, not everyone needs to be known, especially if they are just using the web for information purposes. What they propose is sort of like a big brother system for the web, and I think we already have too much of that.</p><p>Instead, why don't you just worry about coming up with a better way to fight the viruses...and leave the internet for the rest of us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I already have my account with sprint , so they have my account info , if I am logging unto the web to go look for info on tigers , what the f * ck do YOU need my info for , stop trying to put your incompetence as AV designers aside , and look at the big picture , not everyone needs to be known , especially if they are just using the web for information purposes .
What they propose is sort of like a big brother system for the web , and I think we already have too much of that.Instead , why do n't you just worry about coming up with a better way to fight the viruses...and leave the internet for the rest of us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I already have my account with sprint, so they have my account info, if I am logging unto the web to go look for info on tigers, what the f*ck do YOU need my info for, stop trying to put your incompetence as AV designers aside, and look at the big picture, not everyone needs to be known, especially if they are just using the web for information purposes.
What they propose is sort of like a big brother system for the web, and I think we already have too much of that.Instead, why don't you just worry about coming up with a better way to fight the viruses...and leave the internet for the rest of us.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29780775</id>
	<title>Hmmm... big K doesn't seem to understand</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255782360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is no such thing as being "anonymous" on the web.  Exchanging information requires the IP addresses, which are managed at the highest level and tracked at each level as they are leased.  If someone is "anonymous", it is only because nobody has put forth the effort to identify them.  The effort is worth it to track down criminals, but lowering the bar will only make it easier for marketers (and those that Kaspersky implies trying to identify to deny access) to individually identify the rest of us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no such thing as being " anonymous " on the web .
Exchanging information requires the IP addresses , which are managed at the highest level and tracked at each level as they are leased .
If someone is " anonymous " , it is only because nobody has put forth the effort to identify them .
The effort is worth it to track down criminals , but lowering the bar will only make it easier for marketers ( and those that Kaspersky implies trying to identify to deny access ) to individually identify the rest of us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no such thing as being "anonymous" on the web.
Exchanging information requires the IP addresses, which are managed at the highest level and tracked at each level as they are leased.
If someone is "anonymous", it is only because nobody has put forth the effort to identify them.
The effort is worth it to track down criminals, but lowering the bar will only make it easier for marketers (and those that Kaspersky implies trying to identify to deny access) to individually identify the rest of us.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29776951</id>
	<title>"Papers Please"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255789200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, because requiring passports to entry countries stops all terrorism and crime.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , because requiring passports to entry countries stops all terrorism and crime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, because requiring passports to entry countries stops all terrorism and crime.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29784313</id>
	<title>Passport.NET</title>
	<author>Ant P.</author>
	<datestamp>1255881540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Remember that? Nagware on every fresh XP install telling you to hand over your details to Microsoft so they can target the ads embedded in their IM client.</p><p>This is no different. Windows Shitware Deleter Company here only want to spam you more accurately.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember that ?
Nagware on every fresh XP install telling you to hand over your details to Microsoft so they can target the ads embedded in their IM client.This is no different .
Windows Shitware Deleter Company here only want to spam you more accurately .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember that?
Nagware on every fresh XP install telling you to hand over your details to Microsoft so they can target the ads embedded in their IM client.This is no different.
Windows Shitware Deleter Company here only want to spam you more accurately.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29797191</id>
	<title>No Anonymity = Not Safe For Work</title>
	<author>ErkDemon</author>
	<datestamp>1255979340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, and one of the traditional ways that we used to freely exchange those ideas without the fear of reprisals before the internet came along was the "nom de plume". </p><p>People invented separate personae for the purposes of their writing. A lot of the great political and religious pamphleteering that helped reform Europe and bring about the French and American revolutions was published under pen-names. Anything vaguely political published by someone working for a country's civil service tended to be under an n-d-p. Hell, even <a href="http://erkdemon.blogspot.com/2009/10/gullivers-travels-isaac-newton-and.html" title="blogspot.com">Gulliver's Travels</a> [blogspot.com] was published without the real author's name on it, so that he wouldn't lose his day job over it. George Orwell's real name wasn't George Orwell. Voltaire's supposed to have had more than 170 different pen-names. </p><p>It doesn't always mean that the author is spineless. Sometimes it just means that the author reckons that their work and "author's persona" is good enough to stand up by itself without the reader needing to know the exact details of who created the arguments, and sometimes it means that the writer finds it easier to continue with their work without having to risk being sacked from their mundane job that pays the rent and keeps a roof over their head, because their employer feels that having the name of a controversial writer on their public list of employees, representing the company, is asking for trouble. </p><p>If you demand of your employer that they take no notice at all of your extracurricular activities, because those are none of the employer's business ("What I do in my own time is up to me"), then it's sensible to use different identifiers for your work persona and your other activities. If you use the same linkable identifier for both, and your work involves introducing yourself as an employee of the company and giving out your full legal name, then your employer is liable to reckon that if that name is attached to some "cause" that might alienate some of their important customers, they don't want you as an employee. </p><p>They can say, "Look, we don't give a damn what you do in your own time as long as it doesn't reflect on us. We don't care what religious or sexual views you hold as long as you leave them behind when you walk through our door in the morning. But if we're promoting you as our named representative, and you're using that same name to promote other things that we don't want to be associated with, then we have a legitimate reason to sack you." </p><p>Taking away people's ability to create separate "brands" for their work and personal online activities means that unless people have very understanding employers, they're liable to self-censor pretty much anything they write for fear of upsetting their work situation. </p><p>It also means that if an employer knows that ==anything== their employee does online from home is linked to all the employee's other personal details, including their place of work &ndash; including what forums they visit and what iffy websites they view, no matter what computer they use to view it &ndash; then it means that the employer can argue that it's now their legitimate right to spend more time tracking what their employees are doing out of work hours, since it could impact on their business. </p><p>If you can't decouple your work identity from your recreational web use, it means that you no longer have a personal life (for web-related stuff) that's separate from work. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , and one of the traditional ways that we used to freely exchange those ideas without the fear of reprisals before the internet came along was the " nom de plume " .
People invented separate personae for the purposes of their writing .
A lot of the great political and religious pamphleteering that helped reform Europe and bring about the French and American revolutions was published under pen-names .
Anything vaguely political published by someone working for a country 's civil service tended to be under an n-d-p. Hell , even Gulliver 's Travels [ blogspot.com ] was published without the real author 's name on it , so that he would n't lose his day job over it .
George Orwell 's real name was n't George Orwell .
Voltaire 's supposed to have had more than 170 different pen-names .
It does n't always mean that the author is spineless .
Sometimes it just means that the author reckons that their work and " author 's persona " is good enough to stand up by itself without the reader needing to know the exact details of who created the arguments , and sometimes it means that the writer finds it easier to continue with their work without having to risk being sacked from their mundane job that pays the rent and keeps a roof over their head , because their employer feels that having the name of a controversial writer on their public list of employees , representing the company , is asking for trouble .
If you demand of your employer that they take no notice at all of your extracurricular activities , because those are none of the employer 's business ( " What I do in my own time is up to me " ) , then it 's sensible to use different identifiers for your work persona and your other activities .
If you use the same linkable identifier for both , and your work involves introducing yourself as an employee of the company and giving out your full legal name , then your employer is liable to reckon that if that name is attached to some " cause " that might alienate some of their important customers , they do n't want you as an employee .
They can say , " Look , we do n't give a damn what you do in your own time as long as it does n't reflect on us .
We do n't care what religious or sexual views you hold as long as you leave them behind when you walk through our door in the morning .
But if we 're promoting you as our named representative , and you 're using that same name to promote other things that we do n't want to be associated with , then we have a legitimate reason to sack you .
" Taking away people 's ability to create separate " brands " for their work and personal online activities means that unless people have very understanding employers , they 're liable to self-censor pretty much anything they write for fear of upsetting their work situation .
It also means that if an employer knows that = = anything = = their employee does online from home is linked to all the employee 's other personal details , including their place of work    including what forums they visit and what iffy websites they view , no matter what computer they use to view it    then it means that the employer can argue that it 's now their legitimate right to spend more time tracking what their employees are doing out of work hours , since it could impact on their business .
If you ca n't decouple your work identity from your recreational web use , it means that you no longer have a personal life ( for web-related stuff ) that 's separate from work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, and one of the traditional ways that we used to freely exchange those ideas without the fear of reprisals before the internet came along was the "nom de plume".
People invented separate personae for the purposes of their writing.
A lot of the great political and religious pamphleteering that helped reform Europe and bring about the French and American revolutions was published under pen-names.
Anything vaguely political published by someone working for a country's civil service tended to be under an n-d-p. Hell, even Gulliver's Travels [blogspot.com] was published without the real author's name on it, so that he wouldn't lose his day job over it.
George Orwell's real name wasn't George Orwell.
Voltaire's supposed to have had more than 170 different pen-names.
It doesn't always mean that the author is spineless.
Sometimes it just means that the author reckons that their work and "author's persona" is good enough to stand up by itself without the reader needing to know the exact details of who created the arguments, and sometimes it means that the writer finds it easier to continue with their work without having to risk being sacked from their mundane job that pays the rent and keeps a roof over their head, because their employer feels that having the name of a controversial writer on their public list of employees, representing the company, is asking for trouble.
If you demand of your employer that they take no notice at all of your extracurricular activities, because those are none of the employer's business ("What I do in my own time is up to me"), then it's sensible to use different identifiers for your work persona and your other activities.
If you use the same linkable identifier for both, and your work involves introducing yourself as an employee of the company and giving out your full legal name, then your employer is liable to reckon that if that name is attached to some "cause" that might alienate some of their important customers, they don't want you as an employee.
They can say, "Look, we don't give a damn what you do in your own time as long as it doesn't reflect on us.
We don't care what religious or sexual views you hold as long as you leave them behind when you walk through our door in the morning.
But if we're promoting you as our named representative, and you're using that same name to promote other things that we don't want to be associated with, then we have a legitimate reason to sack you.
" Taking away people's ability to create separate "brands" for their work and personal online activities means that unless people have very understanding employers, they're liable to self-censor pretty much anything they write for fear of upsetting their work situation.
It also means that if an employer knows that ==anything== their employee does online from home is linked to all the employee's other personal details, including their place of work – including what forums they visit and what iffy websites they view, no matter what computer they use to view it – then it means that the employer can argue that it's now their legitimate right to spend more time tracking what their employees are doing out of work hours, since it could impact on their business.
If you can't decouple your work identity from your recreational web use, it means that you no longer have a personal life (for web-related stuff) that's separate from work. </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777147</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29805809</id>
	<title>It could be worse</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256040840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It could be worse. At least Kaspersky has dedicated update servers!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It could be worse .
At least Kaspersky has dedicated update servers !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It could be worse.
At least Kaspersky has dedicated update servers!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29779829</id>
	<title>I just uninstalled Kaspersky Anti-Virus....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255773420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and I will never re-install it now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and I will never re-install it now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and I will never re-install it now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778471</id>
	<title>Re:what's wrong with the design of the Internet?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255803300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>'It's never occured to Kaspersky to suggest that Bill Gates design an Operating System that don't rely on AV to protect.'</p><p>Didn't it occur to you that designing such OS may not be possible at all?<br>To prove me wrong, name one existing OS (comparable in features to Windows/UNIX - networking, multitasking, operating on various hardware architectures etc.) which by design is immune to malware/viruses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'It 's never occured to Kaspersky to suggest that Bill Gates design an Operating System that do n't rely on AV to protect .
'Did n't it occur to you that designing such OS may not be possible at all ? To prove me wrong , name one existing OS ( comparable in features to Windows/UNIX - networking , multitasking , operating on various hardware architectures etc .
) which by design is immune to malware/viruses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'It's never occured to Kaspersky to suggest that Bill Gates design an Operating System that don't rely on AV to protect.
'Didn't it occur to you that designing such OS may not be possible at all?To prove me wrong, name one existing OS (comparable in features to Windows/UNIX - networking, multitasking, operating on various hardware architectures etc.
) which by design is immune to malware/viruses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777499</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29792391</id>
	<title>If only for the anonimity one requires after 9pm..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255958340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I really would hate for my interweb identification number to be logged on the servers of websites for which the "clear private data" browser function was invented.</p><p>Throw in a link to the government interweb police department, a few unscrupulous government employees taking money for a few database searches and there go all your non-illigal but seriously embarrassing secrets.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I really would hate for my interweb identification number to be logged on the servers of websites for which the " clear private data " browser function was invented.Throw in a link to the government interweb police department , a few unscrupulous government employees taking money for a few database searches and there go all your non-illigal but seriously embarrassing secrets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really would hate for my interweb identification number to be logged on the servers of websites for which the "clear private data" browser function was invented.Throw in a link to the government interweb police department, a few unscrupulous government employees taking money for a few database searches and there go all your non-illigal but seriously embarrassing secrets.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778813</id>
	<title>Anonymity Is Essential</title>
	<author>j0ebaker</author>
	<datestamp>1255806360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anonymity is essential!</p><p>Declare your sovereign rite to anonymity.</p><p>Governments are illusionary - reject Government IDs.</p><p>PGP Rings of trust can be useful for Identification.</p><p>-Joe Baker</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anonymity is essential ! Declare your sovereign rite to anonymity.Governments are illusionary - reject Government IDs.PGP Rings of trust can be useful for Identification.-Joe Baker</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anonymity is essential!Declare your sovereign rite to anonymity.Governments are illusionary - reject Government IDs.PGP Rings of trust can be useful for Identification.-Joe Baker</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778133</id>
	<title>Not Anonymous...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255800240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, he wants AOL?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , he wants AOL ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, he wants AOL?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29781337</id>
	<title>Problem Reaction Solution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255790040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They introduce the problem.</p><p>They await your reaction.</p><p>They come up with their own solution which fits THEM.</p><p>Enjoy your new world order.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They introduce the problem.They await your reaction.They come up with their own solution which fits THEM.Enjoy your new world order .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They introduce the problem.They await your reaction.They come up with their own solution which fits THEM.Enjoy your new world order.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777081</id>
	<title>Enter ID &amp; Credit Card Number</title>
	<author>gink1</author>
	<datestamp>1255790340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Watch out - not only will you have to enter ID but also means of payment. That way you can be charged and it will facilitate the inevitable tracking that will occur.

That way you can be charged for anything copyrighted you happen to view, hear or download. For instance, Google won't have to take down a huge number of videos anymore - it will just flag them as copyrighted and you will pay to see them.

(I'm only guessing on this but don't you suppose this and other internet busting rules are in Obama's Secret Copyright Treaty?)

But is you cannot pay you will have no internet access. Unless you live in some Scandinavian countries.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Watch out - not only will you have to enter ID but also means of payment .
That way you can be charged and it will facilitate the inevitable tracking that will occur .
That way you can be charged for anything copyrighted you happen to view , hear or download .
For instance , Google wo n't have to take down a huge number of videos anymore - it will just flag them as copyrighted and you will pay to see them .
( I 'm only guessing on this but do n't you suppose this and other internet busting rules are in Obama 's Secret Copyright Treaty ?
) But is you can not pay you will have no internet access .
Unless you live in some Scandinavian countries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Watch out - not only will you have to enter ID but also means of payment.
That way you can be charged and it will facilitate the inevitable tracking that will occur.
That way you can be charged for anything copyrighted you happen to view, hear or download.
For instance, Google won't have to take down a huge number of videos anymore - it will just flag them as copyrighted and you will pay to see them.
(I'm only guessing on this but don't you suppose this and other internet busting rules are in Obama's Secret Copyright Treaty?
)

But is you cannot pay you will have no internet access.
Unless you live in some Scandinavian countries.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778961</id>
	<title>not much credibility</title>
	<author>jipn4</author>
	<datestamp>1255807980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Kaspersky chooses to live in a nation that has gone from a corrupt police state to an even more corrupt anarchy, and now he recommends Russian-style policies for the rest of the world.  Sorry, I don't think I want to take advice from him about communication in a democracy.</p><p>In the US, the ability to communicate anonymously is a fundamental right, and for good reason.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Kaspersky chooses to live in a nation that has gone from a corrupt police state to an even more corrupt anarchy , and now he recommends Russian-style policies for the rest of the world .
Sorry , I do n't think I want to take advice from him about communication in a democracy.In the US , the ability to communicate anonymously is a fundamental right , and for good reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kaspersky chooses to live in a nation that has gone from a corrupt police state to an even more corrupt anarchy, and now he recommends Russian-style policies for the rest of the world.
Sorry, I don't think I want to take advice from him about communication in a democracy.In the US, the ability to communicate anonymously is a fundamental right, and for good reason.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778689</id>
	<title>Re:"work much like driver licenses do"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255805280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obviously you don't live in Virginia (or probably even in the United States). Ever seen a "sobriety checkpoint"? When you want to drive through it you have to produce ID, whether you've been drinking or not. It just gives them a way to inspect everybody's car and person.</p><p>Also many businesses won't take personal checks without noting your driver's license number.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obviously you do n't live in Virginia ( or probably even in the United States ) .
Ever seen a " sobriety checkpoint " ?
When you want to drive through it you have to produce ID , whether you 've been drinking or not .
It just gives them a way to inspect everybody 's car and person.Also many businesses wo n't take personal checks without noting your driver 's license number .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obviously you don't live in Virginia (or probably even in the United States).
Ever seen a "sobriety checkpoint"?
When you want to drive through it you have to produce ID, whether you've been drinking or not.
It just gives them a way to inspect everybody's car and person.Also many businesses won't take personal checks without noting your driver's license number.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777091</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778837</id>
	<title>No more Kaspersky for my company..</title>
	<author>brxndxn</author>
	<datestamp>1255806540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I switched my company from CA to Kaspersky. I consider it a mistake. We will not be renewing our Kaspersky licenses - partly because of what the CEO said, partly because Kaspersky antivirus likes to screw with your network protocols even if you turn off those 'features.'</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I switched my company from CA to Kaspersky .
I consider it a mistake .
We will not be renewing our Kaspersky licenses - partly because of what the CEO said , partly because Kaspersky antivirus likes to screw with your network protocols even if you turn off those 'features .
'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I switched my company from CA to Kaspersky.
I consider it a mistake.
We will not be renewing our Kaspersky licenses - partly because of what the CEO said, partly because Kaspersky antivirus likes to screw with your network protocols even if you turn off those 'features.
'</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29788683</id>
	<title>This is David Smith</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255876080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And he browsed these porn sites yesterday. Then he applied to those jobs. All of which his new potential employers were able to look up through the new "WhatDidYouDoToday" database.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And he browsed these porn sites yesterday .
Then he applied to those jobs .
All of which his new potential employers were able to look up through the new " WhatDidYouDoToday " database .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And he browsed these porn sites yesterday.
Then he applied to those jobs.
All of which his new potential employers were able to look up through the new "WhatDidYouDoToday" database.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777091</id>
	<title>"work much like driver licenses do"</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1255790400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Around where i live, a drivers license just says you have paid your tax ( ok, and taken the 'competency test'.. but that's a different discussion ) and gives you the right to drive around at will, anonymously. We don't have checkpoints where we have to produce ID.</p><p>Perhaps its different where he lives, which is a shame.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Around where i live , a drivers license just says you have paid your tax ( ok , and taken the 'competency test'.. but that 's a different discussion ) and gives you the right to drive around at will , anonymously .
We do n't have checkpoints where we have to produce ID.Perhaps its different where he lives , which is a shame .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Around where i live, a drivers license just says you have paid your tax ( ok, and taken the 'competency test'.. but that's a different discussion ) and gives you the right to drive around at will, anonymously.
We don't have checkpoints where we have to produce ID.Perhaps its different where he lives, which is a shame.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777581</id>
	<title>Re:too late</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255794420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is a point here, but I think it should be more of a concept than a call for a literal change.  My analogy:  I live in a large US city.  I remember when it wasn't so.  Neighbors knew each other, and it was relatively safe.  But now, it has grown.  People move too quickly to say Hi, and crime is on the rise.  Traffic is a pain. <p>I can do several things.  Kick people out.  Fingerprint everyone, and put cameras around.  Leave the city myself.  </p><p>  Again, wishful thinking.  Like you said, you can't have it the way it was.  And telling people to get fingerprinted only makes you look like an ass.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a point here , but I think it should be more of a concept than a call for a literal change .
My analogy : I live in a large US city .
I remember when it was n't so .
Neighbors knew each other , and it was relatively safe .
But now , it has grown .
People move too quickly to say Hi , and crime is on the rise .
Traffic is a pain .
I can do several things .
Kick people out .
Fingerprint everyone , and put cameras around .
Leave the city myself .
Again , wishful thinking .
Like you said , you ca n't have it the way it was .
And telling people to get fingerprinted only makes you look like an ass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a point here, but I think it should be more of a concept than a call for a literal change.
My analogy:  I live in a large US city.
I remember when it wasn't so.
Neighbors knew each other, and it was relatively safe.
But now, it has grown.
People move too quickly to say Hi, and crime is on the rise.
Traffic is a pain.
I can do several things.
Kick people out.
Fingerprint everyone, and put cameras around.
Leave the city myself.
Again, wishful thinking.
Like you said, you can't have it the way it was.
And telling people to get fingerprinted only makes you look like an ass.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777025</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777047</id>
	<title>Not the whole internet</title>
	<author>jcorno</author>
	<datestamp>1255790100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm pretty sure this would be a huge blow to the adult website industry.  How many people would willingly visit those sites if they knew their name and identification was being taken down every time?  It wouldn't eliminate every visitor, obviously, since a lot of people pay for those things with credit cards, but it would be enough to cause some serious damage.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm pretty sure this would be a huge blow to the adult website industry .
How many people would willingly visit those sites if they knew their name and identification was being taken down every time ?
It would n't eliminate every visitor , obviously , since a lot of people pay for those things with credit cards , but it would be enough to cause some serious damage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm pretty sure this would be a huge blow to the adult website industry.
How many people would willingly visit those sites if they knew their name and identification was being taken down every time?
It wouldn't eliminate every visitor, obviously, since a lot of people pay for those things with credit cards, but it would be enough to cause some serious damage.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777139</id>
	<title>Re:Guess who's security software I won't be buying</title>
	<author>Shin-LaC</author>
	<datestamp>1255790700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Indeed, this could be a serious PR blunder for Kaspersky. His statements single-handedly changed my perception of the brand "Kaspersky" from "respected maker of Windows antivirus software" to "worse than Microsoft AIDS" (a hypothetical product with the combined potential of causing sever harm to both your computer and your own personal well-being).<br> <br>
Then again, I wasn't really in his potential customer pool to begin with, so it might not matter.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed , this could be a serious PR blunder for Kaspersky .
His statements single-handedly changed my perception of the brand " Kaspersky " from " respected maker of Windows antivirus software " to " worse than Microsoft AIDS " ( a hypothetical product with the combined potential of causing sever harm to both your computer and your own personal well-being ) .
Then again , I was n't really in his potential customer pool to begin with , so it might not matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed, this could be a serious PR blunder for Kaspersky.
His statements single-handedly changed my perception of the brand "Kaspersky" from "respected maker of Windows antivirus software" to "worse than Microsoft AIDS" (a hypothetical product with the combined potential of causing sever harm to both your computer and your own personal well-being).
Then again, I wasn't really in his potential customer pool to begin with, so it might not matter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777007</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29780555</id>
	<title>Re:As you might expect</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255779960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a security professional, I must say that the branding of identities is one of the greater risks to security (and privacy).  Confidentiality carries with it an implicit need for not only privacy but the option to remain anonymous as the contributor of information.  Furthermore, any system to track identities will be flawed.  Humans cannot make flawless solutions.  A mandated identity system will be abused, much like the theft of financial identities in the digital sphere.  In this case though, the theft of that identity will also lead to other implications for the user.</p><p>A security expert who advocates invasions of privacy to improve security is not an expert-they are a rookie.  When fighting monsters, one should take care not to become one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a security professional , I must say that the branding of identities is one of the greater risks to security ( and privacy ) .
Confidentiality carries with it an implicit need for not only privacy but the option to remain anonymous as the contributor of information .
Furthermore , any system to track identities will be flawed .
Humans can not make flawless solutions .
A mandated identity system will be abused , much like the theft of financial identities in the digital sphere .
In this case though , the theft of that identity will also lead to other implications for the user.A security expert who advocates invasions of privacy to improve security is not an expert-they are a rookie .
When fighting monsters , one should take care not to become one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a security professional, I must say that the branding of identities is one of the greater risks to security (and privacy).
Confidentiality carries with it an implicit need for not only privacy but the option to remain anonymous as the contributor of information.
Furthermore, any system to track identities will be flawed.
Humans cannot make flawless solutions.
A mandated identity system will be abused, much like the theft of financial identities in the digital sphere.
In this case though, the theft of that identity will also lead to other implications for the user.A security expert who advocates invasions of privacy to improve security is not an expert-they are a rookie.
When fighting monsters, one should take care not to become one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777287</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777033</id>
	<title>NO!</title>
	<author>XPeter</author>
	<datestamp>1255789980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ugh, I love the AC's trolling Slashdot.</p><p>It makes Slashdot...well...Slashdot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ugh , I love the AC 's trolling Slashdot.It makes Slashdot...well...Slashdot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ugh, I love the AC's trolling Slashdot.It makes Slashdot...well...Slashdot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29780965</id>
	<title>someone please..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255784820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>kill and rape this nigger.</p><p>and make it mandatory</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>kill and rape this nigger.and make it mandatory</tokentext>
<sentencetext>kill and rape this nigger.and make it mandatory</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29779311</id>
	<title>The Internet Isnt Anonymous</title>
	<author>warncke</author>
	<datestamp>1255811160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In order to access the internet with true anonymity you must have both a high level of technical sophistication, and you must carefully plan your access path.
<br> <br>
It is difficult to conceive of any system that could be put in place where individuals with the determination and technical sophistication to access the internet anonymously now could not also bypass the access controls in a supposedly less anonymous system.
<br> <br>
As mentioned, dude is probably just trying to score some contracts with oppressive governments by offering them the pipe dream of being able to lock down their citizens online.
<br> <br>
The proposal is ridiculously impractical, and grossly contrary to the established rights and norms in civilized countries.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In order to access the internet with true anonymity you must have both a high level of technical sophistication , and you must carefully plan your access path .
It is difficult to conceive of any system that could be put in place where individuals with the determination and technical sophistication to access the internet anonymously now could not also bypass the access controls in a supposedly less anonymous system .
As mentioned , dude is probably just trying to score some contracts with oppressive governments by offering them the pipe dream of being able to lock down their citizens online .
The proposal is ridiculously impractical , and grossly contrary to the established rights and norms in civilized countries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In order to access the internet with true anonymity you must have both a high level of technical sophistication, and you must carefully plan your access path.
It is difficult to conceive of any system that could be put in place where individuals with the determination and technical sophistication to access the internet anonymously now could not also bypass the access controls in a supposedly less anonymous system.
As mentioned, dude is probably just trying to score some contracts with oppressive governments by offering them the pipe dream of being able to lock down their citizens online.
The proposal is ridiculously impractical, and grossly contrary to the established rights and norms in civilized countries.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777999</id>
	<title>Re:too late</title>
	<author>14erCleaner</author>
	<datestamp>1255798680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I've been online long enough to remember when you could assume (perhaps wishfully) that nearly anyone obviously misbehaving badly on it could be identified with a couple e-mails or phone calls to the right sysadmins, and the notion of banning a user or cutting off a rogue node was plausible.</p></div><p>Me too.  We were all so naive and trusting back then, eh?  I actually sent a couple of emails to the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canter\_&amp;\_Siegel" title="wikipedia.org">Green Card Lottery</a> [wikipedia.org] Usenet spammers, believing that it might help convince them not to do it again.
</p><p>
On the other hand, it would be good to have an email system where the sender could be positively identified.  (And don't bother posting that checklist thingy in response, I've seen it.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been online long enough to remember when you could assume ( perhaps wishfully ) that nearly anyone obviously misbehaving badly on it could be identified with a couple e-mails or phone calls to the right sysadmins , and the notion of banning a user or cutting off a rogue node was plausible.Me too .
We were all so naive and trusting back then , eh ?
I actually sent a couple of emails to the Green Card Lottery [ wikipedia.org ] Usenet spammers , believing that it might help convince them not to do it again .
On the other hand , it would be good to have an email system where the sender could be positively identified .
( And do n't bother posting that checklist thingy in response , I 've seen it .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been online long enough to remember when you could assume (perhaps wishfully) that nearly anyone obviously misbehaving badly on it could be identified with a couple e-mails or phone calls to the right sysadmins, and the notion of banning a user or cutting off a rogue node was plausible.Me too.
We were all so naive and trusting back then, eh?
I actually sent a couple of emails to the Green Card Lottery [wikipedia.org] Usenet spammers, believing that it might help convince them not to do it again.
On the other hand, it would be good to have an email system where the sender could be positively identified.
(And don't bother posting that checklist thingy in response, I've seen it.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777025</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29780551</id>
	<title>Re:What, no part time psychoanalysts?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255779960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Kiddo, you mean Slav, not Slovak. Peace!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Kiddo , you mean Slav , not Slovak .
Peace !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kiddo, you mean Slav, not Slovak.
Peace!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778779</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778391</id>
	<title>Re:I agree!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255802460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It should also not be possible to anonymously put mail in mailboxes. The harm that is done through postal mail is incredible!</p><p>Yeah, I'm sarcastic here.</p></div><p>At least you can't send anthrax over teh intertubes.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It should also not be possible to anonymously put mail in mailboxes .
The harm that is done through postal mail is incredible ! Yeah , I 'm sarcastic here.At least you ca n't send anthrax over teh intertubes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It should also not be possible to anonymously put mail in mailboxes.
The harm that is done through postal mail is incredible!Yeah, I'm sarcastic here.At least you can't send anthrax over teh intertubes.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777005</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778099</id>
	<title>time to STOP using his product</title>
	<author>CHRONOSS2008</author>
	<datestamp>1255799820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>if he cant value privacy then FUCK HIM</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>if he cant value privacy then FUCK HIM</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if he cant value privacy then FUCK HIM</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777057</id>
	<title>won't save idiots from themselves</title>
	<author>petes\_PoV</author>
	<datestamp>1255790220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>they'll still respond to "download this crap and win $100" offers on websites, and still infect themselves with trojans, worms, viruses, impossible to remove software and other nasties. Just because the website owner has a passport (and who would be empowered to revoke these?) or a forged passport, won't stop most of the malpractices we see on the internet today.</htmltext>
<tokenext>they 'll still respond to " download this crap and win $ 100 " offers on websites , and still infect themselves with trojans , worms , viruses , impossible to remove software and other nasties .
Just because the website owner has a passport ( and who would be empowered to revoke these ?
) or a forged passport , wo n't stop most of the malpractices we see on the internet today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they'll still respond to "download this crap and win $100" offers on websites, and still infect themselves with trojans, worms, viruses, impossible to remove software and other nasties.
Just because the website owner has a passport (and who would be empowered to revoke these?
) or a forged passport, won't stop most of the malpractices we see on the internet today.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29779335</id>
	<title>Its mostly about Advertising</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255811400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lets face it, advertisers are getting completely lazy.  Instead of trying to make an effort to figure out which groups of people respond to which types of ads, they want to go per person, and shove their ads down peoples throats.  Targetted advertising is only a door to a much scarier world.</p><p>What will end up as a result of the complete and total loss of privacy is that every company on the planet will want to charge you more based on buying habits.  For instance, when you go shopping at your local supermarket, that information will be sold to your insurance company (at a profit to the supermarket) where the insurance company will jack up your insurance rates based on this information.  The idea will be sold to the everyday consumer as being "best for you".  After all, why should you have to pay for your neighbor to have a heart attack when he buys too much bacon?  Now lets not mention the fact that he never even ate the bacon, it was for his family that was visiting, it will be used as an excuse to increase his rates.  Does it actually save you any money?  Nope.  All it will do is increase insurance companies profit margins exponentially by completely taking any free will of the consumer out of the equation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lets face it , advertisers are getting completely lazy .
Instead of trying to make an effort to figure out which groups of people respond to which types of ads , they want to go per person , and shove their ads down peoples throats .
Targetted advertising is only a door to a much scarier world.What will end up as a result of the complete and total loss of privacy is that every company on the planet will want to charge you more based on buying habits .
For instance , when you go shopping at your local supermarket , that information will be sold to your insurance company ( at a profit to the supermarket ) where the insurance company will jack up your insurance rates based on this information .
The idea will be sold to the everyday consumer as being " best for you " .
After all , why should you have to pay for your neighbor to have a heart attack when he buys too much bacon ?
Now lets not mention the fact that he never even ate the bacon , it was for his family that was visiting , it will be used as an excuse to increase his rates .
Does it actually save you any money ?
Nope. All it will do is increase insurance companies profit margins exponentially by completely taking any free will of the consumer out of the equation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lets face it, advertisers are getting completely lazy.
Instead of trying to make an effort to figure out which groups of people respond to which types of ads, they want to go per person, and shove their ads down peoples throats.
Targetted advertising is only a door to a much scarier world.What will end up as a result of the complete and total loss of privacy is that every company on the planet will want to charge you more based on buying habits.
For instance, when you go shopping at your local supermarket, that information will be sold to your insurance company (at a profit to the supermarket) where the insurance company will jack up your insurance rates based on this information.
The idea will be sold to the everyday consumer as being "best for you".
After all, why should you have to pay for your neighbor to have a heart attack when he buys too much bacon?
Now lets not mention the fact that he never even ate the bacon, it was for his family that was visiting, it will be used as an excuse to increase his rates.
Does it actually save you any money?
Nope.  All it will do is increase insurance companies profit margins exponentially by completely taking any free will of the consumer out of the equation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29776991</id>
	<title>Open letter to Eugene Kaspersky</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255789620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dear Eugene,</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Go fuck yourself.</p><p>Sincerely,<br>Anonymous.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dear Eugene ,     Go fuck yourself.Sincerely,Anonymous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dear Eugene,
    Go fuck yourself.Sincerely,Anonymous.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29779279</id>
	<title>Please Leave</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255810920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is time for you to leave us by creating your own little internet with your own little passports and sit there and gopher stuff.</p><p>It is an army of pencil necked pricks like you that created this horrible mess.</p><p>Fuckyousky Kaspersky.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is time for you to leave us by creating your own little internet with your own little passports and sit there and gopher stuff.It is an army of pencil necked pricks like you that created this horrible mess.Fuckyousky Kaspersky .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is time for you to leave us by creating your own little internet with your own little passports and sit there and gopher stuff.It is an army of pencil necked pricks like you that created this horrible mess.Fuckyousky Kaspersky.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777623</id>
	<title>Re:Guess who's security software I won't be buying</title>
	<author>BZ</author>
	<datestamp>1255794660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Another reason to not buy his software, fwiw, is that it injects DLLs into Firefox that slow down DOM manipulation by 100x or so.  And those DLLs are injected even if the antivirus software is disabled, as long as it's installed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Another reason to not buy his software , fwiw , is that it injects DLLs into Firefox that slow down DOM manipulation by 100x or so .
And those DLLs are injected even if the antivirus software is disabled , as long as it 's installed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another reason to not buy his software, fwiw, is that it injects DLLs into Firefox that slow down DOM manipulation by 100x or so.
And those DLLs are injected even if the antivirus software is disabled, as long as it's installed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777007</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778187</id>
	<title>Anonymity online should be a right</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1255800780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When you're walking down the street or in a shop you do not announce who you are to everyone so why would you do it online?
<br> <br>
Secondly, computers are no where near being secure. I don't want to have everything I do effectively tagged with my name on it. It's not just a case of whether I keep my computer secure but if all those servers I'm using keep their hardware secure.
<br> <br>
Knowing someone's name has never stopped them from committing a crime. This won't either. What it will do is allow companies, like Kaspersky, to offer online ID protection.
<br> <br>
Their CEO has proven to be a dickhead so I'm going to ensure I never use their products.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When you 're walking down the street or in a shop you do not announce who you are to everyone so why would you do it online ?
Secondly , computers are no where near being secure .
I do n't want to have everything I do effectively tagged with my name on it .
It 's not just a case of whether I keep my computer secure but if all those servers I 'm using keep their hardware secure .
Knowing someone 's name has never stopped them from committing a crime .
This wo n't either .
What it will do is allow companies , like Kaspersky , to offer online ID protection .
Their CEO has proven to be a dickhead so I 'm going to ensure I never use their products .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you're walking down the street or in a shop you do not announce who you are to everyone so why would you do it online?
Secondly, computers are no where near being secure.
I don't want to have everything I do effectively tagged with my name on it.
It's not just a case of whether I keep my computer secure but if all those servers I'm using keep their hardware secure.
Knowing someone's name has never stopped them from committing a crime.
This won't either.
What it will do is allow companies, like Kaspersky, to offer online ID protection.
Their CEO has proven to be a dickhead so I'm going to ensure I never use their products.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777647</id>
	<title>Re:Guess who's security software I won't be buying</title>
	<author>Antique Geekmeister</author>
	<datestamp>1255795080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He does understand: he understands that his job is to control intrusions and abuse, and anonymity makes it that much harder. Like many other security minded people, he has overruled the protection of social anonymity and free speech.</p><p>It's an extremely bad choice, because social anonymity is vital to the ability to depose dangerous people who have already attained power. But it's understandable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He does understand : he understands that his job is to control intrusions and abuse , and anonymity makes it that much harder .
Like many other security minded people , he has overruled the protection of social anonymity and free speech.It 's an extremely bad choice , because social anonymity is vital to the ability to depose dangerous people who have already attained power .
But it 's understandable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He does understand: he understands that his job is to control intrusions and abuse, and anonymity makes it that much harder.
Like many other security minded people, he has overruled the protection of social anonymity and free speech.It's an extremely bad choice, because social anonymity is vital to the ability to depose dangerous people who have already attained power.
But it's understandable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777007</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778453</id>
	<title>Re:Open letter to Eugene Kaspersky</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255803120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>P.S. Guess which antivirus company just went on my personal "never buy" list?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>P.S .
Guess which antivirus company just went on my personal " never buy " list ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>P.S.
Guess which antivirus company just went on my personal "never buy" list?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29776991</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777857</id>
	<title>Bilderburgian Parasite</title>
	<author>redwraith94</author>
	<datestamp>1255797480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thank you for showing us your true colors sir. I will never buy a Kaspersky product now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank you for showing us your true colors sir .
I will never buy a Kaspersky product now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank you for showing us your true colors sir.
I will never buy a Kaspersky product now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29779959</id>
	<title>Reject all products from this lame company</title>
	<author>Sean</author>
	<datestamp>1255774560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you see their crap installed, remove it. Tell your clients anything from this company is an ineffective ripoff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you see their crap installed , remove it .
Tell your clients anything from this company is an ineffective ripoff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you see their crap installed, remove it.
Tell your clients anything from this company is an ineffective ripoff.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778197</id>
	<title>What an idiot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255800780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey Eugene, I think you need to quit worrying about shut the internet down because your products can screw a computer up in an instant! A CEO HAS NO AUTHORITY TO TELL A USER WHAT THEY CAN AND CANT DO ON THE INTERNET! YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS PERIOD TO SAY IT! Why don't you go back to your office and run you f****** company and leave the internet to the GOVERNMENT! OKAY!!!!! Get Lost!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey Eugene , I think you need to quit worrying about shut the internet down because your products can screw a computer up in an instant !
A CEO HAS NO AUTHORITY TO TELL A USER WHAT THEY CAN AND CANT DO ON THE INTERNET !
YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS PERIOD TO SAY IT !
Why do n't you go back to your office and run you f * * * * * * company and leave the internet to the GOVERNMENT !
OKAY ! ! ! ! ! Get Lost !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey Eugene, I think you need to quit worrying about shut the internet down because your products can screw a computer up in an instant!
A CEO HAS NO AUTHORITY TO TELL A USER WHAT THEY CAN AND CANT DO ON THE INTERNET!
YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS PERIOD TO SAY IT!
Why don't you go back to your office and run you f****** company and leave the internet to the GOVERNMENT!
OKAY!!!!! Get Lost!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777337</id>
	<title>Lack of responsibility</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255792320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The little (and often incorrect) information that we provide companies on the internet is already sold and distributed widely. Lets have some proof of trust before we suddenly start verifying our identities on the internet. What Eugene actually wants is to remove the uncertainty for when stealing identities or sending UCE.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The little ( and often incorrect ) information that we provide companies on the internet is already sold and distributed widely .
Lets have some proof of trust before we suddenly start verifying our identities on the internet .
What Eugene actually wants is to remove the uncertainty for when stealing identities or sending UCE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The little (and often incorrect) information that we provide companies on the internet is already sold and distributed widely.
Lets have some proof of trust before we suddenly start verifying our identities on the internet.
What Eugene actually wants is to remove the uncertainty for when stealing identities or sending UCE.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29781547</id>
	<title>Re:What, no part time psychoanalysts?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255793520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ski=Polish<br>sky=Russian</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ski = Polishsky = Russian</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ski=Polishsky=Russian</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778779</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777791</id>
	<title>DARPA Packet Attribution Project</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255796640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just a heads up:<br>https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&amp;mode=form&amp;id=c672eaa4e4033419f46d07837fcdbe79&amp;tab=core&amp;\_cview=0</p><p>And yes, it will be commercialized.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just a heads up : https : //www.fbo.gov/index ? s = opportunity&amp;mode = form&amp;id = c672eaa4e4033419f46d07837fcdbe79&amp;tab = core&amp; \ _cview = 0And yes , it will be commercialized .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just a heads up:https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&amp;mode=form&amp;id=c672eaa4e4033419f46d07837fcdbe79&amp;tab=core&amp;\_cview=0And yes, it will be commercialized.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777323</id>
	<title>Re:Guess who's security software I won't be buying</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255792260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People like this need to understand who is actually making the purchasing decisions for software such as what Kaspersky makes.</p><p>It's people like us.  And we tend to be very libertarian when it comes to free speech and anonymity.  The guys in the suits who sign the PO's don't make these kinds of decisions in reality because they don't want to get the blame for a bad decision made out of ignorance.</p><p>I, too, will make sure his product doesn't grace the door where I work.  And we, in fact, just happen to be looking for a new Corporate antivirus/spyware/spam suite now that our McAfee contract has (thank God) ended.  They were on our list to evaluate.  They won't be on Monday when I get to work.</p><p>As others have said, physical passports in the REAL world did nothing to stop terrorists from coming in.  They also do nothing to stop millions of Mexican peasants who can't even speak English from crossing the border, getting driver's licenses, and getting jobs despite the fact that all THAT is supposed to require passports and documentation.</p><p>Considering how much easier it is to forge stuff that is in 1's and 0's than paper, do the math.  All this "Internet Passport" idea is going to do is make it easy for oppressive countries like China, Russia, and yes, add the United States to that list too with that wannabe Hugo Chavez in the white house.  His people also want to regulate speech on the internet and have a goon in the FCC already proposing it.  This will only punish the honest, criminals will never submit to it.  Suggesting that ending anonymity for web surfing is going to end whatever problem he is proposing it as a solution for is going to be as effective as gun bans have been at ending crime.  Zip, Zero, Nada effect.</p><p>Fact of the matter is, the Internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.  The only way to change that is to tear it down and redesign it from scratch to be the KGB controlled streets of the Soviet Union.  Thank God it was designed in the 1970's in this case.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People like this need to understand who is actually making the purchasing decisions for software such as what Kaspersky makes.It 's people like us .
And we tend to be very libertarian when it comes to free speech and anonymity .
The guys in the suits who sign the PO 's do n't make these kinds of decisions in reality because they do n't want to get the blame for a bad decision made out of ignorance.I , too , will make sure his product does n't grace the door where I work .
And we , in fact , just happen to be looking for a new Corporate antivirus/spyware/spam suite now that our McAfee contract has ( thank God ) ended .
They were on our list to evaluate .
They wo n't be on Monday when I get to work.As others have said , physical passports in the REAL world did nothing to stop terrorists from coming in .
They also do nothing to stop millions of Mexican peasants who ca n't even speak English from crossing the border , getting driver 's licenses , and getting jobs despite the fact that all THAT is supposed to require passports and documentation.Considering how much easier it is to forge stuff that is in 1 's and 0 's than paper , do the math .
All this " Internet Passport " idea is going to do is make it easy for oppressive countries like China , Russia , and yes , add the United States to that list too with that wannabe Hugo Chavez in the white house .
His people also want to regulate speech on the internet and have a goon in the FCC already proposing it .
This will only punish the honest , criminals will never submit to it .
Suggesting that ending anonymity for web surfing is going to end whatever problem he is proposing it as a solution for is going to be as effective as gun bans have been at ending crime .
Zip , Zero , Nada effect.Fact of the matter is , the Internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it .
The only way to change that is to tear it down and redesign it from scratch to be the KGB controlled streets of the Soviet Union .
Thank God it was designed in the 1970 's in this case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People like this need to understand who is actually making the purchasing decisions for software such as what Kaspersky makes.It's people like us.
And we tend to be very libertarian when it comes to free speech and anonymity.
The guys in the suits who sign the PO's don't make these kinds of decisions in reality because they don't want to get the blame for a bad decision made out of ignorance.I, too, will make sure his product doesn't grace the door where I work.
And we, in fact, just happen to be looking for a new Corporate antivirus/spyware/spam suite now that our McAfee contract has (thank God) ended.
They were on our list to evaluate.
They won't be on Monday when I get to work.As others have said, physical passports in the REAL world did nothing to stop terrorists from coming in.
They also do nothing to stop millions of Mexican peasants who can't even speak English from crossing the border, getting driver's licenses, and getting jobs despite the fact that all THAT is supposed to require passports and documentation.Considering how much easier it is to forge stuff that is in 1's and 0's than paper, do the math.
All this "Internet Passport" idea is going to do is make it easy for oppressive countries like China, Russia, and yes, add the United States to that list too with that wannabe Hugo Chavez in the white house.
His people also want to regulate speech on the internet and have a goon in the FCC already proposing it.
This will only punish the honest, criminals will never submit to it.
Suggesting that ending anonymity for web surfing is going to end whatever problem he is proposing it as a solution for is going to be as effective as gun bans have been at ending crime.
Zip, Zero, Nada effect.Fact of the matter is, the Internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.
The only way to change that is to tear it down and redesign it from scratch to be the KGB controlled streets of the Soviet Union.
Thank God it was designed in the 1970's in this case.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777007</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29780491</id>
	<title>Re:Official answer from Anonymous:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255779420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Without anonymity, all of the nasty little tyrants of the world and all the nasty little tyrants of your suburb, and all the nasty little tyrants in the Police State will feel "required" to extort your behavior to conform you into a submissive little slave to their whims.</p><p>The only serious problem is that "Security Through Obscurity" is the weakest form of protection in the world of Cryptography and anonymity.</p><p>Let's say I want Kaspersky to conform to my whims in his KGB-America Fantasy Land.<br>Well, if I am a person in a position of authoritative power then I can see all of his Credit Card numbers, all of his purchase history, all of the websites he has visited, all of the people he has ever contacted, all of the statements he has ever made (sober and intoxicated and angry and calm), and then I can use them to EXTORT MY WHIMS.  I can blackmail him, I can torment him by revealing embarrassing secret things to his family or lovers or coworkers.</p><p>I can mock him with impunity and then reveal his ID to everyone and anyone on the Internet or write his INTERNET ID CODE on a napkin in a bar or on the stall wall of a bathroom or the sidewalk near a bus stop or I could use a gang of like-minded harassers to torture him all day long through this information.  And then every stranger with an axe to grind can sharpen their fury upon Mister Kaspersky.  All because I desired it and now he cannot EVER ESCAPE.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Without anonymity , all of the nasty little tyrants of the world and all the nasty little tyrants of your suburb , and all the nasty little tyrants in the Police State will feel " required " to extort your behavior to conform you into a submissive little slave to their whims.The only serious problem is that " Security Through Obscurity " is the weakest form of protection in the world of Cryptography and anonymity.Let 's say I want Kaspersky to conform to my whims in his KGB-America Fantasy Land.Well , if I am a person in a position of authoritative power then I can see all of his Credit Card numbers , all of his purchase history , all of the websites he has visited , all of the people he has ever contacted , all of the statements he has ever made ( sober and intoxicated and angry and calm ) , and then I can use them to EXTORT MY WHIMS .
I can blackmail him , I can torment him by revealing embarrassing secret things to his family or lovers or coworkers.I can mock him with impunity and then reveal his ID to everyone and anyone on the Internet or write his INTERNET ID CODE on a napkin in a bar or on the stall wall of a bathroom or the sidewalk near a bus stop or I could use a gang of like-minded harassers to torture him all day long through this information .
And then every stranger with an axe to grind can sharpen their fury upon Mister Kaspersky .
All because I desired it and now he can not EVER ESCAPE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Without anonymity, all of the nasty little tyrants of the world and all the nasty little tyrants of your suburb, and all the nasty little tyrants in the Police State will feel "required" to extort your behavior to conform you into a submissive little slave to their whims.The only serious problem is that "Security Through Obscurity" is the weakest form of protection in the world of Cryptography and anonymity.Let's say I want Kaspersky to conform to my whims in his KGB-America Fantasy Land.Well, if I am a person in a position of authoritative power then I can see all of his Credit Card numbers, all of his purchase history, all of the websites he has visited, all of the people he has ever contacted, all of the statements he has ever made (sober and intoxicated and angry and calm), and then I can use them to EXTORT MY WHIMS.
I can blackmail him, I can torment him by revealing embarrassing secret things to his family or lovers or coworkers.I can mock him with impunity and then reveal his ID to everyone and anyone on the Internet or write his INTERNET ID CODE on a napkin in a bar or on the stall wall of a bathroom or the sidewalk near a bus stop or I could use a gang of like-minded harassers to torture him all day long through this information.
And then every stranger with an axe to grind can sharpen their fury upon Mister Kaspersky.
All because I desired it and now he cannot EVER ESCAPE.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777445</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777005</id>
	<title>I agree!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255789680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It should also not be possible to anonymously put mail in mailboxes. The harm that is done through postal mail is incredible!</p><p>Yeah, I'm sarcastic here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It should also not be possible to anonymously put mail in mailboxes .
The harm that is done through postal mail is incredible ! Yeah , I 'm sarcastic here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It should also not be possible to anonymously put mail in mailboxes.
The harm that is done through postal mail is incredible!Yeah, I'm sarcastic here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777087</id>
	<title>Additionally,</title>
	<author>rapturizer</author>
	<datestamp>1255790400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Since passwords can be stolen and id's faked, the following groups want the following requirements for internet users:

RIAA: a mandatory microphone and hard drive scanner to assure internet users are not pirating music and are paying for the rights to the music they listen to.
MPAA: a webcam focused on your screen and hard drive scanner to assure your not pirating movies.
Microsoft: mandatory use of Windows to surf the internet since it would be more secure. The only search engine would be Bling. Only approved software could be used.
The Chinese: Webcams all around the room, keylogger and hard drive scanner to assure compliance with government policy.
The Republicans: (see Chinese)
Al Gore: a mandatory firewall that blocks all searches related to research that attempts to debunk "An Inconvenient Truth".
The NSA/FBI/CIA/etc: a webcam focused on the user, login requiring eye scan, fingerprint scan, and DNA verification.

Add and additional to the reply.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since passwords can be stolen and id 's faked , the following groups want the following requirements for internet users : RIAA : a mandatory microphone and hard drive scanner to assure internet users are not pirating music and are paying for the rights to the music they listen to .
MPAA : a webcam focused on your screen and hard drive scanner to assure your not pirating movies .
Microsoft : mandatory use of Windows to surf the internet since it would be more secure .
The only search engine would be Bling .
Only approved software could be used .
The Chinese : Webcams all around the room , keylogger and hard drive scanner to assure compliance with government policy .
The Republicans : ( see Chinese ) Al Gore : a mandatory firewall that blocks all searches related to research that attempts to debunk " An Inconvenient Truth " .
The NSA/FBI/CIA/etc : a webcam focused on the user , login requiring eye scan , fingerprint scan , and DNA verification .
Add and additional to the reply .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since passwords can be stolen and id's faked, the following groups want the following requirements for internet users:

RIAA: a mandatory microphone and hard drive scanner to assure internet users are not pirating music and are paying for the rights to the music they listen to.
MPAA: a webcam focused on your screen and hard drive scanner to assure your not pirating movies.
Microsoft: mandatory use of Windows to surf the internet since it would be more secure.
The only search engine would be Bling.
Only approved software could be used.
The Chinese: Webcams all around the room, keylogger and hard drive scanner to assure compliance with government policy.
The Republicans: (see Chinese)
Al Gore: a mandatory firewall that blocks all searches related to research that attempts to debunk "An Inconvenient Truth".
The NSA/FBI/CIA/etc: a webcam focused on the user, login requiring eye scan, fingerprint scan, and DNA verification.
Add and additional to the reply.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777471</id>
	<title>He just lost a customer</title>
	<author>Stu101</author>
	<datestamp>1255793400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ah well. We were going to buy an enterprise licence for his product (Been evaluating for a few months). Not now. With renewals it would have been a nice chunk of change. To stop idiots such as this, we need to vote with our pockets.</p><p>On a larger scale, without internet anonymity, we wouldn't have wikileaks. We wouldn't have free and open speach. We can and do critize bad laws, bad companies.</p><p>It wouldn't be lonf until its a "pay to play" scenario.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah well .
We were going to buy an enterprise licence for his product ( Been evaluating for a few months ) .
Not now .
With renewals it would have been a nice chunk of change .
To stop idiots such as this , we need to vote with our pockets.On a larger scale , without internet anonymity , we would n't have wikileaks .
We would n't have free and open speach .
We can and do critize bad laws , bad companies.It would n't be lonf until its a " pay to play " scenario .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah well.
We were going to buy an enterprise licence for his product (Been evaluating for a few months).
Not now.
With renewals it would have been a nice chunk of change.
To stop idiots such as this, we need to vote with our pockets.On a larger scale, without internet anonymity, we wouldn't have wikileaks.
We wouldn't have free and open speach.
We can and do critize bad laws, bad companies.It wouldn't be lonf until its a "pay to play" scenario.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29779297</id>
	<title>Boooooooooo!!!!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255811100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about telling the telecom's to do their jobs and secure the Internet on their end.  And who cares what Kapersky thinks, they do good one year, and then bad the next on protecting computers.  Another booooo point is that this would be another way identities can be stolen.........Why don't we improve the security and then start discussing a passport system.  Because even SSL Certificates are not safe anymore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about telling the telecom 's to do their jobs and secure the Internet on their end .
And who cares what Kapersky thinks , they do good one year , and then bad the next on protecting computers .
Another booooo point is that this would be another way identities can be stolen.........Why do n't we improve the security and then start discussing a passport system .
Because even SSL Certificates are not safe anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about telling the telecom's to do their jobs and secure the Internet on their end.
And who cares what Kapersky thinks, they do good one year, and then bad the next on protecting computers.
Another booooo point is that this would be another way identities can be stolen.........Why don't we improve the security and then start discussing a passport system.
Because even SSL Certificates are not safe anymore.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778239</id>
	<title>Consider the source</title>
	<author>wellingj</author>
	<datestamp>1255801200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why the hell would we listen to a Russian born in 1965 about this kind of thing?<br> <br>
From the wiki (if it's still accurate):<blockquote><div><p>Kaspersky graduated from the Institute of Cryptography, Telecommunications and Computer Science, an institute co-sponsored by the Russian Ministry of Defence and the KGB in 1987.</p></div></blockquote><p>He may be good at solving individual problems, but I wouldn't trust him to make policy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why the hell would we listen to a Russian born in 1965 about this kind of thing ?
From the wiki ( if it 's still accurate ) : Kaspersky graduated from the Institute of Cryptography , Telecommunications and Computer Science , an institute co-sponsored by the Russian Ministry of Defence and the KGB in 1987.He may be good at solving individual problems , but I would n't trust him to make policy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why the hell would we listen to a Russian born in 1965 about this kind of thing?
From the wiki (if it's still accurate):Kaspersky graduated from the Institute of Cryptography, Telecommunications and Computer Science, an institute co-sponsored by the Russian Ministry of Defence and the KGB in 1987.He may be good at solving individual problems, but I wouldn't trust him to make policy.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777177</id>
	<title>Re:"work much like driver licenses do"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255791060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're not really all that anonymous when you drive. If you are driving in a manner that causes a police cruiser to notice you, they can get a lot of information just from license plates. Maybe they don't have speed cameras or red-light runner cameras where you live, either.</p><p>Anonymity ain't what she used to be. Heck, even this AC post can be used to track me down to the city where I live, should the Gods of Slashdot want to find that out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're not really all that anonymous when you drive .
If you are driving in a manner that causes a police cruiser to notice you , they can get a lot of information just from license plates .
Maybe they do n't have speed cameras or red-light runner cameras where you live , either.Anonymity ai n't what she used to be .
Heck , even this AC post can be used to track me down to the city where I live , should the Gods of Slashdot want to find that out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're not really all that anonymous when you drive.
If you are driving in a manner that causes a police cruiser to notice you, they can get a lot of information just from license plates.
Maybe they don't have speed cameras or red-light runner cameras where you live, either.Anonymity ain't what she used to be.
Heck, even this AC post can be used to track me down to the city where I live, should the Gods of Slashdot want to find that out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777091</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778387</id>
	<title>Yes please !</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255802460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Finaly !<br>Im going to move to Cambodia, Azerbaijan, or Russia and I will be selling ID passwords to the people in police states, which wants to control each keystroke of their tax payers. I mean, I will be selling it to You.<br>And I will be rich !</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Finaly ! Im going to move to Cambodia , Azerbaijan , or Russia and I will be selling ID passwords to the people in police states , which wants to control each keystroke of their tax payers .
I mean , I will be selling it to You.And I will be rich !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Finaly !Im going to move to Cambodia, Azerbaijan, or Russia and I will be selling ID passwords to the people in police states, which wants to control each keystroke of their tax payers.
I mean, I will be selling it to You.And I will be rich !</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29779317</id>
	<title>Eugene Kaspersky = MCP!</title>
	<author>itsybitsy</author>
	<datestamp>1255811220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Eugene Kaspersky sure picked a nice and easy way for tons of people to hate him and his Big Brother Utopian Dreams!</p><p>Arrest him Eugene Kaspersky and charge him with attempting to implement a Big Brother Control System!</p><p>Eugene Kaspersky = MCP!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Eugene Kaspersky sure picked a nice and easy way for tons of people to hate him and his Big Brother Utopian Dreams ! Arrest him Eugene Kaspersky and charge him with attempting to implement a Big Brother Control System ! Eugene Kaspersky = MCP !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eugene Kaspersky sure picked a nice and easy way for tons of people to hate him and his Big Brother Utopian Dreams!Arrest him Eugene Kaspersky and charge him with attempting to implement a Big Brother Control System!Eugene Kaspersky = MCP!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29781259</id>
	<title>Re:What, no part time psychoanalysts?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255789200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What is Stockholm Syndrome?</p><p>Did I say that? DOH!</p><p>Well, since we've gotten that out of the way:</p><p>There is NO PLACE for a totalitarian regime anywhere at any time, for any group of humans, for any reason. I'd rather have bombs going off on every street corner and retain my human dignity, autonomy, and status as a sentient adult who can make my own choices, for better or worse (as long as I do not harm someone else or lead to their rights being infringed upon). Humans were not made to be eternal children to an authoritarian governmental parent from hell.</p><p>What about the fact that totalitarian regimes tend to slaughter millions of their own citizens in cold blood for small "offenses" such as opposing the "Glorious Leader", being of the "wrong" genetic lineage, or pretty much anything that threatens the authority of The Absolutist State, or the challenging of it's psychologically designed official/covert propaganda.</p><p>Beyond that, most REAL people from formerly communist countries HATED it, and only went along with it because it was made into a matter of life or death to do so. The ones born into it tend to be a little more complicit until they are made aware of the alternative they could enjoy. This Kaspersky fellow, like the comment below me states was yet another KGB made man. The Soviets used scumbags like this guy to "create public opinion". The people who lived under the oppressive Soviet government have a very different thing to say, the same as the non-Jews who lived in Nazi Germany, or people who lived through any sort of political abomination that makes an absolutist monarchy look like anarchy.</p><p>Kaspersky should be thrown in prison with the rest of the criminal "ruling" class, who would love to remove all freedom from every country on the planet. His statements are an absolute slap in the face to everything good that has come from the "wild west" nature of the internet. Prepare to see the internet turn into a sort of "Global Cable Service".</p><p>So, what 10 websites do you think will survive the Tyrants' transition of the internet from a gleaming beacon of human development and testiment to the concept of infinite free knowledge and freedom, into the new "World Wide Wiretap" of 10 corporate/government sites that will "allow you to post your content" as long as they have Stool samples, biometric ID, family genetic history, bank records, and DNA sample.</p><p>I wonder when they'll start using injectible RFID microchips as this new "Internet Passport". "You can't go on the internet if you don't get this little chip implant" sounds like a good way of forcing people to take chip implants without actually "forcing" them, so they don't appear to be Hitler incarnate and can blame it on "big business". This also sounds like a good way to track down anyone who doesn't agree with Big Brother. "We've got an enemy of the state, here... just bring up the location information on his chip! Lock that free thinker away before he's able to challenge Government policy!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What is Stockholm Syndrome ? Did I say that ?
DOH ! Well , since we 've gotten that out of the way : There is NO PLACE for a totalitarian regime anywhere at any time , for any group of humans , for any reason .
I 'd rather have bombs going off on every street corner and retain my human dignity , autonomy , and status as a sentient adult who can make my own choices , for better or worse ( as long as I do not harm someone else or lead to their rights being infringed upon ) .
Humans were not made to be eternal children to an authoritarian governmental parent from hell.What about the fact that totalitarian regimes tend to slaughter millions of their own citizens in cold blood for small " offenses " such as opposing the " Glorious Leader " , being of the " wrong " genetic lineage , or pretty much anything that threatens the authority of The Absolutist State , or the challenging of it 's psychologically designed official/covert propaganda.Beyond that , most REAL people from formerly communist countries HATED it , and only went along with it because it was made into a matter of life or death to do so .
The ones born into it tend to be a little more complicit until they are made aware of the alternative they could enjoy .
This Kaspersky fellow , like the comment below me states was yet another KGB made man .
The Soviets used scumbags like this guy to " create public opinion " .
The people who lived under the oppressive Soviet government have a very different thing to say , the same as the non-Jews who lived in Nazi Germany , or people who lived through any sort of political abomination that makes an absolutist monarchy look like anarchy.Kaspersky should be thrown in prison with the rest of the criminal " ruling " class , who would love to remove all freedom from every country on the planet .
His statements are an absolute slap in the face to everything good that has come from the " wild west " nature of the internet .
Prepare to see the internet turn into a sort of " Global Cable Service " .So , what 10 websites do you think will survive the Tyrants ' transition of the internet from a gleaming beacon of human development and testiment to the concept of infinite free knowledge and freedom , into the new " World Wide Wiretap " of 10 corporate/government sites that will " allow you to post your content " as long as they have Stool samples , biometric ID , family genetic history , bank records , and DNA sample.I wonder when they 'll start using injectible RFID microchips as this new " Internet Passport " .
" You ca n't go on the internet if you do n't get this little chip implant " sounds like a good way of forcing people to take chip implants without actually " forcing " them , so they do n't appear to be Hitler incarnate and can blame it on " big business " .
This also sounds like a good way to track down anyone who does n't agree with Big Brother .
" We 've got an enemy of the state , here... just bring up the location information on his chip !
Lock that free thinker away before he 's able to challenge Government policy !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is Stockholm Syndrome?Did I say that?
DOH!Well, since we've gotten that out of the way:There is NO PLACE for a totalitarian regime anywhere at any time, for any group of humans, for any reason.
I'd rather have bombs going off on every street corner and retain my human dignity, autonomy, and status as a sentient adult who can make my own choices, for better or worse (as long as I do not harm someone else or lead to their rights being infringed upon).
Humans were not made to be eternal children to an authoritarian governmental parent from hell.What about the fact that totalitarian regimes tend to slaughter millions of their own citizens in cold blood for small "offenses" such as opposing the "Glorious Leader", being of the "wrong" genetic lineage, or pretty much anything that threatens the authority of The Absolutist State, or the challenging of it's psychologically designed official/covert propaganda.Beyond that, most REAL people from formerly communist countries HATED it, and only went along with it because it was made into a matter of life or death to do so.
The ones born into it tend to be a little more complicit until they are made aware of the alternative they could enjoy.
This Kaspersky fellow, like the comment below me states was yet another KGB made man.
The Soviets used scumbags like this guy to "create public opinion".
The people who lived under the oppressive Soviet government have a very different thing to say, the same as the non-Jews who lived in Nazi Germany, or people who lived through any sort of political abomination that makes an absolutist monarchy look like anarchy.Kaspersky should be thrown in prison with the rest of the criminal "ruling" class, who would love to remove all freedom from every country on the planet.
His statements are an absolute slap in the face to everything good that has come from the "wild west" nature of the internet.
Prepare to see the internet turn into a sort of "Global Cable Service".So, what 10 websites do you think will survive the Tyrants' transition of the internet from a gleaming beacon of human development and testiment to the concept of infinite free knowledge and freedom, into the new "World Wide Wiretap" of 10 corporate/government sites that will "allow you to post your content" as long as they have Stool samples, biometric ID, family genetic history, bank records, and DNA sample.I wonder when they'll start using injectible RFID microchips as this new "Internet Passport".
"You can't go on the internet if you don't get this little chip implant" sounds like a good way of forcing people to take chip implants without actually "forcing" them, so they don't appear to be Hitler incarnate and can blame it on "big business".
This also sounds like a good way to track down anyone who doesn't agree with Big Brother.
"We've got an enemy of the state, here... just bring up the location information on his chip!
Lock that free thinker away before he's able to challenge Government policy!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778779</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29780601</id>
	<title>He might be an idiot...</title>
	<author>nEoN nOoDlE</author>
	<datestamp>1255780440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But he makes one helluva mean <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbRSQVsOX\_Y" title="youtube.com">commercial</a> [youtube.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But he makes one helluva mean commercial [ youtube.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But he makes one helluva mean commercial [youtube.com].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777875</id>
	<title>Barking up the wrong tree</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255797660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anonymity, a security threat? Uh, how about "lack of computer education", "laziness", or plain old "stupidity"?</p><p>Keep your computer updated, don't click on every single link you see on screen, no you HAVEN'T WON 1 million, etc etc.</p><p>"Then it was introduced to the public, and it was wrong" - I kind of agree with him here but not for the reasons he gives. Get rid of user incompetence instead. Good luck asking computer manufacturers, OEMs and retailers to think beyond the bottom line though.</p><p>On the other hands, there are times you wish you could easily get hold of some random retarded comment's author... (And yes, I have considered the possibility of shooting myself in the foot here heh)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anonymity , a security threat ?
Uh , how about " lack of computer education " , " laziness " , or plain old " stupidity " ? Keep your computer updated , do n't click on every single link you see on screen , no you HAVE N'T WON 1 million , etc etc .
" Then it was introduced to the public , and it was wrong " - I kind of agree with him here but not for the reasons he gives .
Get rid of user incompetence instead .
Good luck asking computer manufacturers , OEMs and retailers to think beyond the bottom line though.On the other hands , there are times you wish you could easily get hold of some random retarded comment 's author... ( And yes , I have considered the possibility of shooting myself in the foot here heh )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anonymity, a security threat?
Uh, how about "lack of computer education", "laziness", or plain old "stupidity"?Keep your computer updated, don't click on every single link you see on screen, no you HAVEN'T WON 1 million, etc etc.
"Then it was introduced to the public, and it was wrong" - I kind of agree with him here but not for the reasons he gives.
Get rid of user incompetence instead.
Good luck asking computer manufacturers, OEMs and retailers to think beyond the bottom line though.On the other hands, there are times you wish you could easily get hold of some random retarded comment's author... (And yes, I have considered the possibility of shooting myself in the foot here heh)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777103</id>
	<title>Considering the amount of identity fraud...</title>
	<author>jcohen</author>
	<datestamp>1255790460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Considering the amount of computer-based identity fraud in the world, all this would accomplish is to get millions of people unjustly pegged for crimes they didn't commit. Suppose that identity is conferred via X.509 certificates. What is to stop a garden-variety rootkit/botnet from using these certificates for their own purposes? My spam trap is filled with hundreds of messages each day from unsuspecting victims; why would it make a difference if these messages were digitally signed?</p><p>The problems are</p><ol><li>The falsifiability of the credentials.</li><li>The juridical ("DNA testing") status these credentials would take on.</li></ol></htmltext>
<tokenext>Considering the amount of computer-based identity fraud in the world , all this would accomplish is to get millions of people unjustly pegged for crimes they did n't commit .
Suppose that identity is conferred via X.509 certificates .
What is to stop a garden-variety rootkit/botnet from using these certificates for their own purposes ?
My spam trap is filled with hundreds of messages each day from unsuspecting victims ; why would it make a difference if these messages were digitally signed ? The problems areThe falsifiability of the credentials.The juridical ( " DNA testing " ) status these credentials would take on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Considering the amount of computer-based identity fraud in the world, all this would accomplish is to get millions of people unjustly pegged for crimes they didn't commit.
Suppose that identity is conferred via X.509 certificates.
What is to stop a garden-variety rootkit/botnet from using these certificates for their own purposes?
My spam trap is filled with hundreds of messages each day from unsuspecting victims; why would it make a difference if these messages were digitally signed?The problems areThe falsifiability of the credentials.The juridical ("DNA testing") status these credentials would take on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29790805</id>
	<title>He doesn't say WHY!</title>
	<author>Cajun Hell</author>
	<datestamp>1255894440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Heh.  I read the interview, and no where does he say <em>Why</em> he'd like to end anonymity.
</p><p>
That seems pretty astounding at first, until you realize that if he actually were to give a reason why it might possibly be desirable, people would start poking holes in his logic.
</p><p>
There's no argument here.  Pure flamebait.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Heh .
I read the interview , and no where does he say Why he 'd like to end anonymity .
That seems pretty astounding at first , until you realize that if he actually were to give a reason why it might possibly be desirable , people would start poking holes in his logic .
There 's no argument here .
Pure flamebait .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Heh.
I read the interview, and no where does he say Why he'd like to end anonymity.
That seems pretty astounding at first, until you realize that if he actually were to give a reason why it might possibly be desirable, people would start poking holes in his logic.
There's no argument here.
Pure flamebait.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777423</id>
	<title>Kaspersky Proves Himself an Idiot</title>
	<author>NeverVotedBush</author>
	<datestamp>1255792980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just this one thing and now I really don't like the guy.<br> <br>

Certainly there is a lot of fraud and theft on the Internet, and people who do bad things. But the anonymity aspect to the Internet is one of its greatest assets. I prefer my identity to not be known when I post, read news stories, research things, and known only to those where I buy things.<br> <br>

As it is, if someone really wants to know who I am, they can find out. Link up IP address with logs from my ISP and I'm no longer anonymous.<br> <br>

Already, and it is just the nature of the beast, everything people do online can be sifted, sorted, mined, etc. People can be identified by their browsing habits. They can be profiled by their search histories. Governments everywhere have their unblinking robot minions scanning for any key words and actions that might indicate someone is a malcontent and worthy of monitoring more closely. There is no need to make it any easier to monitor people or to allow others to join in the fun.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just this one thing and now I really do n't like the guy .
Certainly there is a lot of fraud and theft on the Internet , and people who do bad things .
But the anonymity aspect to the Internet is one of its greatest assets .
I prefer my identity to not be known when I post , read news stories , research things , and known only to those where I buy things .
As it is , if someone really wants to know who I am , they can find out .
Link up IP address with logs from my ISP and I 'm no longer anonymous .
Already , and it is just the nature of the beast , everything people do online can be sifted , sorted , mined , etc .
People can be identified by their browsing habits .
They can be profiled by their search histories .
Governments everywhere have their unblinking robot minions scanning for any key words and actions that might indicate someone is a malcontent and worthy of monitoring more closely .
There is no need to make it any easier to monitor people or to allow others to join in the fun .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just this one thing and now I really don't like the guy.
Certainly there is a lot of fraud and theft on the Internet, and people who do bad things.
But the anonymity aspect to the Internet is one of its greatest assets.
I prefer my identity to not be known when I post, read news stories, research things, and known only to those where I buy things.
As it is, if someone really wants to know who I am, they can find out.
Link up IP address with logs from my ISP and I'm no longer anonymous.
Already, and it is just the nature of the beast, everything people do online can be sifted, sorted, mined, etc.
People can be identified by their browsing habits.
They can be profiled by their search histories.
Governments everywhere have their unblinking robot minions scanning for any key words and actions that might indicate someone is a malcontent and worthy of monitoring more closely.
There is no need to make it any easier to monitor people or to allow others to join in the fun.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777287</id>
	<title>As you might expect</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255791900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Security expert wants a more secure system.  Freedom experts want a free system.  Unsurprisingly these two views clash - because they are designing things for different use cases.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Security expert wants a more secure system .
Freedom experts want a free system .
Unsurprisingly these two views clash - because they are designing things for different use cases .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Security expert wants a more secure system.
Freedom experts want a free system.
Unsurprisingly these two views clash - because they are designing things for different use cases.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29793273</id>
	<title>Re:I agree!</title>
	<author>ErkDemon</author>
	<datestamp>1255963380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... or to have private conversations in pubs, clubs and coffeehouses, without wearing a big name-badge, staying within clear view of the cameras, and clearly and loudly announcing your identity and social security number at the start of every exchange, so that the microphones can correctly log and record everything that you're about to say.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... or to have private conversations in pubs , clubs and coffeehouses , without wearing a big name-badge , staying within clear view of the cameras , and clearly and loudly announcing your identity and social security number at the start of every exchange , so that the microphones can correctly log and record everything that you 're about to say .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... or to have private conversations in pubs, clubs and coffeehouses, without wearing a big name-badge, staying within clear view of the cameras, and clearly and loudly announcing your identity and social security number at the start of every exchange, so that the microphones can correctly log and record everything that you're about to say.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777005</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29781879</id>
	<title>I want an end to Kaspersky Lab</title>
	<author>alizard</author>
	<datestamp>1255799580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are plenty of places to get products which are equivalent or better than anything that company sells.
<br> <br>
IMO, the company just went from security protection to security risk.
<br> <br>I'm sure that Kaspersky would love to sell the technology for an "Internet Passport" to governments. If that's where their CEO wants to get its cash flow, they can have at it. They don't deserve a cent from the rest of us, either via product sale or via taxes.
<br> <br>If you or your company uses their products, it's time to look for alternative vendors.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are plenty of places to get products which are equivalent or better than anything that company sells .
IMO , the company just went from security protection to security risk .
I 'm sure that Kaspersky would love to sell the technology for an " Internet Passport " to governments .
If that 's where their CEO wants to get its cash flow , they can have at it .
They do n't deserve a cent from the rest of us , either via product sale or via taxes .
If you or your company uses their products , it 's time to look for alternative vendors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are plenty of places to get products which are equivalent or better than anything that company sells.
IMO, the company just went from security protection to security risk.
I'm sure that Kaspersky would love to sell the technology for an "Internet Passport" to governments.
If that's where their CEO wants to get its cash flow, they can have at it.
They don't deserve a cent from the rest of us, either via product sale or via taxes.
If you or your company uses their products, it's time to look for alternative vendors.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777273</id>
	<title>Getting rid of Anonymous Access Internet.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255791780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ah....HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA....HA<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.....HA HA......HAAAAAAAAAAA.</p><p>No.</p><p>In other news, governmental organizations like "Bring back Feudalism Now." and "The Dark Age Was Cool" have given their unconditional support to Kasperski.</p><p>-Hack</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah....HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA....HA .....HA HA......HAAAAAAAAAAA.No.In other news , governmental organizations like " Bring back Feudalism Now .
" and " The Dark Age Was Cool " have given their unconditional support to Kasperski.-Hack</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah....HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA....HA .....HA HA......HAAAAAAAAAAA.No.In other news, governmental organizations like "Bring back Feudalism Now.
" and "The Dark Age Was Cool" have given their unconditional support to Kasperski.-Hack</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777203</id>
	<title>Let's put an end to Kaspersky's company</title>
	<author>Luscious868</author>
	<datestamp>1255791240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dear Mr. Kaspersky,

What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dear Mr. Kaspersky , What you 've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard .
At no point in your rambling , incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought .
Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it .
I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dear Mr. Kaspersky,

What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard.
At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought.
Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it.
I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29786263</id>
	<title>Re:"work much like driver licenses do"</title>
	<author>MBGMorden</author>
	<datestamp>1255898640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm in a southern state (SC) but not one along any border with another country, and we still have various checkpoints at times.  They'll be in random areas - particularly during holidays.  They basically want to see your ID, proof of insurance, and vehicle registration.  And if you appear to be intoxicated they'll go further.  Every person traveling that particular road has to stop and be checked.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm in a southern state ( SC ) but not one along any border with another country , and we still have various checkpoints at times .
They 'll be in random areas - particularly during holidays .
They basically want to see your ID , proof of insurance , and vehicle registration .
And if you appear to be intoxicated they 'll go further .
Every person traveling that particular road has to stop and be checked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm in a southern state (SC) but not one along any border with another country, and we still have various checkpoints at times.
They'll be in random areas - particularly during holidays.
They basically want to see your ID, proof of insurance, and vehicle registration.
And if you appear to be intoxicated they'll go further.
Every person traveling that particular road has to stop and be checked.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777507</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777905</id>
	<title>Re:Open letter to Eugene Kaspersky</title>
	<author>mapkinase</author>
	<datestamp>1255797900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whoever modded up this idiot (vicious 13-year old idiot living at zip code 10021, subscribed to Time Warner cable, using Konguerer<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/just kidding) is an idiot himself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whoever modded up this idiot ( vicious 13-year old idiot living at zip code 10021 , subscribed to Time Warner cable , using Konguerer /just kidding ) is an idiot himself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whoever modded up this idiot (vicious 13-year old idiot living at zip code 10021, subscribed to Time Warner cable, using Konguerer /just kidding) is an idiot himself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29776991</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777777</id>
	<title>You're welcome to create your own network</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1255796460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Eugene, you're welcome to create your own network with controlled access and tight protocol control. It will fail horribly, but you're welcome to try.</p><p>There were dozens of network in the '80s, competing with the Internet. The Internet won because it was open. If the Internet hadn't been open, something else that *was* would have won instead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Eugene , you 're welcome to create your own network with controlled access and tight protocol control .
It will fail horribly , but you 're welcome to try.There were dozens of network in the '80s , competing with the Internet .
The Internet won because it was open .
If the Internet had n't been open , something else that * was * would have won instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eugene, you're welcome to create your own network with controlled access and tight protocol control.
It will fail horribly, but you're welcome to try.There were dozens of network in the '80s, competing with the Internet.
The Internet won because it was open.
If the Internet hadn't been open, something else that *was* would have won instead.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778005</id>
	<title>Re:"Papers Please"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255798740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>this is a classic case of "when all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail" syndrome.<br>he works in security, where the inability to trace internet traffic is the main threat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>this is a classic case of " when all you have is a hammer , every problem looks like a nail " syndrome.he works in security , where the inability to trace internet traffic is the main threat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this is a classic case of "when all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail" syndrome.he works in security, where the inability to trace internet traffic is the main threat.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29776951</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777297</id>
	<title>His heart's in the right place...</title>
	<author>Interoperable</author>
	<datestamp>1255791960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I actually agree with the sentiment, but requiring ID is moronic. I think that OpenID and similar services should and will become more pervasive, attaching a unique ID to everything public that you on the internet. As for everything private, just don't attach your OpenID to it. News site comment boards could reject non-authenticated comments, file transfer sites could require authentication for upload and torrent clients could refuse connections from untrusted sources and, most importantly, e-mail accounts themselves could get flagged as not worth listening to and be forwarded directly to a spam folder.</p><p>Essentially, attach a karma number to OpenID accounts and extend the tracking of it to more services. It would, in the lingo of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/., increase the signal to noise ratio of the internet just a little.</p><p>The trick would be to hit the balance of what data is stored and by whom. Undoubtedly there would be significant privacy concerns and the threat of targeted advertising but I think that it would be possible to address that. The problem of multiple accounts would self regulate as people just stopped paying attention to spam accounts (like how we all ignore Anonymous Coward).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I actually agree with the sentiment , but requiring ID is moronic .
I think that OpenID and similar services should and will become more pervasive , attaching a unique ID to everything public that you on the internet .
As for everything private , just do n't attach your OpenID to it .
News site comment boards could reject non-authenticated comments , file transfer sites could require authentication for upload and torrent clients could refuse connections from untrusted sources and , most importantly , e-mail accounts themselves could get flagged as not worth listening to and be forwarded directly to a spam folder.Essentially , attach a karma number to OpenID accounts and extend the tracking of it to more services .
It would , in the lingo of /. , increase the signal to noise ratio of the internet just a little.The trick would be to hit the balance of what data is stored and by whom .
Undoubtedly there would be significant privacy concerns and the threat of targeted advertising but I think that it would be possible to address that .
The problem of multiple accounts would self regulate as people just stopped paying attention to spam accounts ( like how we all ignore Anonymous Coward ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I actually agree with the sentiment, but requiring ID is moronic.
I think that OpenID and similar services should and will become more pervasive, attaching a unique ID to everything public that you on the internet.
As for everything private, just don't attach your OpenID to it.
News site comment boards could reject non-authenticated comments, file transfer sites could require authentication for upload and torrent clients could refuse connections from untrusted sources and, most importantly, e-mail accounts themselves could get flagged as not worth listening to and be forwarded directly to a spam folder.Essentially, attach a karma number to OpenID accounts and extend the tracking of it to more services.
It would, in the lingo of /., increase the signal to noise ratio of the internet just a little.The trick would be to hit the balance of what data is stored and by whom.
Undoubtedly there would be significant privacy concerns and the threat of targeted advertising but I think that it would be possible to address that.
The problem of multiple accounts would self regulate as people just stopped paying attention to spam accounts (like how we all ignore Anonymous Coward).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778087</id>
	<title>Freedom</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255799700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Kaspersky Lab is a privately held company headquartered in Moscow, Russia.</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaspersky\_Lab</p><p>Thank you for protecting our freedom.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Kaspersky Lab is a privately held company headquartered in Moscow , Russia.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaspersky \ _LabThank you for protecting our freedom .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kaspersky Lab is a privately held company headquartered in Moscow, Russia.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaspersky\_LabThank you for protecting our freedom.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777375</id>
	<title>Re:Guess who's security software I won't be buying</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255792620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This guy apparently doesn't understand that for many, anonymity is a security <strong>feature</strong></p> </div><p>It's not a feature, it's a bug...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This guy apparently does n't understand that for many , anonymity is a security feature It 's not a feature , it 's a bug.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This guy apparently doesn't understand that for many, anonymity is a security feature It's not a feature, it's a bug...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777007</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778527</id>
	<title>What's Kaspersky's social standing today?</title>
	<author>egotripper</author>
	<datestamp>1255803840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We now know that Kaspersky never speaks out against authority, and would never say anything in public that anyone would ever disagree with years from now. If he did, he would have respect for anonymity. Can you imagine doing something simple, like trying to get an interview for a job while you're on public record on the internet saying bad things about that company? So Kaspersky is above all that now, he has all the money he needs.</p><p>So who is Kaspersky speaking on behalf of? Is he just speaking for himself? Or does he have a sponsor that wants him to represent them in public appearances and before government committees?</p><p>Is that sponsor...anonymous? Who might it be? A Communist government, under which free speech is regulated? A dictatorship, under which freedom is a dream? A corporate partner, whose executives really have no idea whose playing field they're on, or perhaps they're a proxy for a government with no respect for unpopular speech?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We now know that Kaspersky never speaks out against authority , and would never say anything in public that anyone would ever disagree with years from now .
If he did , he would have respect for anonymity .
Can you imagine doing something simple , like trying to get an interview for a job while you 're on public record on the internet saying bad things about that company ?
So Kaspersky is above all that now , he has all the money he needs.So who is Kaspersky speaking on behalf of ?
Is he just speaking for himself ?
Or does he have a sponsor that wants him to represent them in public appearances and before government committees ? Is that sponsor...anonymous ?
Who might it be ?
A Communist government , under which free speech is regulated ?
A dictatorship , under which freedom is a dream ?
A corporate partner , whose executives really have no idea whose playing field they 're on , or perhaps they 're a proxy for a government with no respect for unpopular speech ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We now know that Kaspersky never speaks out against authority, and would never say anything in public that anyone would ever disagree with years from now.
If he did, he would have respect for anonymity.
Can you imagine doing something simple, like trying to get an interview for a job while you're on public record on the internet saying bad things about that company?
So Kaspersky is above all that now, he has all the money he needs.So who is Kaspersky speaking on behalf of?
Is he just speaking for himself?
Or does he have a sponsor that wants him to represent them in public appearances and before government committees?Is that sponsor...anonymous?
Who might it be?
A Communist government, under which free speech is regulated?
A dictatorship, under which freedom is a dream?
A corporate partner, whose executives really have no idea whose playing field they're on, or perhaps they're a proxy for a government with no respect for unpopular speech?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29779653</id>
	<title>why?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255771500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>slashdot has been erasing every comment I make over the pass couple years. Why is that? I'll be emailing their admins.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>slashdot has been erasing every comment I make over the pass couple years .
Why is that ?
I 'll be emailing their admins .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>slashdot has been erasing every comment I make over the pass couple years.
Why is that?
I'll be emailing their admins.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29793517</id>
	<title>Re:What, no part time psychoanalysts?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255964580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mr Kaspersky is of the Hebrew persuasion.<br>Ends in 'Y' denotes this. Think Bolshevik.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mr Kaspersky is of the Hebrew persuasion.Ends in 'Y ' denotes this .
Think Bolshevik .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mr Kaspersky is of the Hebrew persuasion.Ends in 'Y' denotes this.
Think Bolshevik.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778779</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777703</id>
	<title>Follow the money.</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1255795680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Such a program would need to be administered, of course, and who's better qualified to do so than "security" companies?  A billion or so Internet licenses at maybe $5/year with a buck or two in "adminstrative expenses": do we see a financial interest here?  Naw.  I'm sure he has only the best interests of the Internet community at heart.  No CEO would ever be influenced by the prospect of increased revenue for his company.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Such a program would need to be administered , of course , and who 's better qualified to do so than " security " companies ?
A billion or so Internet licenses at maybe $ 5/year with a buck or two in " adminstrative expenses " : do we see a financial interest here ?
Naw. I 'm sure he has only the best interests of the Internet community at heart .
No CEO would ever be influenced by the prospect of increased revenue for his company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Such a program would need to be administered, of course, and who's better qualified to do so than "security" companies?
A billion or so Internet licenses at maybe $5/year with a buck or two in "adminstrative expenses": do we see a financial interest here?
Naw.  I'm sure he has only the best interests of the Internet community at heart.
No CEO would ever be influenced by the prospect of increased revenue for his company.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777237</id>
	<title>Hey Kaspersky....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255791420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>nah nah, nah nah, nah nah!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>nah nah , nah nah , nah nah !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>nah nah, nah nah, nah nah!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778469</id>
	<title>Analyzing online anonymity.</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1255803300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
There are three issues with "online anonymity".  One is anonymous businesses, the second is the ability to create an unlimited number of new identities at very low cost, and the third is actual identification of end users.
</p><p>
Anonymous businesses, that is, web sites with commercial intent which don't identify their ownership, are already illegal in <a href="http://www.sitetruth.com/doc/eucommercedirective.html" title="sitetruth.com">many</a> [sitetruth.com] <a href="http://www.sitetruth.com/doc/californiabpcode17538.html" title="sitetruth.com">jurisdictions.</a> [sitetruth.com]  At <a href="http://www.sitetruth.com/" title="sitetruth.com">SiteTruth</a> [sitetruth.com], we treat anonymous businesses (where there's no postal mailing address on the web site) as "bottom feeders", and move them to the bottom of search results.  Google has a bias against "private registration" domains, but that only kicks in if the site otherwise looks like a junk site.  There's not much controversy about this; it's accepted law that a business has to identify itself properly.
</p><p>
The ability to create an unlimited number of new identities causes various forms of trouble.  The ability to get <a href="http://www.jiffycreator.com/" title="jiffycreator.com">vast numbers of free Gmail accounts</a> [jiffycreator.com] ("automatically create Gmail Accounts in seconds flat without breaking a sweat") is a windfall for spammers and has destroyed vast sections of Craigslist. The ability to register large numbers of domains with phony domain registration has created a well-known range of problems.  Gradually, that's being tightened down.  "Domain Tasting" is now dead, now that registrars have to eat the loss if they register and release a domain within 5 days.  Phony WHOIS information remains a problem, but could be fixed.  When you register a domain, you should get a postal mail piece with the code that enables the domain.
</p><p>
End user identification is the controversial issue.  The music industry would like it, but, after all, the music industry is a dinky business compared to the Internet.  IBM, HP, Dell, Microsoft, Yahoo, and Google are each bigger than the entire music industry.  Other than for email sending, there's other big interest behind end user identification.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are three issues with " online anonymity " .
One is anonymous businesses , the second is the ability to create an unlimited number of new identities at very low cost , and the third is actual identification of end users .
Anonymous businesses , that is , web sites with commercial intent which do n't identify their ownership , are already illegal in many [ sitetruth.com ] jurisdictions .
[ sitetruth.com ] At SiteTruth [ sitetruth.com ] , we treat anonymous businesses ( where there 's no postal mailing address on the web site ) as " bottom feeders " , and move them to the bottom of search results .
Google has a bias against " private registration " domains , but that only kicks in if the site otherwise looks like a junk site .
There 's not much controversy about this ; it 's accepted law that a business has to identify itself properly .
The ability to create an unlimited number of new identities causes various forms of trouble .
The ability to get vast numbers of free Gmail accounts [ jiffycreator.com ] ( " automatically create Gmail Accounts in seconds flat without breaking a sweat " ) is a windfall for spammers and has destroyed vast sections of Craigslist .
The ability to register large numbers of domains with phony domain registration has created a well-known range of problems .
Gradually , that 's being tightened down .
" Domain Tasting " is now dead , now that registrars have to eat the loss if they register and release a domain within 5 days .
Phony WHOIS information remains a problem , but could be fixed .
When you register a domain , you should get a postal mail piece with the code that enables the domain .
End user identification is the controversial issue .
The music industry would like it , but , after all , the music industry is a dinky business compared to the Internet .
IBM , HP , Dell , Microsoft , Yahoo , and Google are each bigger than the entire music industry .
Other than for email sending , there 's other big interest behind end user identification .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
There are three issues with "online anonymity".
One is anonymous businesses, the second is the ability to create an unlimited number of new identities at very low cost, and the third is actual identification of end users.
Anonymous businesses, that is, web sites with commercial intent which don't identify their ownership, are already illegal in many [sitetruth.com] jurisdictions.
[sitetruth.com]  At SiteTruth [sitetruth.com], we treat anonymous businesses (where there's no postal mailing address on the web site) as "bottom feeders", and move them to the bottom of search results.
Google has a bias against "private registration" domains, but that only kicks in if the site otherwise looks like a junk site.
There's not much controversy about this; it's accepted law that a business has to identify itself properly.
The ability to create an unlimited number of new identities causes various forms of trouble.
The ability to get vast numbers of free Gmail accounts [jiffycreator.com] ("automatically create Gmail Accounts in seconds flat without breaking a sweat") is a windfall for spammers and has destroyed vast sections of Craigslist.
The ability to register large numbers of domains with phony domain registration has created a well-known range of problems.
Gradually, that's being tightened down.
"Domain Tasting" is now dead, now that registrars have to eat the loss if they register and release a domain within 5 days.
Phony WHOIS information remains a problem, but could be fixed.
When you register a domain, you should get a postal mail piece with the code that enables the domain.
End user identification is the controversial issue.
The music industry would like it, but, after all, the music industry is a dinky business compared to the Internet.
IBM, HP, Dell, Microsoft, Yahoo, and Google are each bigger than the entire music industry.
Other than for email sending, there's other big interest behind end user identification.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777121</id>
	<title>Re:too late</title>
	<author>TaoPhoenix</author>
	<datestamp>1255790580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The stallion has left a barn, found a nice trainer, entered and won a Kentucky Derby, retired to a nice farm in Iowa, and sired a son, which is now on the resource list for a humanitarian agency for kids in Ottowa.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The stallion has left a barn , found a nice trainer , entered and won a Kentucky Derby , retired to a nice farm in Iowa , and sired a son , which is now on the resource list for a humanitarian agency for kids in Ottowa .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The stallion has left a barn, found a nice trainer, entered and won a Kentucky Derby, retired to a nice farm in Iowa, and sired a son, which is now on the resource list for a humanitarian agency for kids in Ottowa.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777025</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777533</id>
	<title>Kaspersky is just asking for it...</title>
	<author>althalus1969</author>
	<datestamp>1255794000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This will be 150 licenses not being renewed next year. I am tired of their crappy AV programs anyway.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This will be 150 licenses not being renewed next year .
I am tired of their crappy AV programs anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This will be 150 licenses not being renewed next year.
I am tired of their crappy AV programs anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778207</id>
	<title>Re:Guess who's security software I won't be buying</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255800900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you take his software off the list because you don't like an idea he's proposing, what if his software is actually the better choice for your company? Now you are simply doing your company a disservice. Just because he's proposing this, doesn't mean its going to every happen..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you take his software off the list because you do n't like an idea he 's proposing , what if his software is actually the better choice for your company ?
Now you are simply doing your company a disservice .
Just because he 's proposing this , does n't mean its going to every happen. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you take his software off the list because you don't like an idea he's proposing, what if his software is actually the better choice for your company?
Now you are simply doing your company a disservice.
Just because he's proposing this, doesn't mean its going to every happen..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777323</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777067</id>
	<title>Anonymity IS a threat</title>
	<author>damburger</author>
	<datestamp>1255790220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But most of the people it is a threat to, frankly deserve to live with being threatened.</p><p>Anonymity can enable online bullying or petty fraud, but those are nuisances on the grand scale of things. The people for whom anonymity is an actual <i>threat</i> are governments who want to monitor and control their citizens, unsavory groups such as the church of Scientology who want to harass their critics, and businesses that want to force consumption of their products in the way they demand they are consumed.</p><p>Let them be threatened. They deserve to live in fear.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But most of the people it is a threat to , frankly deserve to live with being threatened.Anonymity can enable online bullying or petty fraud , but those are nuisances on the grand scale of things .
The people for whom anonymity is an actual threat are governments who want to monitor and control their citizens , unsavory groups such as the church of Scientology who want to harass their critics , and businesses that want to force consumption of their products in the way they demand they are consumed.Let them be threatened .
They deserve to live in fear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But most of the people it is a threat to, frankly deserve to live with being threatened.Anonymity can enable online bullying or petty fraud, but those are nuisances on the grand scale of things.
The people for whom anonymity is an actual threat are governments who want to monitor and control their citizens, unsavory groups such as the church of Scientology who want to harass their critics, and businesses that want to force consumption of their products in the way they demand they are consumed.Let them be threatened.
They deserve to live in fear.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777145</id>
	<title>Re:Guess who's security software I won't be buying</title>
	<author>140Mandak262Jamuna</author>
	<datestamp>1255790760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They why are you not posting as the Anonymous Coward Junior? Eh? Anonymous is for the peasants and plebs right? And Your Exalted Highness would like to be known as Junior J Junior III...</htmltext>
<tokenext>They why are you not posting as the Anonymous Coward Junior ?
Eh ? Anonymous is for the peasants and plebs right ?
And Your Exalted Highness would like to be known as Junior J Junior III.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They why are you not posting as the Anonymous Coward Junior?
Eh? Anonymous is for the peasants and plebs right?
And Your Exalted Highness would like to be known as Junior J Junior III...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777007</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778011</id>
	<title>Re:Open letter to Eugene Kaspersky</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255798800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You coward...!!!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You coward... ! ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You coward...!!!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29776991</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777843</id>
	<title>Re:Where you do you com from, where do you go ..</title>
	<author>daveime</author>
	<datestamp>1255797300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And how is knowing that IP 12.34.56.78 was used by Mr. Wang from [insert-far-eastern-country-here] on 17th October going to help you in *stopping* him from hacking you again tomorrow ? Especially when Mr Wang's government actually encourages this sort of thing (unofficially of course).</p><p>Like it or not, whatever country you live in, that doesn't mean any other country is obliged to follow the same set of rules (think how boring the planet would be if they did). So all it does is put an anonymous face to an anonymous IP<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... it doesn't help you reduce the hacking attempts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And how is knowing that IP 12.34.56.78 was used by Mr. Wang from [ insert-far-eastern-country-here ] on 17th October going to help you in * stopping * him from hacking you again tomorrow ?
Especially when Mr Wang 's government actually encourages this sort of thing ( unofficially of course ) .Like it or not , whatever country you live in , that does n't mean any other country is obliged to follow the same set of rules ( think how boring the planet would be if they did ) .
So all it does is put an anonymous face to an anonymous IP ... it does n't help you reduce the hacking attempts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And how is knowing that IP 12.34.56.78 was used by Mr. Wang from [insert-far-eastern-country-here] on 17th October going to help you in *stopping* him from hacking you again tomorrow ?
Especially when Mr Wang's government actually encourages this sort of thing (unofficially of course).Like it or not, whatever country you live in, that doesn't mean any other country is obliged to follow the same set of rules (think how boring the planet would be if they did).
So all it does is put an anonymous face to an anonymous IP ... it doesn't help you reduce the hacking attempts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777627</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29780677</id>
	<title>Come on CEO check my two-digits /. ID !</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255781100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can't you see I'm<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. ID 42 !?</p><p>Don't you realize it means something?  I'm no Anonymous Coward!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ca n't you see I 'm / .
ID 42 !
? Do n't you realize it means something ?
I 'm no Anonymous Coward ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can't you see I'm /.
ID 42 !
?Don't you realize it means something?
I'm no Anonymous Coward!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778101</id>
	<title>Re:Official answer from Anonymous:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255799880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess this anonymous coward would have to visit a bakeshop to say "The cake is a lie!" and petshop to look at LOLcats.  Small price to pay for being anonymous.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess this anonymous coward would have to visit a bakeshop to say " The cake is a lie !
" and petshop to look at LOLcats .
Small price to pay for being anonymous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess this anonymous coward would have to visit a bakeshop to say "The cake is a lie!
" and petshop to look at LOLcats.
Small price to pay for being anonymous.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777445</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29784621</id>
	<title>Re:Where you do you com from, where do you go ..</title>
	<author>roguegramma</author>
	<datestamp>1255884720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well if you know that Mr. Wang has not only been hacking your website but has also used a previously hacked site in his own country as a staging area for these attempts, then I imagine there would be some way to get local law enforcement interested. Not that I'm sure doing that would make the world a better place, but the threat of it might keep people from just defacing websites or fun.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well if you know that Mr. Wang has not only been hacking your website but has also used a previously hacked site in his own country as a staging area for these attempts , then I imagine there would be some way to get local law enforcement interested .
Not that I 'm sure doing that would make the world a better place , but the threat of it might keep people from just defacing websites or fun .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well if you know that Mr. Wang has not only been hacking your website but has also used a previously hacked site in his own country as a staging area for these attempts, then I imagine there would be some way to get local law enforcement interested.
Not that I'm sure doing that would make the world a better place, but the threat of it might keep people from just defacing websites or fun.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777843</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777255</id>
	<title>slashdot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255791600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>thinks hes wrong</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>thinks hes wrong</tokentext>
<sentencetext>thinks hes wrong</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777429</id>
	<title>What's his Slashdot handle?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255793040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>His Slashdot handle is probably "Anonymous\_Eugene2000"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>His Slashdot handle is probably " Anonymous \ _Eugene2000 "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>His Slashdot handle is probably "Anonymous\_Eugene2000"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778193</id>
	<title>Yeah</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255800780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obviously someone who has links to the Russian mafia and left an backdoor for the kgb on the kaspersky security suites, would want such thing to happen.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Thank you all who bought this company security software and made it relevant</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obviously someone who has links to the Russian mafia and left an backdoor for the kgb on the kaspersky security suites , would want such thing to happen .
      Thank you all who bought this company security software and made it relevant</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obviously someone who has links to the Russian mafia and left an backdoor for the kgb on the kaspersky security suites, would want such thing to happen.
      Thank you all who bought this company security software and made it relevant</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29783087</id>
	<title>Passport already exists</title>
	<author>gilesjuk</author>
	<datestamp>1255865580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your ISP account is the "passport" to the internet.</p><p>Sure, you can use a mobile with a contract free SIM to go online, but you're hardly likely to spam or hack the world from a mobile, even if you connect your laptop to it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your ISP account is the " passport " to the internet.Sure , you can use a mobile with a contract free SIM to go online , but you 're hardly likely to spam or hack the world from a mobile , even if you connect your laptop to it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your ISP account is the "passport" to the internet.Sure, you can use a mobile with a contract free SIM to go online, but you're hardly likely to spam or hack the world from a mobile, even if you connect your laptop to it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778723</id>
	<title>Hello, my name is Mr Burns</title>
	<author>GastronomicalEvent</author>
	<datestamp>1255805520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext> "I believe you have an e-mail for me" "Okay Mr Burns, what's your first name?"
"I <i>don't know</i>"</htmltext>
<tokenext>" I believe you have an e-mail for me " " Okay Mr Burns , what 's your first name ?
" " I do n't know "</tokentext>
<sentencetext> "I believe you have an e-mail for me" "Okay Mr Burns, what's your first name?
"
"I don't know"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777001</id>
	<title>but...</title>
	<author>naz404</author>
	<datestamp>1255789680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But what about the trolls and griefers? Please think about them!

o noes! D:</htmltext>
<tokenext>But what about the trolls and griefers ?
Please think about them !
o noes !
D :</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But what about the trolls and griefers?
Please think about them!
o noes!
D:</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29779883</id>
	<title>Can you say "George Orwell"?..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255773840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen\_Eighty-Four</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen \ _Eighty-Four</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen\_Eighty-Four</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778497</id>
	<title>Re:Oi! There's this thing called "other countries"</title>
	<author>Ash-Fox</author>
	<datestamp>1255803540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>n order to actually enforce what he is suggesting you would have to effectively ban or censor all private individuals and companies from using protocols not endorsed by the government</p></div></blockquote><p>Considering the Internet is IP based you could use a look up system based on... IP numbers like this thing called "whois". Then you could actually list information on the user in the whois database. Seems simple to me, no need to do mess with protocols and such. ISPs would likely just be mandated to link account information to whois records and I don't see that being a problem, even dynamically.</p><p>I figure a more interesting question is what information should be displayed? The login name the person uses on the ISP? Real name? etc.</p><p>Technically a login name isn't anonymous.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>n order to actually enforce what he is suggesting you would have to effectively ban or censor all private individuals and companies from using protocols not endorsed by the governmentConsidering the Internet is IP based you could use a look up system based on... IP numbers like this thing called " whois " .
Then you could actually list information on the user in the whois database .
Seems simple to me , no need to do mess with protocols and such .
ISPs would likely just be mandated to link account information to whois records and I do n't see that being a problem , even dynamically.I figure a more interesting question is what information should be displayed ?
The login name the person uses on the ISP ?
Real name ?
etc.Technically a login name is n't anonymous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>n order to actually enforce what he is suggesting you would have to effectively ban or censor all private individuals and companies from using protocols not endorsed by the governmentConsidering the Internet is IP based you could use a look up system based on... IP numbers like this thing called "whois".
Then you could actually list information on the user in the whois database.
Seems simple to me, no need to do mess with protocols and such.
ISPs would likely just be mandated to link account information to whois records and I don't see that being a problem, even dynamically.I figure a more interesting question is what information should be displayed?
The login name the person uses on the ISP?
Real name?
etc.Technically a login name isn't anonymous.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777689</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29783959</id>
	<title>In Russia...</title>
	<author>garompeta</author>
	<datestamp>1255878540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No "In Soviet Russia" jokes?, c'mon isn't that ironic in a Russian / Soviet / Kasperskian article?<br>
Heh, here I go: "In Soviet Russia, passports browse you!"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</htmltext>
<tokenext>No " In Soviet Russia " jokes ? , c'mon is n't that ironic in a Russian / Soviet / Kasperskian article ?
Heh , here I go : " In Soviet Russia , passports browse you !
" ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No "In Soviet Russia" jokes?, c'mon isn't that ironic in a Russian / Soviet / Kasperskian article?
Heh, here I go: "In Soviet Russia, passports browse you!
" ;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778483</id>
	<title>When anonymity is outlawed ...</title>
	<author>Skapare</author>
	<datestamp>1255803360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>(you know what's coming next)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... only outlaws will have anonymity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( you know what 's coming next ) ... only outlaws will have anonymity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(you know what's coming next) ... only outlaws will have anonymity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777025</id>
	<title>too late</title>
	<author>tverbeek</author>
	<datestamp>1255789860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He may be correct that the internet shouldn't have been opened up like it was.  I've been online long enough to remember when you could assume (perhaps wishfully) that nearly anyone obviously misbehaving badly on it could be identified with a couple e-mails or phone calls to the right sysadmins, and the notion of banning a user or cutting off a rogue node was plausible.  I kind of miss the relative safety and decorum of that internet.  But the ship of general unrestricted access set sail a couple decades ago, and that horse has long since left the barn.  If you want an internet with the kind of accountability that Kaspersky is taking about... it can't be the internet that everyone's already hooked up to.  That bell can't be unrung... and if you need any more metaphors for this, I can supply them.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He may be correct that the internet should n't have been opened up like it was .
I 've been online long enough to remember when you could assume ( perhaps wishfully ) that nearly anyone obviously misbehaving badly on it could be identified with a couple e-mails or phone calls to the right sysadmins , and the notion of banning a user or cutting off a rogue node was plausible .
I kind of miss the relative safety and decorum of that internet .
But the ship of general unrestricted access set sail a couple decades ago , and that horse has long since left the barn .
If you want an internet with the kind of accountability that Kaspersky is taking about... it ca n't be the internet that everyone 's already hooked up to .
That bell ca n't be unrung... and if you need any more metaphors for this , I can supply them .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He may be correct that the internet shouldn't have been opened up like it was.
I've been online long enough to remember when you could assume (perhaps wishfully) that nearly anyone obviously misbehaving badly on it could be identified with a couple e-mails or phone calls to the right sysadmins, and the notion of banning a user or cutting off a rogue node was plausible.
I kind of miss the relative safety and decorum of that internet.
But the ship of general unrestricted access set sail a couple decades ago, and that horse has long since left the barn.
If you want an internet with the kind of accountability that Kaspersky is taking about... it can't be the internet that everyone's already hooked up to.
That bell can't be unrung... and if you need any more metaphors for this, I can supply them.
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778327</id>
	<title>Total Lack of Understanding</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255801980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is that people buy security products from jerks who have absolutely NO understanding of what the internet is all about, how it works and why it is a success.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that people buy security products from jerks who have absolutely NO understanding of what the internet is all about , how it works and why it is a success .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that people buy security products from jerks who have absolutely NO understanding of what the internet is all about, how it works and why it is a success.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777011</id>
	<title>So he wants it to be like nazi germany?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255789740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So he wants it to be like nazi germany?</p><p>say something bad about the gov and get sent to a camp.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So he wants it to be like nazi germany ? say something bad about the gov and get sent to a camp .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So he wants it to be like nazi germany?say something bad about the gov and get sent to a camp.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777367</id>
	<title>Maybe he should move to Korea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255792560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course he'd have to live there for 15 or so years before they give him a useful Resident Registration Number (the foreigner/non-citizen ones aren't accepted by everyone), but then he can enjoy the Korean internet where there is no anonymity and everyone uses their Resident Registration Number to identify themselves on every big popular web site.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course he 'd have to live there for 15 or so years before they give him a useful Resident Registration Number ( the foreigner/non-citizen ones are n't accepted by everyone ) , but then he can enjoy the Korean internet where there is no anonymity and everyone uses their Resident Registration Number to identify themselves on every big popular web site .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course he'd have to live there for 15 or so years before they give him a useful Resident Registration Number (the foreigner/non-citizen ones aren't accepted by everyone), but then he can enjoy the Korean internet where there is no anonymity and everyone uses their Resident Registration Number to identify themselves on every big popular web site.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778519</id>
	<title>Re:As you might expect</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255803780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"uses" is a fine word.  Misusing "use cases" makes you sound like a talk radio host.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" uses " is a fine word .
Misusing " use cases " makes you sound like a talk radio host .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"uses" is a fine word.
Misusing "use cases" makes you sound like a talk radio host.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777287</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777583</id>
	<title>And what is a lack of anonymity going to stop?</title>
	<author>sonoronos</author>
	<datestamp>1255794480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's think about this for a second. For the most part, it's trivial to find someone responsible for content on the internet - in any country.</p><p>The anon.penet.fi remailer was an early attempt at true email privacy, but even that experiment was terribly flawed because, among other things, it was beholden to the legal system of the Finnish government (and most famously attacked by the Church of Scientology. Weird, but true.) But why was anon.penet.fi required? It certainly wasn't because the internet was anonymous. In short - the very fact that anonymizers exist at all is basic - users are easy to identify on the internet without some fairly complex systems to allow anonymity.</p><p>Given that the internet isn't anonymous in the first place, it makes very little sense to force a lack of anonymity on the internet. It's inherently wasteful and doesn't solve any of the real problems (lack of internet access to the world's poor/rural people, running out of namespace, lack of bandwidth, last mile)</p><p>Here's an idea for you Kaspersky, go sell your worthless crap in China. They'd love it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's think about this for a second .
For the most part , it 's trivial to find someone responsible for content on the internet - in any country.The anon.penet.fi remailer was an early attempt at true email privacy , but even that experiment was terribly flawed because , among other things , it was beholden to the legal system of the Finnish government ( and most famously attacked by the Church of Scientology .
Weird , but true .
) But why was anon.penet.fi required ?
It certainly was n't because the internet was anonymous .
In short - the very fact that anonymizers exist at all is basic - users are easy to identify on the internet without some fairly complex systems to allow anonymity.Given that the internet is n't anonymous in the first place , it makes very little sense to force a lack of anonymity on the internet .
It 's inherently wasteful and does n't solve any of the real problems ( lack of internet access to the world 's poor/rural people , running out of namespace , lack of bandwidth , last mile ) Here 's an idea for you Kaspersky , go sell your worthless crap in China .
They 'd love it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's think about this for a second.
For the most part, it's trivial to find someone responsible for content on the internet - in any country.The anon.penet.fi remailer was an early attempt at true email privacy, but even that experiment was terribly flawed because, among other things, it was beholden to the legal system of the Finnish government (and most famously attacked by the Church of Scientology.
Weird, but true.
) But why was anon.penet.fi required?
It certainly wasn't because the internet was anonymous.
In short - the very fact that anonymizers exist at all is basic - users are easy to identify on the internet without some fairly complex systems to allow anonymity.Given that the internet isn't anonymous in the first place, it makes very little sense to force a lack of anonymity on the internet.
It's inherently wasteful and doesn't solve any of the real problems (lack of internet access to the world's poor/rural people, running out of namespace, lack of bandwidth, last mile)Here's an idea for you Kaspersky, go sell your worthless crap in China.
They'd love it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777515</id>
	<title>Re:Guess who's security software I won't be buying</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255793760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>free speech as embodied by the First Amendment in the states accepts that anonymous speech is essential to the free sharing of ideas.
<p>
There are two parts to free speech.  First is the ability to speak without any explicit or implicit restrictions.  Explicit restrictions are outright bans or legal restraints.  Implicit restrictions are what they call "chilling effect".  Intimidation in the form of threats or simply having a law enforcement official standing nearby while you are speaking.
</p><p>
The second is the ability to listen without any explicit or implicit restrictions.  It does you no good to speak if nobody feels free to listen to what you're saying.  If the cost of me hearing someone speak on some topic is being identified, I'm probably not going to do it thereby denying the speakers free speech right.
</p><p>
We have had anonymous speech in the United States for over 200 years.  the most common form of anonymous speech prior to the electronics era has been pamphlets and posters.  Law enforcement agencies have routinely violated anonymity and speech rights by photographing people in crowds and then publishing those photos trying to identify the "perpetrators"
</p><p>
Anonymity has nothing to do with cowardice or irresponsibility.  It has everything to do with being able to speak against the more powerful foe and hopefully survive any retribution for speaking out.
</p><p>
anonymity can be abused by many people ranging from sociopaths,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. Users, and those in power but used appropriately, it's a wonderful tool</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>free speech as embodied by the First Amendment in the states accepts that anonymous speech is essential to the free sharing of ideas .
There are two parts to free speech .
First is the ability to speak without any explicit or implicit restrictions .
Explicit restrictions are outright bans or legal restraints .
Implicit restrictions are what they call " chilling effect " .
Intimidation in the form of threats or simply having a law enforcement official standing nearby while you are speaking .
The second is the ability to listen without any explicit or implicit restrictions .
It does you no good to speak if nobody feels free to listen to what you 're saying .
If the cost of me hearing someone speak on some topic is being identified , I 'm probably not going to do it thereby denying the speakers free speech right .
We have had anonymous speech in the United States for over 200 years .
the most common form of anonymous speech prior to the electronics era has been pamphlets and posters .
Law enforcement agencies have routinely violated anonymity and speech rights by photographing people in crowds and then publishing those photos trying to identify the " perpetrators " Anonymity has nothing to do with cowardice or irresponsibility .
It has everything to do with being able to speak against the more powerful foe and hopefully survive any retribution for speaking out .
anonymity can be abused by many people ranging from sociopaths , / .
Users , and those in power but used appropriately , it 's a wonderful tool</tokentext>
<sentencetext>free speech as embodied by the First Amendment in the states accepts that anonymous speech is essential to the free sharing of ideas.
There are two parts to free speech.
First is the ability to speak without any explicit or implicit restrictions.
Explicit restrictions are outright bans or legal restraints.
Implicit restrictions are what they call "chilling effect".
Intimidation in the form of threats or simply having a law enforcement official standing nearby while you are speaking.
The second is the ability to listen without any explicit or implicit restrictions.
It does you no good to speak if nobody feels free to listen to what you're saying.
If the cost of me hearing someone speak on some topic is being identified, I'm probably not going to do it thereby denying the speakers free speech right.
We have had anonymous speech in the United States for over 200 years.
the most common form of anonymous speech prior to the electronics era has been pamphlets and posters.
Law enforcement agencies have routinely violated anonymity and speech rights by photographing people in crowds and then publishing those photos trying to identify the "perpetrators"

Anonymity has nothing to do with cowardice or irresponsibility.
It has everything to do with being able to speak against the more powerful foe and hopefully survive any retribution for speaking out.
anonymity can be abused by many people ranging from sociopaths, /.
Users, and those in power but used appropriately, it's a wonderful tool</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777147</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29785997</id>
	<title>Re:Guess who's security software I won't be buying</title>
	<author>NelsChristian</author>
	<datestamp>1255896480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>We managed to freely exchange ideas long before the internet gave everyone an anonymous soapbox, kids.</i> <p>
Some places and some times, maybe.  But even the Founding Fathers of the USA found it necessary to use psuedonyms.
</p><p>
The question is how stable is a system that does not allow for anonymity or private conversation?  How easy is it for that kind of a system to be misused?
</p><p>
Maybe you should review this <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_journalists\_killed\_in\_Russia" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">
List of journalists killed in Russia</a> [wikipedia.org] for a list of folks who could have used the protection of anonymity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We managed to freely exchange ideas long before the internet gave everyone an anonymous soapbox , kids .
Some places and some times , maybe .
But even the Founding Fathers of the USA found it necessary to use psuedonyms .
The question is how stable is a system that does not allow for anonymity or private conversation ?
How easy is it for that kind of a system to be misused ?
Maybe you should review this List of journalists killed in Russia [ wikipedia.org ] for a list of folks who could have used the protection of anonymity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We managed to freely exchange ideas long before the internet gave everyone an anonymous soapbox, kids.
Some places and some times, maybe.
But even the Founding Fathers of the USA found it necessary to use psuedonyms.
The question is how stable is a system that does not allow for anonymity or private conversation?
How easy is it for that kind of a system to be misused?
Maybe you should review this 
List of journalists killed in Russia [wikipedia.org] for a list of folks who could have used the protection of anonymity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777147</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777035</id>
	<title>Wrong to release to the pubic?</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1255789980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, if that was the case you would be out of a job, ya hypocrite.  Sounds like yet another company to boycott due to the lunacy of its management..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , if that was the case you would be out of a job , ya hypocrite .
Sounds like yet another company to boycott due to the lunacy of its management. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, if that was the case you would be out of a job, ya hypocrite.
Sounds like yet another company to boycott due to the lunacy of its management..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777881</id>
	<title>Re:Where you do you com from, where do you go ..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255797780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In a lot of cases, when a breach occours, when you go to the link on the chain, what you likely will get is a perfect identifiable host that you know where it is physically, who owns it, and all that... but it was compromised and being used as a base for attacks.  So, lack of anonyminity gives me zero recourse whatsoever, except perhaps legal and criminal action against the compromised machine's owner for not keeping their security up to date (which can easily be deflected in courts should they turn up any type of "due diligence" type of defense.)</p><p>Tor or anonymizing proxies are the least of my worries.  At the extreme, I can subscribe to a blacklist (both name and IP ranges) and have my router drop any packets coming from those sites.  What comes knocking on my doors attack wise are compromised home computers and the occasional machine on a corporate or educational network.  In those cases, anonymity doesn't help a bit.</p><p>Of course, should the intrusion succeed, the first thing the blackhat (I'm meaning a true blackhat here, not just frontline script kiddies) will be doing is gunning after the system logs (either by editing, or just outright zeroing them out.)</p><p>Conclusion:  Loss of anonymity won't protect businesses against anything.  Instead, good security principles and solid use of available tools will go a long way in this regard.</p><p>Posting anonymously because I feel like it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In a lot of cases , when a breach occours , when you go to the link on the chain , what you likely will get is a perfect identifiable host that you know where it is physically , who owns it , and all that... but it was compromised and being used as a base for attacks .
So , lack of anonyminity gives me zero recourse whatsoever , except perhaps legal and criminal action against the compromised machine 's owner for not keeping their security up to date ( which can easily be deflected in courts should they turn up any type of " due diligence " type of defense .
) Tor or anonymizing proxies are the least of my worries .
At the extreme , I can subscribe to a blacklist ( both name and IP ranges ) and have my router drop any packets coming from those sites .
What comes knocking on my doors attack wise are compromised home computers and the occasional machine on a corporate or educational network .
In those cases , anonymity does n't help a bit.Of course , should the intrusion succeed , the first thing the blackhat ( I 'm meaning a true blackhat here , not just frontline script kiddies ) will be doing is gunning after the system logs ( either by editing , or just outright zeroing them out .
) Conclusion : Loss of anonymity wo n't protect businesses against anything .
Instead , good security principles and solid use of available tools will go a long way in this regard.Posting anonymously because I feel like it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In a lot of cases, when a breach occours, when you go to the link on the chain, what you likely will get is a perfect identifiable host that you know where it is physically, who owns it, and all that... but it was compromised and being used as a base for attacks.
So, lack of anonyminity gives me zero recourse whatsoever, except perhaps legal and criminal action against the compromised machine's owner for not keeping their security up to date (which can easily be deflected in courts should they turn up any type of "due diligence" type of defense.
)Tor or anonymizing proxies are the least of my worries.
At the extreme, I can subscribe to a blacklist (both name and IP ranges) and have my router drop any packets coming from those sites.
What comes knocking on my doors attack wise are compromised home computers and the occasional machine on a corporate or educational network.
In those cases, anonymity doesn't help a bit.Of course, should the intrusion succeed, the first thing the blackhat (I'm meaning a true blackhat here, not just frontline script kiddies) will be doing is gunning after the system logs (either by editing, or just outright zeroing them out.
)Conclusion:  Loss of anonymity won't protect businesses against anything.
Instead, good security principles and solid use of available tools will go a long way in this regard.Posting anonymously because I feel like it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777627</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777539</id>
	<title>Re:Open letter to Eugene Kaspersky</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255794060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Dear Eugene,</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Go fuck yourself.</p><p>Sincerely,<br>Anonymous.</p></div></blockquote><p>Do you think this Anonymous Coward would have post this under his real name ?</p><p>Anonymity garantees you'll use your free speech liberty !!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dear Eugene ,         Go fuck yourself.Sincerely,Anonymous.Do you think this Anonymous Coward would have post this under his real name ? Anonymity garantees you 'll use your free speech liberty !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dear Eugene,
        Go fuck yourself.Sincerely,Anonymous.Do you think this Anonymous Coward would have post this under his real name ?Anonymity garantees you'll use your free speech liberty !
!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29776991</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778393</id>
	<title>The end of Kaspersky purchases</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255802460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Time to put the wallet away, customers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Time to put the wallet away , customers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Time to put the wallet away, customers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1115205_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777091
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778689
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1115205_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29776951
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778779
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29781759
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1115205_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777323
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778207
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1115205_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29776991
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777539
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1115205_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777581
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1115205_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29797191
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1115205_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29776951
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777369
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1115205_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777515
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1115205_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777091
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777715
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1115205_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777005
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778333
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1115205_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29776951
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777085
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1115205_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777091
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29779339
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1115205_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777323
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778475
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1115205_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29776991
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778089
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1115205_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777445
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778101
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1115205_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29776951
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778005
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1115205_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29776991
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778453
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1115205_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777289
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1115205_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29776991
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777905
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1115205_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29776951
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778779
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29780551
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1115205_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29776951
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778779
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29780179
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29784997
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1115205_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777499
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778471
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1115205_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29780555
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1115205_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29776991
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29779041
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1115205_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777627
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777843
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29784621
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1115205_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29776951
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778779
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29793517
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1115205_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777005
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778999
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1115205_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777973
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1115205_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777145
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1115205_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777005
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29793273
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1115205_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29781649
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1115205_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777091
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777897
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1115205_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29785997
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1115205_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778519
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1115205_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778845
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1115205_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29793325
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1115205_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777627
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777881
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1115205_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29776951
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778779
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29781547
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1115205_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29776951
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778779
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29781259
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1115205_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777323
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29780517
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1115205_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777091
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777507
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29786263
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1115205_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29781559
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1115205_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29776991
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777761
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1115205_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777623
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1115205_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29776951
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777305
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1115205_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29776991
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778011
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1115205_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778167
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1115205_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777647
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1115205_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778497
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1115205_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777005
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778391
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1115205_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777323
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778185
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1115205_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777101
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1115205_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777215
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1115205_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777999
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1115205_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29780569
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1115205_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777375
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1115205_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777121
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1115205_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777445
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29780491
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1115205_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777321
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1115205_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777323
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778889
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1115205_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777091
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777177
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_1115205.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777037
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_1115205.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778023
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_1115205.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777445
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778101
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29780491
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_1115205.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777919
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_1115205.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777627
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777843
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29784621
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777881
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_1115205.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777005
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778333
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29793273
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778999
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778391
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_1115205.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777203
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_1115205.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777499
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778471
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_1115205.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777067
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_1115205.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29776991
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777905
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778011
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778453
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777761
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777539
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778089
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29779041
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_1115205.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777471
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_1115205.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777011
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_1115205.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777091
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777715
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777177
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777897
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29779339
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777507
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29786263
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778689
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_1115205.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29776951
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777305
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777369
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778005
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777085
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778779
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29781759
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29780551
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29780179
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29784997
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29793517
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29781547
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29781259
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_1115205.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777307
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_1115205.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778483
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_1115205.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777765
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_1115205.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777007
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777623
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777101
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777375
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777139
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29781559
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778845
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29780569
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777147
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778167
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777289
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29797191
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29785997
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777515
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777321
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777145
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777647
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777323
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29780517
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778889
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778475
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778207
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778185
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_1115205.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777025
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777215
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777581
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777999
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777121
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_1115205.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777401
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_1115205.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29779959
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_1115205.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778029
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_1115205.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778347
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_1115205.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777689
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778497
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_1115205.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777035
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_1115205.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778527
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_1115205.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777021
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_1115205.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29781193
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_1115205.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777287
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29778519
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29780555
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777973
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29781649
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_1115205.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777247
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29793325
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_1115205.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29777931
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_1115205.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1115205.29779297
</commentlist>
</conversation>
