<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_23_0240207</id>
	<title>FCC Begins Crafting Net Neutrality Regulations</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1256299200000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="mailto:chris@swiedler.org" rel="nofollow">ceswiedler</a> writes <i>"The FCC <a href="http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/22/fcc-begins-crafting-rules-on-network-neutrality/">has begun crafting rules for network neutrality</a>. The full proposal hasn't been released yet, but according to their <a href="http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs\_public/attachmatch/DOC-294159A1.doc">press release</a> (warning, Microsoft Word document) carriers would not be allowed to 'prevent users from sending or receiving the lawful content,' 'running lawful applications,' or 'connecting and using ... lawful devices that do not harm the network.' There will be a three-month period for comments beginning January 14, followed by 2 months for replies, after which the FCC will issue its final guidelines."</i> Reader Adrian Lopez notes that US Senator and former presidential candidate John McCain has introduced legislation that "would <a href="http://www.pcworld.com/article/174155/mccain\_introduces\_bill\_to\_block\_fccs\_net\_neutrality\_rules.html?tk=rss\_news">keep the FCC from enacting rules</a> prohibiting broadband providers from selectively blocking or slowing Internet content and applications." McCain called the proposed net neutrality rules a "government takeover" of the Internet. <br> <b>Update: 10/24 16:32 GMT</b> by <b> <a href="http://slashdot.org/~kdawson/">KD</a> </b>: jamie found a Reuters story reporting that the Sunlight Foundation has revealed <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed7/idUS246040901420091024">John McCain to be Congress's biggest recipient of telco money</a> over the last two years &mdash; "a total of $894,379..., more than twice the amount taken by the next-largest beneficiary, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev."</htmltext>
<tokenext>ceswiedler writes " The FCC has begun crafting rules for network neutrality .
The full proposal has n't been released yet , but according to their press release ( warning , Microsoft Word document ) carriers would not be allowed to 'prevent users from sending or receiving the lawful content, ' 'running lawful applications, ' or 'connecting and using ... lawful devices that do not harm the network .
' There will be a three-month period for comments beginning January 14 , followed by 2 months for replies , after which the FCC will issue its final guidelines .
" Reader Adrian Lopez notes that US Senator and former presidential candidate John McCain has introduced legislation that " would keep the FCC from enacting rules prohibiting broadband providers from selectively blocking or slowing Internet content and applications .
" McCain called the proposed net neutrality rules a " government takeover " of the Internet .
Update : 10/24 16 : 32 GMT by KD : jamie found a Reuters story reporting that the Sunlight Foundation has revealed John McCain to be Congress 's biggest recipient of telco money over the last two years    " a total of $ 894,379... , more than twice the amount taken by the next-largest beneficiary , Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid , D-Nev. "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ceswiedler writes "The FCC has begun crafting rules for network neutrality.
The full proposal hasn't been released yet, but according to their press release (warning, Microsoft Word document) carriers would not be allowed to 'prevent users from sending or receiving the lawful content,' 'running lawful applications,' or 'connecting and using ... lawful devices that do not harm the network.
' There will be a three-month period for comments beginning January 14, followed by 2 months for replies, after which the FCC will issue its final guidelines.
" Reader Adrian Lopez notes that US Senator and former presidential candidate John McCain has introduced legislation that "would keep the FCC from enacting rules prohibiting broadband providers from selectively blocking or slowing Internet content and applications.
" McCain called the proposed net neutrality rules a "government takeover" of the Internet.
Update: 10/24 16:32 GMT by  KD : jamie found a Reuters story reporting that the Sunlight Foundation has revealed John McCain to be Congress's biggest recipient of telco money over the last two years — "a total of $894,379..., more than twice the amount taken by the next-largest beneficiary, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev."</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29848669</id>
	<title>Re:McCain is right, which is surprising.</title>
	<author>Ichijo</author>
	<datestamp>1256324220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If there were true competition in the ISP market, then maybe so. But that is not the case, and probably will never be the case. That is why we need net neutrality regulations.</p></div></blockquote><p>One could make a case that you have it backwards. Without net neutrality regulations, we'll see more co-op ISPs sprout up (like <a href="http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/12/222249" title="slashdot.org">this one</a> [slashdot.org]) out of need.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If there were true competition in the ISP market , then maybe so .
But that is not the case , and probably will never be the case .
That is why we need net neutrality regulations.One could make a case that you have it backwards .
Without net neutrality regulations , we 'll see more co-op ISPs sprout up ( like this one [ slashdot.org ] ) out of need .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If there were true competition in the ISP market, then maybe so.
But that is not the case, and probably will never be the case.
That is why we need net neutrality regulations.One could make a case that you have it backwards.
Without net neutrality regulations, we'll see more co-op ISPs sprout up (like this one [slashdot.org]) out of need.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845207</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845043</id>
	<title>Re:McCain</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256306820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> the FCC has no authority to regulate the internet</p> </div><p>Sillyness, Dave.  That's like saying the FAA has no authority to regulate airplanes, only airports.</p><p><div class="quote"><p> The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent United States government agency. The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 and is charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and <b>cable</b>. The FCC's jurisdiction covers the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. possessions.</p> </div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the FCC has no authority to regulate the internet Sillyness , Dave .
That 's like saying the FAA has no authority to regulate airplanes , only airports .
The Federal Communications Commission ( FCC ) is an independent United States government agency .
The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 and is charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio , television , wire , satellite and cable .
The FCC 's jurisdiction covers the 50 states , the District of Columbia , and U.S. possessions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> the FCC has no authority to regulate the internet Sillyness, Dave.
That's like saying the FAA has no authority to regulate airplanes, only airports.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent United States government agency.
The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 and is charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable.
The FCC's jurisdiction covers the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. possessions. 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29846037</id>
	<title>Re:McCain is right, which is surprising.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256312640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Let me assume you are a republican and like to visit foxnews.com. What if your ISP got into marketing agreement with MSNBC and throttled its competitors, including foxnews.com, so much it became almost unusable. Would that be OK in your book?</p></div></blockquote><p> <b>Fictitious far right Republican response:</b> Hell no, of course that's not right! That's Obama propaganda marketing! More evidence of him trying to destroy America from within the white house to turn us into a socialist state where the government decides how much money everybody can make, what we can eat and what we can watch! He needs to be stopped!</p><p>On the other hand, if the question was posed like so:</p><blockquote><div><p>Let me assume you like to visit msnbc.com. What if your ISP got into marketing agreement with FOX news and throttled its competitors, including msnbc, so much it became almost unusable. Would that be OK in your book?</p></div></blockquote><p> <b>Fictitious far right Republican response:</b> It doesn't matter, the government does not have the right to tell businesses how to operate! Businesses can get into any agreements that they want and the government has to stay out of it! If msbnc viewers don't like it they can change ISPs! Vote with your wallet, that's the American way!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me assume you are a republican and like to visit foxnews.com .
What if your ISP got into marketing agreement with MSNBC and throttled its competitors , including foxnews.com , so much it became almost unusable .
Would that be OK in your book ?
Fictitious far right Republican response : Hell no , of course that 's not right !
That 's Obama propaganda marketing !
More evidence of him trying to destroy America from within the white house to turn us into a socialist state where the government decides how much money everybody can make , what we can eat and what we can watch !
He needs to be stopped ! On the other hand , if the question was posed like so : Let me assume you like to visit msnbc.com .
What if your ISP got into marketing agreement with FOX news and throttled its competitors , including msnbc , so much it became almost unusable .
Would that be OK in your book ?
Fictitious far right Republican response : It does n't matter , the government does not have the right to tell businesses how to operate !
Businesses can get into any agreements that they want and the government has to stay out of it !
If msbnc viewers do n't like it they can change ISPs !
Vote with your wallet , that 's the American way !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let me assume you are a republican and like to visit foxnews.com.
What if your ISP got into marketing agreement with MSNBC and throttled its competitors, including foxnews.com, so much it became almost unusable.
Would that be OK in your book?
Fictitious far right Republican response: Hell no, of course that's not right!
That's Obama propaganda marketing!
More evidence of him trying to destroy America from within the white house to turn us into a socialist state where the government decides how much money everybody can make, what we can eat and what we can watch!
He needs to be stopped!On the other hand, if the question was posed like so:Let me assume you like to visit msnbc.com.
What if your ISP got into marketing agreement with FOX news and throttled its competitors, including msnbc, so much it became almost unusable.
Would that be OK in your book?
Fictitious far right Republican response: It doesn't matter, the government does not have the right to tell businesses how to operate!
Businesses can get into any agreements that they want and the government has to stay out of it!
If msbnc viewers don't like it they can change ISPs!
Vote with your wallet, that's the American way!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845207</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29851833</id>
	<title>ISPs do not have common carrier status</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256293200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nor do they want it:<br>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common\_carrier#Telecommunications</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nor do they want it : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common \ _carrier # Telecommunications</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nor do they want it:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common\_carrier#Telecommunications</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845279</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29847409</id>
	<title>Re:McCain</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1256319720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>O.o<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... this is the same problem I see with many 'anti-socialist pro-freemarket' people. Many of you have this confused notion that no government intervention will make things better, more efficient, more free. NOT AT ALL TRUE. <br> <br>Free-market requires a vigilant government passing laws to keep it free. The same is true for the internet. If we had no laws at all then whoever owns the wires can rape everyone. Hell they could quietly tweak the internet to their advantage. Or act like thugs and go to small companies and threaten to drop them from significant portions of the internet if they don't pay up. If we dropped merger laws too we'd end up with one ISP that controls all information and content on the internet. That isn't better, its worse. God, some of you 'free-market' crazies are as bad as the religious, even as bad as the apple freaks, or the security tinfoil hatters. <br>(I figured I might as well insult a whole bunch of groups if I'm going down anyways.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>O.o ... this is the same problem I see with many 'anti-socialist pro-freemarket ' people .
Many of you have this confused notion that no government intervention will make things better , more efficient , more free .
NOT AT ALL TRUE .
Free-market requires a vigilant government passing laws to keep it free .
The same is true for the internet .
If we had no laws at all then whoever owns the wires can rape everyone .
Hell they could quietly tweak the internet to their advantage .
Or act like thugs and go to small companies and threaten to drop them from significant portions of the internet if they do n't pay up .
If we dropped merger laws too we 'd end up with one ISP that controls all information and content on the internet .
That is n't better , its worse .
God , some of you 'free-market ' crazies are as bad as the religious , even as bad as the apple freaks , or the security tinfoil hatters .
( I figured I might as well insult a whole bunch of groups if I 'm going down anyways .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>O.o ... this is the same problem I see with many 'anti-socialist pro-freemarket' people.
Many of you have this confused notion that no government intervention will make things better, more efficient, more free.
NOT AT ALL TRUE.
Free-market requires a vigilant government passing laws to keep it free.
The same is true for the internet.
If we had no laws at all then whoever owns the wires can rape everyone.
Hell they could quietly tweak the internet to their advantage.
Or act like thugs and go to small companies and threaten to drop them from significant portions of the internet if they don't pay up.
If we dropped merger laws too we'd end up with one ISP that controls all information and content on the internet.
That isn't better, its worse.
God, some of you 'free-market' crazies are as bad as the religious, even as bad as the apple freaks, or the security tinfoil hatters.
(I figured I might as well insult a whole bunch of groups if I'm going down anyways.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844891</id>
	<title>So he wants to prevent....</title>
	<author>mario\_grgic</author>
	<datestamp>1256305860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the "government takeover" of the Internet (by the way Internet is an entity larger than USA and its government), by government takeover of the FCC, and indirectly government takeover of the Internet by disallowing anyone to prevent any illegal practices that might ensue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the " government takeover " of the Internet ( by the way Internet is an entity larger than USA and its government ) , by government takeover of the FCC , and indirectly government takeover of the Internet by disallowing anyone to prevent any illegal practices that might ensue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the "government takeover" of the Internet (by the way Internet is an entity larger than USA and its government), by government takeover of the FCC, and indirectly government takeover of the Internet by disallowing anyone to prevent any illegal practices that might ensue.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844607</id>
	<title>Ha!</title>
	<author>Jaysyn</author>
	<datestamp>1256304000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh I love this part.</p><p>"McCain protested the FCC's proposal that wireless broadband providers be included in the net neutrality rules. The wireless industry has "exploded over the past 20 years due to limited government regulation," McCain said in the statement."</p><p>Wireless has exploded in the past 20 years because the damn technology has only become feasable for mass market computing in the past 20 years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh I love this part .
" McCain protested the FCC 's proposal that wireless broadband providers be included in the net neutrality rules .
The wireless industry has " exploded over the past 20 years due to limited government regulation , " McCain said in the statement .
" Wireless has exploded in the past 20 years because the damn technology has only become feasable for mass market computing in the past 20 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh I love this part.
"McCain protested the FCC's proposal that wireless broadband providers be included in the net neutrality rules.
The wireless industry has "exploded over the past 20 years due to limited government regulation," McCain said in the statement.
"Wireless has exploded in the past 20 years because the damn technology has only become feasable for mass market computing in the past 20 years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845455</id>
	<title>Ronald Reagan</title>
	<author>nschubach</author>
	<datestamp>1256309640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" - Ronald Reagan</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The nine most terrifying words in the English language are : 'I 'm from the government and I 'm here to help .
' " - Ronald Reagan</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.
'" - Ronald Reagan</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844765</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29847737</id>
	<title>When oversell factor goes over 9,000</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1256321040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Forget the lawful part.  Who decides what's damaging to the network!  Could an ISP suddenly declare that more than 1\% usage of a pipe over the course of a month is considered damaging?</p></div><p>If you're sharing the upstream with over 9,000 other subscribers in your town, then of course 1\% usage can be damaging.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Forget the lawful part .
Who decides what 's damaging to the network !
Could an ISP suddenly declare that more than 1 \ % usage of a pipe over the course of a month is considered damaging ? If you 're sharing the upstream with over 9,000 other subscribers in your town , then of course 1 \ % usage can be damaging .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Forget the lawful part.
Who decides what's damaging to the network!
Could an ISP suddenly declare that more than 1\% usage of a pipe over the course of a month is considered damaging?If you're sharing the upstream with over 9,000 other subscribers in your town, then of course 1\% usage can be damaging.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844737</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844923</id>
	<title>Re:Drudge</title>
	<author>moeinvt</author>
	<datestamp>1256306100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm libertarian leaning, and after much internal struggle, I also concluded that I support the "concept" of network neutrality.</p><p>It's extremely unfortunate that the only institution in the U.S. with enough power to enforce something like that is the Federal Government.  With that in mind, I do not trust any "implementation" of network neutrality that the D.C. crowd will come up with.  They may give a piece of legislation a nice label, but you can be sure that in the end, the big money special interests will get everything they want.  Our government is currently unwilling to pass any major legislation, or even enforce existing laws that might benefit the average citizen at the expense of wealthy special interests.</p><p>It sucks, but I think that we're on our own here.  Hopefully we can generate enough backlash against corporations that start throttling bandwidth, discriminating based on data type, content, source or destination to make them reconsider their practices.  If we have to put our trust in D.C. we're screwed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm libertarian leaning , and after much internal struggle , I also concluded that I support the " concept " of network neutrality.It 's extremely unfortunate that the only institution in the U.S. with enough power to enforce something like that is the Federal Government .
With that in mind , I do not trust any " implementation " of network neutrality that the D.C. crowd will come up with .
They may give a piece of legislation a nice label , but you can be sure that in the end , the big money special interests will get everything they want .
Our government is currently unwilling to pass any major legislation , or even enforce existing laws that might benefit the average citizen at the expense of wealthy special interests.It sucks , but I think that we 're on our own here .
Hopefully we can generate enough backlash against corporations that start throttling bandwidth , discriminating based on data type , content , source or destination to make them reconsider their practices .
If we have to put our trust in D.C. we 're screwed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm libertarian leaning, and after much internal struggle, I also concluded that I support the "concept" of network neutrality.It's extremely unfortunate that the only institution in the U.S. with enough power to enforce something like that is the Federal Government.
With that in mind, I do not trust any "implementation" of network neutrality that the D.C. crowd will come up with.
They may give a piece of legislation a nice label, but you can be sure that in the end, the big money special interests will get everything they want.
Our government is currently unwilling to pass any major legislation, or even enforce existing laws that might benefit the average citizen at the expense of wealthy special interests.It sucks, but I think that we're on our own here.
Hopefully we can generate enough backlash against corporations that start throttling bandwidth, discriminating based on data type, content, source or destination to make them reconsider their practices.
If we have to put our trust in D.C. we're screwed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844561</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29851981</id>
	<title>Re:McCain is right, which is surprising.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256293980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All that is happening is a communist (read socialist) takeover of the country. The vague 'rules' are nothing but a subterfuge to take control "legally". The "net"? Oh yeah, it's doing just fine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All that is happening is a communist ( read socialist ) takeover of the country .
The vague 'rules ' are nothing but a subterfuge to take control " legally " .
The " net " ?
Oh yeah , it 's doing just fine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All that is happening is a communist (read socialist) takeover of the country.
The vague 'rules' are nothing but a subterfuge to take control "legally".
The "net"?
Oh yeah, it's doing just fine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845207</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844569</id>
	<title>Lawful? Harmful!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256303580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm less concerned about the definition of Lawful than I am about the definition of Harmful.  Law is at least<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... a matter of law, even if I don't agree with it.  How do courts determine whether something is or is not harmful to a network?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm less concerned about the definition of Lawful than I am about the definition of Harmful .
Law is at least ... a matter of law , even if I do n't agree with it .
How do courts determine whether something is or is not harmful to a network ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm less concerned about the definition of Lawful than I am about the definition of Harmful.
Law is at least ... a matter of law, even if I don't agree with it.
How do courts determine whether something is or is not harmful to a network?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845549</id>
	<title>Re:government?</title>
	<author>nschubach</author>
	<datestamp>1256310120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The FCC neutrality states that they can however control/enforce what is being transmitted.  It's basically like the FCC fining television stations for cursing or broadcasting porn... now they are trying to get the same ability over the Internet by giving them control and calling it network neutrality.  They veil it by telling the consumers that they are trying to protect their right to download Grandpa's retirement party video, but also protecting them from "evil" things (that they decide.)  [ie: unlimited ability to download that which is not censored]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The FCC neutrality states that they can however control/enforce what is being transmitted .
It 's basically like the FCC fining television stations for cursing or broadcasting porn... now they are trying to get the same ability over the Internet by giving them control and calling it network neutrality .
They veil it by telling the consumers that they are trying to protect their right to download Grandpa 's retirement party video , but also protecting them from " evil " things ( that they decide .
) [ ie : unlimited ability to download that which is not censored ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The FCC neutrality states that they can however control/enforce what is being transmitted.
It's basically like the FCC fining television stations for cursing or broadcasting porn... now they are trying to get the same ability over the Internet by giving them control and calling it network neutrality.
They veil it by telling the consumers that they are trying to protect their right to download Grandpa's retirement party video, but also protecting them from "evil" things (that they decide.
)  [ie: unlimited ability to download that which is not censored]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845153</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29847411</id>
	<title>Re:McCain</title>
	<author>rs79</author>
	<datestamp>1256319720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If McCain is really concerned the government is taking over the internet he should dismantle the ICANN his client AT&amp;T spent so long and so many millions on, mostly in secret in their clandestine "steaks for staffers" programme.</p><p>If you look carefully, the "the government is taking over the internet!" came from AT&amp;T. Now McCain is saying it in public too.</p><p>AT&amp;T seems to have called in a favor. Few poeple understand the net less than John McCain and only a fool would take advice for net.policy from somebody this undereducated and unfamiliar with the way our network interoperates.</p><p>And what is this crap about legislation affecting Telcos ability to innovate? Excuse me? Telcos didn't build the net or innovate, they were usually standing in the way with their hands out, eventually doing things so bad congress felt obliged to do something about the overwhelming public outcry of problems with Telcos.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If McCain is really concerned the government is taking over the internet he should dismantle the ICANN his client AT&amp;T spent so long and so many millions on , mostly in secret in their clandestine " steaks for staffers " programme.If you look carefully , the " the government is taking over the internet !
" came from AT&amp;T .
Now McCain is saying it in public too.AT&amp;T seems to have called in a favor .
Few poeple understand the net less than John McCain and only a fool would take advice for net.policy from somebody this undereducated and unfamiliar with the way our network interoperates.And what is this crap about legislation affecting Telcos ability to innovate ?
Excuse me ?
Telcos did n't build the net or innovate , they were usually standing in the way with their hands out , eventually doing things so bad congress felt obliged to do something about the overwhelming public outcry of problems with Telcos .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If McCain is really concerned the government is taking over the internet he should dismantle the ICANN his client AT&amp;T spent so long and so many millions on, mostly in secret in their clandestine "steaks for staffers" programme.If you look carefully, the "the government is taking over the internet!
" came from AT&amp;T.
Now McCain is saying it in public too.AT&amp;T seems to have called in a favor.
Few poeple understand the net less than John McCain and only a fool would take advice for net.policy from somebody this undereducated and unfamiliar with the way our network interoperates.And what is this crap about legislation affecting Telcos ability to innovate?
Excuse me?
Telcos didn't build the net or innovate, they were usually standing in the way with their hands out, eventually doing things so bad congress felt obliged to do something about the overwhelming public outcry of problems with Telcos.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844509</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844559</id>
	<title>The EFF is your friend</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256303460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For all you federal employees, donate through the CFC: charity code 10437.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For all you federal employees , donate through the CFC : charity code 10437 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For all you federal employees, donate through the CFC: charity code 10437.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845207</id>
	<title>Re:McCain is right, which is surprising.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256308200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How can you sit there with a stright face (I assume you have a straight face) and say this is a government takeover of the internet?</p><p>All this is saying is that your ISP, which you have practically no choice of who it is (at best a choice between one DSL and one cable TV Co.) can't decide which websites you can visit at the full bandwidth you paid for.</p><p>Let me assume you are a republican and like to visit foxnews.com.  What if your ISP got into marketing agreement with MSNBC and throttled its competitors, including foxnews.com, so much it became almost unusable.  Would that be OK in your book?</p><p>The ISPs should not have the power to decide what web sites and net services you can reasonably visit/use.  If there were true competition in the ISP market, then maybe so.  But that is not the case, and probably will never be the case.  That is why we need net neutrality regulations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How can you sit there with a stright face ( I assume you have a straight face ) and say this is a government takeover of the internet ? All this is saying is that your ISP , which you have practically no choice of who it is ( at best a choice between one DSL and one cable TV Co. ) ca n't decide which websites you can visit at the full bandwidth you paid for.Let me assume you are a republican and like to visit foxnews.com .
What if your ISP got into marketing agreement with MSNBC and throttled its competitors , including foxnews.com , so much it became almost unusable .
Would that be OK in your book ? The ISPs should not have the power to decide what web sites and net services you can reasonably visit/use .
If there were true competition in the ISP market , then maybe so .
But that is not the case , and probably will never be the case .
That is why we need net neutrality regulations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How can you sit there with a stright face (I assume you have a straight face) and say this is a government takeover of the internet?All this is saying is that your ISP, which you have practically no choice of who it is (at best a choice between one DSL and one cable TV Co.) can't decide which websites you can visit at the full bandwidth you paid for.Let me assume you are a republican and like to visit foxnews.com.
What if your ISP got into marketing agreement with MSNBC and throttled its competitors, including foxnews.com, so much it became almost unusable.
Would that be OK in your book?The ISPs should not have the power to decide what web sites and net services you can reasonably visit/use.
If there were true competition in the ISP market, then maybe so.
But that is not the case, and probably will never be the case.
That is why we need net neutrality regulations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844577</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844611</id>
	<title>Define "lawful"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256304000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All the carriers need to do is suck a senator off to get him to classify any devices which are running things they don't like as "unlawful" and they're okay.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All the carriers need to do is suck a senator off to get him to classify any devices which are running things they do n't like as " unlawful " and they 're okay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All the carriers need to do is suck a senator off to get him to classify any devices which are running things they don't like as "unlawful" and they're okay.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845351</id>
	<title>Regulation</title>
	<author>spikenerd</author>
	<datestamp>1256309100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I hate regulation. I'm so sick of Comcast regulating my Internet habits that I want my government to regulate Comcast. Net Neutrality is the least-regulation possible.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hate regulation .
I 'm so sick of Comcast regulating my Internet habits that I want my government to regulate Comcast .
Net Neutrality is the least-regulation possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hate regulation.
I'm so sick of Comcast regulating my Internet habits that I want my government to regulate Comcast.
Net Neutrality is the least-regulation possible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844607</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844765</id>
	<title>government?</title>
	<author>p51d007</author>
	<datestamp>1256305020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The libertarian side of me gets really worried when the government gets involved in anything that says "neutrality"
I'm sorry, but freedom of speech is freedom of speech...PERIOD!
Do I like about 75\% of the garbage on TV, radio or the internet?  Hell no!  But, I always side on freedom.  No one is
FORCING me to watch or listen to something I do not want to hear or see.  When government gets involved, it usually
screws everything up.  Truer words were never spoken when someone said the scariest thing every said was...
"I'm from the government, and I'm here to help".
I don't want ANY regulation on speech, though, or expression.  That includes the KKK, pro-gay, pro-abortion, anti-abortion,
pro-religion, anti-religion or anything else.
If you don't like it, don't watch, read or listen to it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The libertarian side of me gets really worried when the government gets involved in anything that says " neutrality " I 'm sorry , but freedom of speech is freedom of speech...PERIOD !
Do I like about 75 \ % of the garbage on TV , radio or the internet ?
Hell no !
But , I always side on freedom .
No one is FORCING me to watch or listen to something I do not want to hear or see .
When government gets involved , it usually screws everything up .
Truer words were never spoken when someone said the scariest thing every said was.. . " I 'm from the government , and I 'm here to help " .
I do n't want ANY regulation on speech , though , or expression .
That includes the KKK , pro-gay , pro-abortion , anti-abortion , pro-religion , anti-religion or anything else .
If you do n't like it , do n't watch , read or listen to it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The libertarian side of me gets really worried when the government gets involved in anything that says "neutrality"
I'm sorry, but freedom of speech is freedom of speech...PERIOD!
Do I like about 75\% of the garbage on TV, radio or the internet?
Hell no!
But, I always side on freedom.
No one is
FORCING me to watch or listen to something I do not want to hear or see.
When government gets involved, it usually
screws everything up.
Truer words were never spoken when someone said the scariest thing every said was...
"I'm from the government, and I'm here to help".
I don't want ANY regulation on speech, though, or expression.
That includes the KKK, pro-gay, pro-abortion, anti-abortion,
pro-religion, anti-religion or anything else.
If you don't like it, don't watch, read or listen to it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844507</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844779</id>
	<title>Re:McCain</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256305140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After all these years, I still can't decide whether McCain is pure evil or just plain retarded. His RAH RAH Reagan bullshit and applications of some mythical Reagan principles to contemporary issues is akin to trying to reconcile modern justice system to levitical law.</p><p>McCain also came out recently as a "gang of 30" member of <a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-october-14-2009/rape-nuts" title="thedailyshow.com" rel="nofollow">Pro-Rape Republicans</a> [thedailyshow.com] who simply won't recognize a good legislation if it crawled up their ass.</p><p>Before anyone accuses me of being an Obamabot or a free-range coastal hippie, I dislike Democrats and their nanny-state horseshit equally, but they don't go out of their way to incite a gut-level "wtf" every time they set out to ratfuck the common sense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After all these years , I still ca n't decide whether McCain is pure evil or just plain retarded .
His RAH RAH Reagan bullshit and applications of some mythical Reagan principles to contemporary issues is akin to trying to reconcile modern justice system to levitical law.McCain also came out recently as a " gang of 30 " member of Pro-Rape Republicans [ thedailyshow.com ] who simply wo n't recognize a good legislation if it crawled up their ass.Before anyone accuses me of being an Obamabot or a free-range coastal hippie , I dislike Democrats and their nanny-state horseshit equally , but they do n't go out of their way to incite a gut-level " wtf " every time they set out to ratfuck the common sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After all these years, I still can't decide whether McCain is pure evil or just plain retarded.
His RAH RAH Reagan bullshit and applications of some mythical Reagan principles to contemporary issues is akin to trying to reconcile modern justice system to levitical law.McCain also came out recently as a "gang of 30" member of Pro-Rape Republicans [thedailyshow.com] who simply won't recognize a good legislation if it crawled up their ass.Before anyone accuses me of being an Obamabot or a free-range coastal hippie, I dislike Democrats and their nanny-state horseshit equally, but they don't go out of their way to incite a gut-level "wtf" every time they set out to ratfuck the common sense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844509</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29847277</id>
	<title>Re:And who ...</title>
	<author>mario\_grgic</author>
	<datestamp>1256319120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your agreement is between you and your service provider, an agreement to which you agreed. It's only when you were asked to agree to something that takes your guaranteed right as a citizen that you might have a case.</p><p>Unfortunately, there is no right to access the internet in USA (unlike recently discussed case of Finland where it is a right), nor a right to own and operate web server.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your agreement is between you and your service provider , an agreement to which you agreed .
It 's only when you were asked to agree to something that takes your guaranteed right as a citizen that you might have a case.Unfortunately , there is no right to access the internet in USA ( unlike recently discussed case of Finland where it is a right ) , nor a right to own and operate web server .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your agreement is between you and your service provider, an agreement to which you agreed.
It's only when you were asked to agree to something that takes your guaranteed right as a citizen that you might have a case.Unfortunately, there is no right to access the internet in USA (unlike recently discussed case of Finland where it is a right), nor a right to own and operate web server.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844667</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845937</id>
	<title>Re:Drudge</title>
	<author>vvaduva</author>
	<datestamp>1256312040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now hang on a second - how can you be a libertarian and be in favor of regulating private networks?  That doesn't make any sense.  The slippery slope is not something mythical; as you can see, they are trying to use net neutrality to move forward towards regulating actual CONTENT! There is a big difference between a government agency making comments about Drudge Report being an annoying or inaccurate website, and another to decide that it's "harmful content" and needs to be taken off-line.</p><p>This is what happens when you give them a finger...they take your entire arm.  You guys all have been asking for them to tell telcos how to run their networks.  Now that they are doing that, you are all bitching about it. WTF??</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now hang on a second - how can you be a libertarian and be in favor of regulating private networks ?
That does n't make any sense .
The slippery slope is not something mythical ; as you can see , they are trying to use net neutrality to move forward towards regulating actual CONTENT !
There is a big difference between a government agency making comments about Drudge Report being an annoying or inaccurate website , and another to decide that it 's " harmful content " and needs to be taken off-line.This is what happens when you give them a finger...they take your entire arm .
You guys all have been asking for them to tell telcos how to run their networks .
Now that they are doing that , you are all bitching about it .
WTF ? ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now hang on a second - how can you be a libertarian and be in favor of regulating private networks?
That doesn't make any sense.
The slippery slope is not something mythical; as you can see, they are trying to use net neutrality to move forward towards regulating actual CONTENT!
There is a big difference between a government agency making comments about Drudge Report being an annoying or inaccurate website, and another to decide that it's "harmful content" and needs to be taken off-line.This is what happens when you give them a finger...they take your entire arm.
You guys all have been asking for them to tell telcos how to run their networks.
Now that they are doing that, you are all bitching about it.
WTF??</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844561</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845279</id>
	<title>Net Neutrality.. or Common Carrier status..</title>
	<author>bleh-of-the-huns</author>
	<datestamp>1256308680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let the Telcos choose (this does not apply to cable unfortunately)...</p><p>If they want to keep the protections that common carrier status affords them, then they must support net neutrality and remain essentially a dumb pipe.  They used public land and massive tax incentives and subsidies to deploy the initial infrastructure (with the exception of FIOS, which I believe Verizon is eating the total cost, but still using public land, and in some cases tax breaks).</p><p>Or, if they do not want to implement neutrality in anyway, and they want to double dip on charging for bandwidth, discriminate on the types of traffic so that their own services do not have to compete etc, strip them of their protections, let every content company, every person who has been libeled, every politician who wants to shut down $x type of service/product/content and what not sue the telcos and ISPs into oblivion.</p><p>Seriously, the only reason telcos have protections is because they were just the intermediary carrying traffic between end points, and could not be held liable for what those entities did.  But if they want to start manipulating the types of traffic and data, then they should be held liable for whatever that data contains.</p><p>For the record, I agree with the principles, I may not neccesarily agree with how the gov will implement them.  Also, I did not vote, I was taught to vote my believes, not the lesser of 2 evils, and honestly, there is very little difference between them from my viewpoint.</p><p>How about this.. we have a public referendum on what the public wants.  Sure the public can be swayed, but atleast the public as a whole will have some visibility in front of the politicians, as it is right now, the politicians only real view is of whatever the lobbying entities put in front of them.. he who has the money makes the rules I guess.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let the Telcos choose ( this does not apply to cable unfortunately ) ...If they want to keep the protections that common carrier status affords them , then they must support net neutrality and remain essentially a dumb pipe .
They used public land and massive tax incentives and subsidies to deploy the initial infrastructure ( with the exception of FIOS , which I believe Verizon is eating the total cost , but still using public land , and in some cases tax breaks ) .Or , if they do not want to implement neutrality in anyway , and they want to double dip on charging for bandwidth , discriminate on the types of traffic so that their own services do not have to compete etc , strip them of their protections , let every content company , every person who has been libeled , every politician who wants to shut down $ x type of service/product/content and what not sue the telcos and ISPs into oblivion.Seriously , the only reason telcos have protections is because they were just the intermediary carrying traffic between end points , and could not be held liable for what those entities did .
But if they want to start manipulating the types of traffic and data , then they should be held liable for whatever that data contains.For the record , I agree with the principles , I may not neccesarily agree with how the gov will implement them .
Also , I did not vote , I was taught to vote my believes , not the lesser of 2 evils , and honestly , there is very little difference between them from my viewpoint.How about this.. we have a public referendum on what the public wants .
Sure the public can be swayed , but atleast the public as a whole will have some visibility in front of the politicians , as it is right now , the politicians only real view is of whatever the lobbying entities put in front of them.. he who has the money makes the rules I guess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let the Telcos choose (this does not apply to cable unfortunately)...If they want to keep the protections that common carrier status affords them, then they must support net neutrality and remain essentially a dumb pipe.
They used public land and massive tax incentives and subsidies to deploy the initial infrastructure (with the exception of FIOS, which I believe Verizon is eating the total cost, but still using public land, and in some cases tax breaks).Or, if they do not want to implement neutrality in anyway, and they want to double dip on charging for bandwidth, discriminate on the types of traffic so that their own services do not have to compete etc, strip them of their protections, let every content company, every person who has been libeled, every politician who wants to shut down $x type of service/product/content and what not sue the telcos and ISPs into oblivion.Seriously, the only reason telcos have protections is because they were just the intermediary carrying traffic between end points, and could not be held liable for what those entities did.
But if they want to start manipulating the types of traffic and data, then they should be held liable for whatever that data contains.For the record, I agree with the principles, I may not neccesarily agree with how the gov will implement them.
Also, I did not vote, I was taught to vote my believes, not the lesser of 2 evils, and honestly, there is very little difference between them from my viewpoint.How about this.. we have a public referendum on what the public wants.
Sure the public can be swayed, but atleast the public as a whole will have some visibility in front of the politicians, as it is right now, the politicians only real view is of whatever the lobbying entities put in front of them.. he who has the money makes the rules I guess.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844955</id>
	<title>I see the FCC managers follows the money too...</title>
	<author>distantbody</author>
	<datestamp>1256306280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...concidering the ISP legal-slime logic:
<br> <br>

We're not supposed to drop 'legal' connections but we still don't want the high traffic users. We'll filter all high traffic connections. Configure the sandvine filters to increase latency 50\% on P2P connections and website x. When the high traffic users complain say 'we're entitled to filter to remove 'illegal' connections. When they cry 'net neutrality' politely inform them that we comply with the rules because we aren't '<b>preventing</b> users from sending or receiving lawful content', just hindering aka throttling.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...concidering the ISP legal-slime logic : We 're not supposed to drop 'legal ' connections but we still do n't want the high traffic users .
We 'll filter all high traffic connections .
Configure the sandvine filters to increase latency 50 \ % on P2P connections and website x. When the high traffic users complain say 'we 're entitled to filter to remove 'illegal ' connections .
When they cry 'net neutrality ' politely inform them that we comply with the rules because we are n't 'preventing users from sending or receiving lawful content ' , just hindering aka throttling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...concidering the ISP legal-slime logic:
 

We're not supposed to drop 'legal' connections but we still don't want the high traffic users.
We'll filter all high traffic connections.
Configure the sandvine filters to increase latency 50\% on P2P connections and website x. When the high traffic users complain say 'we're entitled to filter to remove 'illegal' connections.
When they cry 'net neutrality' politely inform them that we comply with the rules because we aren't 'preventing users from sending or receiving lawful content', just hindering aka throttling.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29853299</id>
	<title>Re:And who ...</title>
	<author>JesseMcDonald</author>
	<datestamp>1256305380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's not always a literal gun to the head that takes choice away.</p></div><p>Perhaps not, but "leveling the playing field" via laws (incl. regulations, taxes, etc.) <em>does</em> involve a literal gun to the head, if you refuse to comply. Nothing but a similar threat of literal force could possibly justify that.</p><p>Level the "playing field" all you want by peaceful means&mdash;just don't be the first to resort to coercion. In this case there is a simple, non-aggressive solution: if you can garner sufficient popular support to step in and forcibly tell ISPs what to do with their network, surely you can turn that same popular support toward forming a self-funded co-op offering Internet service on your preferred terms. Competition trumps conflict every time.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not always a literal gun to the head that takes choice away.Perhaps not , but " leveling the playing field " via laws ( incl .
regulations , taxes , etc .
) does involve a literal gun to the head , if you refuse to comply .
Nothing but a similar threat of literal force could possibly justify that.Level the " playing field " all you want by peaceful means    just do n't be the first to resort to coercion .
In this case there is a simple , non-aggressive solution : if you can garner sufficient popular support to step in and forcibly tell ISPs what to do with their network , surely you can turn that same popular support toward forming a self-funded co-op offering Internet service on your preferred terms .
Competition trumps conflict every time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not always a literal gun to the head that takes choice away.Perhaps not, but "leveling the playing field" via laws (incl.
regulations, taxes, etc.
) does involve a literal gun to the head, if you refuse to comply.
Nothing but a similar threat of literal force could possibly justify that.Level the "playing field" all you want by peaceful means—just don't be the first to resort to coercion.
In this case there is a simple, non-aggressive solution: if you can garner sufficient popular support to step in and forcibly tell ISPs what to do with their network, surely you can turn that same popular support toward forming a self-funded co-op offering Internet service on your preferred terms.
Competition trumps conflict every time.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845789</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29848793</id>
	<title>Disparity in that sentence</title>
	<author>orthancstone</author>
	<datestamp>1256324580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>how can you be a libertarian and be in favor of regulating private networks?</p></div><p>How can you reasonably call them private networks?  They had plenty of public assistance/intervention to get them built.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>how can you be a libertarian and be in favor of regulating private networks ? How can you reasonably call them private networks ?
They had plenty of public assistance/intervention to get them built .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>how can you be a libertarian and be in favor of regulating private networks?How can you reasonably call them private networks?
They had plenty of public assistance/intervention to get them built.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845937</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845255</id>
	<title>Nice wording</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1256308560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"'connecting and using<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... lawful devices that do not harm the network.'"So, anything with a network card must be switched off, then? Malware, poor configuration, malicious intent all turn a connected device into a DoS device.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" 'connecting and using ... lawful devices that do not harm the network .
' " So , anything with a network card must be switched off , then ?
Malware , poor configuration , malicious intent all turn a connected device into a DoS device .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"'connecting and using ... lawful devices that do not harm the network.
'"So, anything with a network card must be switched off, then?
Malware, poor configuration, malicious intent all turn a connected device into a DoS device.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29846235</id>
	<title>Re:Something about this bugs me</title>
	<author>Painted</author>
	<datestamp>1256313780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If the police stop you for some routine traffic infraction and find more than $10,000 (I think that's the threshold amount, but I'm not certain), they will impound the cash, and quite likely your car, under the assumption that that much cash could only have come from illegal activities. The term is Asset Forfeiture. Even though there is nothing illegal about having cash, even in large amounts, you are guilty until proven innocent.<br> <br>And if the authorities can get away with stealing large amounts of cash simply because they are large amounts of cash, how different is that to blocking bittorent traffic because "it's almost always used to pirate copyrighted works"?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the police stop you for some routine traffic infraction and find more than $ 10,000 ( I think that 's the threshold amount , but I 'm not certain ) , they will impound the cash , and quite likely your car , under the assumption that that much cash could only have come from illegal activities .
The term is Asset Forfeiture .
Even though there is nothing illegal about having cash , even in large amounts , you are guilty until proven innocent .
And if the authorities can get away with stealing large amounts of cash simply because they are large amounts of cash , how different is that to blocking bittorent traffic because " it 's almost always used to pirate copyrighted works " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the police stop you for some routine traffic infraction and find more than $10,000 (I think that's the threshold amount, but I'm not certain), they will impound the cash, and quite likely your car, under the assumption that that much cash could only have come from illegal activities.
The term is Asset Forfeiture.
Even though there is nothing illegal about having cash, even in large amounts, you are guilty until proven innocent.
And if the authorities can get away with stealing large amounts of cash simply because they are large amounts of cash, how different is that to blocking bittorent traffic because "it's almost always used to pirate copyrighted works"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844847</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29849829</id>
	<title>Re:Net Neutrality.. or Common Carrier status..</title>
	<author>Big Boss</author>
	<datestamp>1256328540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Also, I did not vote, I was taught to vote my believes, not the lesser of 2 evils, and honestly, there is very little difference between them from my viewpoint.</p></div><p>Then you are part of the problem. It's not like there are only 2 candidates for most elections. Hell, deface the ballot if you must, but not voting is a vote for the status quo.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>How about this.. we have a public referendum on what the public wants.  Sure the public can be swayed, but atleast the public as a whole will have some visibility in front of the politicians, as it is right now, the politicians only real view is of whatever the lobbying entities put in front of them.. he who has the money makes the rules I guess.</p></div><p>I'm cool with that. But who writes the question being voted on? Any rules on advertising? It's easy to spin just about anything with the right PR firm at a LOT of money, which the telcos certainly have.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , I did not vote , I was taught to vote my believes , not the lesser of 2 evils , and honestly , there is very little difference between them from my viewpoint.Then you are part of the problem .
It 's not like there are only 2 candidates for most elections .
Hell , deface the ballot if you must , but not voting is a vote for the status quo.How about this.. we have a public referendum on what the public wants .
Sure the public can be swayed , but atleast the public as a whole will have some visibility in front of the politicians , as it is right now , the politicians only real view is of whatever the lobbying entities put in front of them.. he who has the money makes the rules I guess.I 'm cool with that .
But who writes the question being voted on ?
Any rules on advertising ?
It 's easy to spin just about anything with the right PR firm at a LOT of money , which the telcos certainly have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, I did not vote, I was taught to vote my believes, not the lesser of 2 evils, and honestly, there is very little difference between them from my viewpoint.Then you are part of the problem.
It's not like there are only 2 candidates for most elections.
Hell, deface the ballot if you must, but not voting is a vote for the status quo.How about this.. we have a public referendum on what the public wants.
Sure the public can be swayed, but atleast the public as a whole will have some visibility in front of the politicians, as it is right now, the politicians only real view is of whatever the lobbying entities put in front of them.. he who has the money makes the rules I guess.I'm cool with that.
But who writes the question being voted on?
Any rules on advertising?
It's easy to spin just about anything with the right PR firm at a LOT of money, which the telcos certainly have.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845279</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845081</id>
	<title>Re:Ha!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256307120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...and the banking/finance industry nearly imploded due to limited government regulation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...and the banking/finance industry nearly imploded due to limited government regulation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and the banking/finance industry nearly imploded due to limited government regulation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844607</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844509</id>
	<title>McCain</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256302980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As usual McCain has no clue what he's going on about, surprise, surprise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As usual McCain has no clue what he 's going on about , surprise , surprise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As usual McCain has no clue what he's going on about, surprise, surprise.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845453</id>
	<title>Re:McCain is right, which is surprising.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256309580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But didn't you sign the 1 year contract along with the agreement saying they could change the terms whenever they wanted?  So, wouldn't that have been YOUR mistake... for being an ill-informed broadband consumer without any recourse when the provider changed the terms beyond your liking?</p><p>BUT WAIT... the government is here to protect you from your own stupid mistakes.  YAY the govenrment!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But did n't you sign the 1 year contract along with the agreement saying they could change the terms whenever they wanted ?
So , would n't that have been YOUR mistake... for being an ill-informed broadband consumer without any recourse when the provider changed the terms beyond your liking ? BUT WAIT... the government is here to protect you from your own stupid mistakes .
YAY the govenrment !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But didn't you sign the 1 year contract along with the agreement saying they could change the terms whenever they wanted?
So, wouldn't that have been YOUR mistake... for being an ill-informed broadband consumer without any recourse when the provider changed the terms beyond your liking?BUT WAIT... the government is here to protect you from your own stupid mistakes.
YAY the govenrment!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844637</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29849819</id>
	<title>Re:What Infrastructure Investments?</title>
	<author>poofmeisterp</author>
	<datestamp>1256328480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You tell me how this plays out...</p></div><p>New 'net.</p><p>I smell wireless.  Wireless nets start to propagate a lot (if not most all) traffic to decentralized points.  Imagine "Freenet" as the new Internet.  Minus Freenet.</p><p>I'm just saying...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You tell me how this plays out...New 'net.I smell wireless .
Wireless nets start to propagate a lot ( if not most all ) traffic to decentralized points .
Imagine " Freenet " as the new Internet .
Minus Freenet.I 'm just saying... ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You tell me how this plays out...New 'net.I smell wireless.
Wireless nets start to propagate a lot (if not most all) traffic to decentralized points.
Imagine "Freenet" as the new Internet.
Minus Freenet.I'm just saying... ;)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845027</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845789</id>
	<title>Re:And who ...</title>
	<author>NotBornYesterday</author>
	<datestamp>1256311380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, but if when all ISPs use more or less the same boilerplate TOS, and given that internet connectivity is not exactly optional for many people these days, your choices are a) get/stay disconnected, or b) take what they give you.  It's not always a literal gun to the head that takes choice away.<br> <br>
I generally abhor government interference in private business, but when a severe power imbalance exists between consumer and provider, there may be justification for leveling the playing field a little.  I supported McCain in the last election, but I don't support his anti-neutrality proposal.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , but if when all ISPs use more or less the same boilerplate TOS , and given that internet connectivity is not exactly optional for many people these days , your choices are a ) get/stay disconnected , or b ) take what they give you .
It 's not always a literal gun to the head that takes choice away .
I generally abhor government interference in private business , but when a severe power imbalance exists between consumer and provider , there may be justification for leveling the playing field a little .
I supported McCain in the last election , but I do n't support his anti-neutrality proposal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, but if when all ISPs use more or less the same boilerplate TOS, and given that internet connectivity is not exactly optional for many people these days, your choices are a) get/stay disconnected, or b) take what they give you.
It's not always a literal gun to the head that takes choice away.
I generally abhor government interference in private business, but when a severe power imbalance exists between consumer and provider, there may be justification for leveling the playing field a little.
I supported McCain in the last election, but I don't support his anti-neutrality proposal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845301</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29850365</id>
	<title>Re:government?</title>
	<author>MaskedSlacker</author>
	<datestamp>1256330640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How the fuck did you get modded insightful?</p><p>I mean, strictly speaking your post is, but it is so far off topic that you might as well have brought up the Scopes Monkey Trial, or the imprisonment of the jurors of the William Penn trial in 1640 for all your post has to do with this topic.</p><p>This is about NET neutrality, which has NOTHING to do with SUBJECT neutrality, which is what you are talking about.  Equating the two is like equating intestines and feet.  They're both body parts, but that's about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How the fuck did you get modded insightful ? I mean , strictly speaking your post is , but it is so far off topic that you might as well have brought up the Scopes Monkey Trial , or the imprisonment of the jurors of the William Penn trial in 1640 for all your post has to do with this topic.This is about NET neutrality , which has NOTHING to do with SUBJECT neutrality , which is what you are talking about .
Equating the two is like equating intestines and feet .
They 're both body parts , but that 's about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How the fuck did you get modded insightful?I mean, strictly speaking your post is, but it is so far off topic that you might as well have brought up the Scopes Monkey Trial, or the imprisonment of the jurors of the William Penn trial in 1640 for all your post has to do with this topic.This is about NET neutrality, which has NOTHING to do with SUBJECT neutrality, which is what you are talking about.
Equating the two is like equating intestines and feet.
They're both body parts, but that's about it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844765</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29846665</id>
	<title>Re:McCain is right, which is surprising.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256316120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There you have it.</p><p><a href="http://www.google.com/finance?chdnp=1&amp;chdet=1256328000000&amp;chddm=49657&amp;cmpto=NASDAQ:GOOG;NYSE:ATT&amp;cmptdms=0;0&amp;q=goog;ATT&amp;ntsp=0" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">ATT vs Google</a> [google.com]</p><p>Wonder who has the most money to bribe our politicians...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There you have it.ATT vs Google [ google.com ] Wonder who has the most money to bribe our politicians.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There you have it.ATT vs Google [google.com]Wonder who has the most money to bribe our politicians...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844695</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845287</id>
	<title>Can't run XP on SPARC</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256308740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The BIGGEST problem I have with <b>Net Neutrality</b> (regardless if it is initially for the good or bad) is that your are removing the checks and balances from the free market (aka capitalism) and handing it to government.<br> <br>

I mean, don&rsquo;t these sorta things always start out as &ldquo;good intentions&rdquo;?? There are a bunch of short-range thinkers on here who are only thinking of measures to equalize the rights of consumers against the big evil ISP&rsquo;s. While there are valid points where these ISP&rsquo;s are tipping the playing field in their favor, be careful what you wish for is what I say. If you give these powers to your government, are you also naive to think your government will always have your best interests in mind? I&rsquo;d say historically speaking this is not always the case.<br> <br>

<b>Net Neutrality</b> is really a <b>means to an ends</b>. Nope, I didn&rsquo;t get that backwards. Consider this: <br>
If one wants to implement a communist/socialist structure within America, one would agree that due to the existence of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, this would be a very difficult task to achieve. In true nerd fashion, kind of like trying to run Windows XP on SPARC hardware (the software cannot function on the hardware). So how do you get around this?? Easy, install an emulator or virtualization layer. In this case I believe it is capitalism, aka big business. For example, government cannot directly infringe on your rights...  to smoke a cigarette let&rsquo;s say. But a company can, because your employment is mutual which "volunteers" you for anything the company wants. Therefore, a communist regime need not change this country&rsquo;s fundamental laws in order to implement dictatorial control of the masses, they only need to control the corporations. Net Neutrality installs the transport layer needed for a government to control the Internet and that sector of our lives. Is it just me or does GE bother anyone else?? The sad irony here is that communism can use its arch nemesis &ldquo;capitalism&rdquo; against itself like a parasite uses a host. <br> <br>

I know <i>most</i> slashdotters here are a mixture of young IT professional's and students alike, and the vast majority being tilted to the liberal side - and there's nothing wrong with that. The danger (and this is historically substantiated) is that the ambitious youth as a whole are vulnerable to communist ploys. Ask yourself this honest question; would you recognize a communist ploy if you see one? How do you even know what to look for? Granted, like capitalism communism has it's good and bad parts. The difference is that capitalism incorporates <b>both</b> good and bad at any given time (check and balance) while communism starts out with good intent like "Net Neutrality", but then evolves into something nefarious. "Net Neutrality", oh sounds so fair doesn't it? I think communists like to use oxymoron&rsquo;s for naming things. Like "Free Press" founder Robert McChesney is a Marxist. Sad that many of you have bought into the "business is evil" and "capitalism is evil", there always has to be a villain etc... and you are being fooled into doing the ground work for true communists. The sad part is by the time you all "figure it out" it'll be too late. I used to think the Germans were soooooooo stupid for falling for the Nazi&rsquo;s and Hitler. But knowing history now, it was mainly the youth and the big unions that gave power to that movement. You all forget that those German unions and students all were fighting for the exact same stuff you all are fighting for today: social justice, equality, freedom from big business, better jobs, unifying the country (Nationalism), environmental concerns, community service, etc... Any of this sounds familiar? I'm not saying give up on those core beliefs - after all they are noble causes, just be careful what and whom you vote for, and recognize the hidden agendas. Ironically with all the slams I see on here about big business being bad for the &lsquo;little guy&rsquo;, you same individuals</htmltext>
<tokenext>The BIGGEST problem I have with Net Neutrality ( regardless if it is initially for the good or bad ) is that your are removing the checks and balances from the free market ( aka capitalism ) and handing it to government .
I mean , don    t these sorta things always start out as    good intentions    ? ?
There are a bunch of short-range thinkers on here who are only thinking of measures to equalize the rights of consumers against the big evil ISP    s .
While there are valid points where these ISP    s are tipping the playing field in their favor , be careful what you wish for is what I say .
If you give these powers to your government , are you also naive to think your government will always have your best interests in mind ?
I    d say historically speaking this is not always the case .
Net Neutrality is really a means to an ends .
Nope , I didn    t get that backwards .
Consider this : If one wants to implement a communist/socialist structure within America , one would agree that due to the existence of the Constitution and Bill of Rights , this would be a very difficult task to achieve .
In true nerd fashion , kind of like trying to run Windows XP on SPARC hardware ( the software can not function on the hardware ) .
So how do you get around this ? ?
Easy , install an emulator or virtualization layer .
In this case I believe it is capitalism , aka big business .
For example , government can not directly infringe on your rights... to smoke a cigarette let    s say .
But a company can , because your employment is mutual which " volunteers " you for anything the company wants .
Therefore , a communist regime need not change this country    s fundamental laws in order to implement dictatorial control of the masses , they only need to control the corporations .
Net Neutrality installs the transport layer needed for a government to control the Internet and that sector of our lives .
Is it just me or does GE bother anyone else ? ?
The sad irony here is that communism can use its arch nemesis    capitalism    against itself like a parasite uses a host .
I know most slashdotters here are a mixture of young IT professional 's and students alike , and the vast majority being tilted to the liberal side - and there 's nothing wrong with that .
The danger ( and this is historically substantiated ) is that the ambitious youth as a whole are vulnerable to communist ploys .
Ask yourself this honest question ; would you recognize a communist ploy if you see one ?
How do you even know what to look for ?
Granted , like capitalism communism has it 's good and bad parts .
The difference is that capitalism incorporates both good and bad at any given time ( check and balance ) while communism starts out with good intent like " Net Neutrality " , but then evolves into something nefarious .
" Net Neutrality " , oh sounds so fair does n't it ?
I think communists like to use oxymoron    s for naming things .
Like " Free Press " founder Robert McChesney is a Marxist .
Sad that many of you have bought into the " business is evil " and " capitalism is evil " , there always has to be a villain etc... and you are being fooled into doing the ground work for true communists .
The sad part is by the time you all " figure it out " it 'll be too late .
I used to think the Germans were soooooooo stupid for falling for the Nazi    s and Hitler .
But knowing history now , it was mainly the youth and the big unions that gave power to that movement .
You all forget that those German unions and students all were fighting for the exact same stuff you all are fighting for today : social justice , equality , freedom from big business , better jobs , unifying the country ( Nationalism ) , environmental concerns , community service , etc... Any of this sounds familiar ?
I 'm not saying give up on those core beliefs - after all they are noble causes , just be careful what and whom you vote for , and recognize the hidden agendas .
Ironically with all the slams I see on here about big business being bad for the    little guy    , you same individuals</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The BIGGEST problem I have with Net Neutrality (regardless if it is initially for the good or bad) is that your are removing the checks and balances from the free market (aka capitalism) and handing it to government.
I mean, don’t these sorta things always start out as “good intentions”??
There are a bunch of short-range thinkers on here who are only thinking of measures to equalize the rights of consumers against the big evil ISP’s.
While there are valid points where these ISP’s are tipping the playing field in their favor, be careful what you wish for is what I say.
If you give these powers to your government, are you also naive to think your government will always have your best interests in mind?
I’d say historically speaking this is not always the case.
Net Neutrality is really a means to an ends.
Nope, I didn’t get that backwards.
Consider this: 
If one wants to implement a communist/socialist structure within America, one would agree that due to the existence of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, this would be a very difficult task to achieve.
In true nerd fashion, kind of like trying to run Windows XP on SPARC hardware (the software cannot function on the hardware).
So how do you get around this??
Easy, install an emulator or virtualization layer.
In this case I believe it is capitalism, aka big business.
For example, government cannot directly infringe on your rights...  to smoke a cigarette let’s say.
But a company can, because your employment is mutual which "volunteers" you for anything the company wants.
Therefore, a communist regime need not change this country’s fundamental laws in order to implement dictatorial control of the masses, they only need to control the corporations.
Net Neutrality installs the transport layer needed for a government to control the Internet and that sector of our lives.
Is it just me or does GE bother anyone else??
The sad irony here is that communism can use its arch nemesis “capitalism” against itself like a parasite uses a host.
I know most slashdotters here are a mixture of young IT professional's and students alike, and the vast majority being tilted to the liberal side - and there's nothing wrong with that.
The danger (and this is historically substantiated) is that the ambitious youth as a whole are vulnerable to communist ploys.
Ask yourself this honest question; would you recognize a communist ploy if you see one?
How do you even know what to look for?
Granted, like capitalism communism has it's good and bad parts.
The difference is that capitalism incorporates both good and bad at any given time (check and balance) while communism starts out with good intent like "Net Neutrality", but then evolves into something nefarious.
"Net Neutrality", oh sounds so fair doesn't it?
I think communists like to use oxymoron’s for naming things.
Like "Free Press" founder Robert McChesney is a Marxist.
Sad that many of you have bought into the "business is evil" and "capitalism is evil", there always has to be a villain etc... and you are being fooled into doing the ground work for true communists.
The sad part is by the time you all "figure it out" it'll be too late.
I used to think the Germans were soooooooo stupid for falling for the Nazi’s and Hitler.
But knowing history now, it was mainly the youth and the big unions that gave power to that movement.
You all forget that those German unions and students all were fighting for the exact same stuff you all are fighting for today: social justice, equality, freedom from big business, better jobs, unifying the country (Nationalism), environmental concerns, community service, etc... Any of this sounds familiar?
I'm not saying give up on those core beliefs - after all they are noble causes, just be careful what and whom you vote for, and recognize the hidden agendas.
Ironically with all the slams I see on here about big business being bad for the ‘little guy’, you same individuals</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844533</id>
	<title>Warning?</title>
	<author>flipper9</author>
	<datestamp>1256303220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why is there a warning that the press release is a Word document?  It's a frickin' document format, not some evil-doer conspiracy!  Plenty of word processing programs can open Word documents.  What about PDF?  I'd prefer a word document over PDF any-day because I can edit it, annotate it, and open it faster than a PDF.  Just because something is from Microsoft doesn't mean it's bad.</p><p>Note: I'm writing this on Ubuntu, and running Open Office in the background.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is there a warning that the press release is a Word document ?
It 's a frickin ' document format , not some evil-doer conspiracy !
Plenty of word processing programs can open Word documents .
What about PDF ?
I 'd prefer a word document over PDF any-day because I can edit it , annotate it , and open it faster than a PDF .
Just because something is from Microsoft does n't mean it 's bad.Note : I 'm writing this on Ubuntu , and running Open Office in the background .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is there a warning that the press release is a Word document?
It's a frickin' document format, not some evil-doer conspiracy!
Plenty of word processing programs can open Word documents.
What about PDF?
I'd prefer a word document over PDF any-day because I can edit it, annotate it, and open it faster than a PDF.
Just because something is from Microsoft doesn't mean it's bad.Note: I'm writing this on Ubuntu, and running Open Office in the background.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845741</id>
	<title>Camels Nose in the Tent</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256311140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Once you establish that the FCC has the power to regulate the internet, even if the initial regulation is something you approve of, you're likely to find they start using that newly established power in ways you most decidedly do not approve of.

Calling in the government to deal with something that is really only a potential (rather than actual) problem at this point is liable to end up being a long term loss for internet freedom.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Once you establish that the FCC has the power to regulate the internet , even if the initial regulation is something you approve of , you 're likely to find they start using that newly established power in ways you most decidedly do not approve of .
Calling in the government to deal with something that is really only a potential ( rather than actual ) problem at this point is liable to end up being a long term loss for internet freedom .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once you establish that the FCC has the power to regulate the internet, even if the initial regulation is something you approve of, you're likely to find they start using that newly established power in ways you most decidedly do not approve of.
Calling in the government to deal with something that is really only a potential (rather than actual) problem at this point is liable to end up being a long term loss for internet freedom.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845809</id>
	<title>Re:Can't run XP on SPARC</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256311500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Communist does work (and I'm not talking about oppressive regimes like the old USSR or China).</p><p>Also, in any modern society, the basics should work on the communist model: water, food, housing, power, communication.</p><p>The capitalist model, on the other hand, should be in place for the "better" things: better food, better housing, things that aren't necessary for the basic modern life but would sure be nice (ex: 50" TV instead of 20", 200 channels of satellite TV instead of a handful of over-the-air channels, 50mbps internet connection instead of 5mbps, deluxe sports car instead of basic 4-door sedan).</p><p>It's inhuman to ask for the capitalist model for the necessities of life, and only fools would ask for the communist model for the things that push people to do better in life.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Communist does work ( and I 'm not talking about oppressive regimes like the old USSR or China ) .Also , in any modern society , the basics should work on the communist model : water , food , housing , power , communication.The capitalist model , on the other hand , should be in place for the " better " things : better food , better housing , things that are n't necessary for the basic modern life but would sure be nice ( ex : 50 " TV instead of 20 " , 200 channels of satellite TV instead of a handful of over-the-air channels , 50mbps internet connection instead of 5mbps , deluxe sports car instead of basic 4-door sedan ) .It 's inhuman to ask for the capitalist model for the necessities of life , and only fools would ask for the communist model for the things that push people to do better in life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Communist does work (and I'm not talking about oppressive regimes like the old USSR or China).Also, in any modern society, the basics should work on the communist model: water, food, housing, power, communication.The capitalist model, on the other hand, should be in place for the "better" things: better food, better housing, things that aren't necessary for the basic modern life but would sure be nice (ex: 50" TV instead of 20", 200 channels of satellite TV instead of a handful of over-the-air channels, 50mbps internet connection instead of 5mbps, deluxe sports car instead of basic 4-door sedan).It's inhuman to ask for the capitalist model for the necessities of life, and only fools would ask for the communist model for the things that push people to do better in life.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845287</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29847195</id>
	<title>Re:We need document neutrality first</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256318820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Read the ASCII text version you twit.  Or, if you are really as anal as your post makes you out to be, simply copy and paste the text version into your precious ODF document editor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Read the ASCII text version you twit .
Or , if you are really as anal as your post makes you out to be , simply copy and paste the text version into your precious ODF document editor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Read the ASCII text version you twit.
Or, if you are really as anal as your post makes you out to be, simply copy and paste the text version into your precious ODF document editor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844675</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29849529</id>
	<title>Re:government?</title>
	<author>gangien</author>
	<datestamp>1256327340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>do not confuse good intentions with good results.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>do not confuse good intentions with good results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>do not confuse good intentions with good results.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845153</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29847117</id>
	<title>Re:government?</title>
	<author>cmacb</author>
	<datestamp>1256318400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I could append this to every message here, but I picked yours because you put your finger on the problem:</p><p>There is no ultimate goal for Network Neutrality because that term isn't defined anywhere.  No elected official has defined what the concept means now or what it might mean in the future.  It's nice that we have this "comment period" for various interests to get their two cents in, but as far as Network Neutrality is concerned it's now a dictatorship of five people at the FCC.  Change the makeup of that group and you get a new definition.  Take whatever definition is put in place and hire a building full of people to oversee it and you will most definitely get a working definition that differs from the public's high level understanding of it.</p><p>We have a problem here that exists almost entirely as a hypothetical case.  This is like hiring a dozen cops to focus on traffic control for a little used residential street.  Since there is no traffic problem to solve it's only a matter of time before they find other "laws" to enforce.</p><p>Whatever "Network Neutrality" means now, it will mean something completely different in 5 years.  Google, and other supporters are basically placing their bets on their ability to influence the government to rule in their favor.  Flexibility and competition will once again go out the window in favor of designated monopolies.  We might as well skip all the intermediate steps and just go straight to a federally maintained Internet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I could append this to every message here , but I picked yours because you put your finger on the problem : There is no ultimate goal for Network Neutrality because that term is n't defined anywhere .
No elected official has defined what the concept means now or what it might mean in the future .
It 's nice that we have this " comment period " for various interests to get their two cents in , but as far as Network Neutrality is concerned it 's now a dictatorship of five people at the FCC .
Change the makeup of that group and you get a new definition .
Take whatever definition is put in place and hire a building full of people to oversee it and you will most definitely get a working definition that differs from the public 's high level understanding of it.We have a problem here that exists almost entirely as a hypothetical case .
This is like hiring a dozen cops to focus on traffic control for a little used residential street .
Since there is no traffic problem to solve it 's only a matter of time before they find other " laws " to enforce.Whatever " Network Neutrality " means now , it will mean something completely different in 5 years .
Google , and other supporters are basically placing their bets on their ability to influence the government to rule in their favor .
Flexibility and competition will once again go out the window in favor of designated monopolies .
We might as well skip all the intermediate steps and just go straight to a federally maintained Internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I could append this to every message here, but I picked yours because you put your finger on the problem:There is no ultimate goal for Network Neutrality because that term isn't defined anywhere.
No elected official has defined what the concept means now or what it might mean in the future.
It's nice that we have this "comment period" for various interests to get their two cents in, but as far as Network Neutrality is concerned it's now a dictatorship of five people at the FCC.
Change the makeup of that group and you get a new definition.
Take whatever definition is put in place and hire a building full of people to oversee it and you will most definitely get a working definition that differs from the public's high level understanding of it.We have a problem here that exists almost entirely as a hypothetical case.
This is like hiring a dozen cops to focus on traffic control for a little used residential street.
Since there is no traffic problem to solve it's only a matter of time before they find other "laws" to enforce.Whatever "Network Neutrality" means now, it will mean something completely different in 5 years.
Google, and other supporters are basically placing their bets on their ability to influence the government to rule in their favor.
Flexibility and competition will once again go out the window in favor of designated monopolies.
We might as well skip all the intermediate steps and just go straight to a federally maintained Internet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845153</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29849183</id>
	<title>Re:McCain is right, which is surprising.</title>
	<author>T Murphy</author>
	<datestamp>1256326020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Since you brought it up: is Google in favor of a different flavor of net neutrality than what is in our best interests? I wouldn't think twice about adopting their version over ATT's, but their view of the internet is still different from ours.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since you brought it up : is Google in favor of a different flavor of net neutrality than what is in our best interests ?
I would n't think twice about adopting their version over ATT 's , but their view of the internet is still different from ours .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since you brought it up: is Google in favor of a different flavor of net neutrality than what is in our best interests?
I wouldn't think twice about adopting their version over ATT's, but their view of the internet is still different from ours.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844695</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845385</id>
	<title>Who are these consumers?  I want to see one.</title>
	<author>visualight</author>
	<datestamp>1256309280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Robert Mcdowell:<br>"Consumers are telling the marketplace that they don't want networks that operate merely as 'dumb pipes,'" he said. "Sometimes they want the added value and efficiency that comes from intelligence inside networks as well."</p><p>I wish I could interview politicians, "You just made that shit up didn't you?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Robert Mcdowell : " Consumers are telling the marketplace that they do n't want networks that operate merely as 'dumb pipes, ' " he said .
" Sometimes they want the added value and efficiency that comes from intelligence inside networks as well .
" I wish I could interview politicians , " You just made that shit up did n't you ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Robert Mcdowell:"Consumers are telling the marketplace that they don't want networks that operate merely as 'dumb pipes,'" he said.
"Sometimes they want the added value and efficiency that comes from intelligence inside networks as well.
"I wish I could interview politicians, "You just made that shit up didn't you?
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845053</id>
	<title>Re:Drudge</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256306880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You know, like how Microsoft used its OS dominance to destroy a rival in another field (web browsers).</p></div><p>I'm sorry, when did that happen?  Did you ever actually USE Netscape 4?</p><p>Netscape destroyed themselves.  Netscape 4 was a large, bloated, out of date, piece of shit.  Internet Explorer 3, compared to Netscape, was a clearly superior product.  It was faster, it was smaller, it offered more features.  It was simply better.</p><p>And you seem to forget that for a time, Netscape was trying to use their dominance over web browsers to try and take over the server market.  (Why do you think every browser has to identify themselves as "Mozilla/4.0"?)</p><p>And, in the end, the superior product won, and Netscape's attempt to take over the server market failed.</p><p>Not exactly what I'd call a "market failure."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , like how Microsoft used its OS dominance to destroy a rival in another field ( web browsers ) .I 'm sorry , when did that happen ?
Did you ever actually USE Netscape 4 ? Netscape destroyed themselves .
Netscape 4 was a large , bloated , out of date , piece of shit .
Internet Explorer 3 , compared to Netscape , was a clearly superior product .
It was faster , it was smaller , it offered more features .
It was simply better.And you seem to forget that for a time , Netscape was trying to use their dominance over web browsers to try and take over the server market .
( Why do you think every browser has to identify themselves as " Mozilla/4.0 " ?
) And , in the end , the superior product won , and Netscape 's attempt to take over the server market failed.Not exactly what I 'd call a " market failure .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, like how Microsoft used its OS dominance to destroy a rival in another field (web browsers).I'm sorry, when did that happen?
Did you ever actually USE Netscape 4?Netscape destroyed themselves.
Netscape 4 was a large, bloated, out of date, piece of shit.
Internet Explorer 3, compared to Netscape, was a clearly superior product.
It was faster, it was smaller, it offered more features.
It was simply better.And you seem to forget that for a time, Netscape was trying to use their dominance over web browsers to try and take over the server market.
(Why do you think every browser has to identify themselves as "Mozilla/4.0"?
)And, in the end, the superior product won, and Netscape's attempt to take over the server market failed.Not exactly what I'd call a "market failure.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844561</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844507</id>
	<title>And who ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256302920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>decides what is lawful?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>decides what is lawful ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>decides what is lawful?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845555</id>
	<title>FUCK. MC. CAIN.</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1256310180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>just what do you expect from the republicans. EVERY kind of move they made to control people's lives are disguised as 'for freedom'.</p><p>why the fuck arent highways being sold to whomever bids the highest for them, and they are let to discriminate against any and whomever they like and charge them whatever they like, for 'free market' and freedom ? why the fuck all the conservatives stop dead, when asked why arent we doing this ? wouldnt private companies run roads better ? isnt it scuttling investment to not allow private interests to build roads and run them ? and why the fuck shouldnt they be allowed who passes from their roads, and charge whomever they want, and whatever they want, because it is 'their' road ?</p><p>america needs to be get rid of republican ilk. they work against freedom of individuals by throwing them at the mercy of big private interests with every fucking move they make, and they dub this 'liberty'. LIBERTY WAS NOT MEANT AS 'BIG FISH COULD RULE SMALLER FISH' AND CALL THIS 'FREEDOM'.</p><p><a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1406601&amp;cid=29770311" title="slashdot.org">http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1406601&amp;cid=29770311</a> [slashdot.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>just what do you expect from the republicans .
EVERY kind of move they made to control people 's lives are disguised as 'for freedom'.why the fuck arent highways being sold to whomever bids the highest for them , and they are let to discriminate against any and whomever they like and charge them whatever they like , for 'free market ' and freedom ?
why the fuck all the conservatives stop dead , when asked why arent we doing this ?
wouldnt private companies run roads better ?
isnt it scuttling investment to not allow private interests to build roads and run them ?
and why the fuck shouldnt they be allowed who passes from their roads , and charge whomever they want , and whatever they want , because it is 'their ' road ? america needs to be get rid of republican ilk .
they work against freedom of individuals by throwing them at the mercy of big private interests with every fucking move they make , and they dub this 'liberty' .
LIBERTY WAS NOT MEANT AS 'BIG FISH COULD RULE SMALLER FISH ' AND CALL THIS 'FREEDOM'.http : //tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 1406601&amp;cid = 29770311 [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>just what do you expect from the republicans.
EVERY kind of move they made to control people's lives are disguised as 'for freedom'.why the fuck arent highways being sold to whomever bids the highest for them, and they are let to discriminate against any and whomever they like and charge them whatever they like, for 'free market' and freedom ?
why the fuck all the conservatives stop dead, when asked why arent we doing this ?
wouldnt private companies run roads better ?
isnt it scuttling investment to not allow private interests to build roads and run them ?
and why the fuck shouldnt they be allowed who passes from their roads, and charge whomever they want, and whatever they want, because it is 'their' road ?america needs to be get rid of republican ilk.
they work against freedom of individuals by throwing them at the mercy of big private interests with every fucking move they make, and they dub this 'liberty'.
LIBERTY WAS NOT MEANT AS 'BIG FISH COULD RULE SMALLER FISH' AND CALL THIS 'FREEDOM'.http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1406601&amp;cid=29770311 [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29847087</id>
	<title>Re: Haven't they heard of ODF?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256318280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You idiot, moron, democrat!</p><p>Have'nt you heard of Adobe acrobat?  PDF?  The ubiquitous document file format!!!!!</p><p>And, NO!  No one has really heard of ODF!!!!  Precisly because it is not ubiquitous!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You idiot , moron , democrat ! Have'nt you heard of Adobe acrobat ?
PDF ? The ubiquitous document file format ! ! ! !
! And , NO !
No one has really heard of ODF ! ! ! !
Precisly because it is not ubiquitous !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You idiot, moron, democrat!Have'nt you heard of Adobe acrobat?
PDF?  The ubiquitous document file format!!!!
!And, NO!
No one has really heard of ODF!!!!
Precisly because it is not ubiquitous!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844675</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29847271</id>
	<title>Re:Can't run XP on SPARC</title>
	<author>Areyoukiddingme</author>
	<datestamp>1256319120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You seem to think it's the 50s all over again, not the 60s.  And you're just as retarded as McCarthy was.  Communism isn't a system of government!  It's an economic system.  Capitalism isn't a system of government!  It's an economic system.  Conflating the two results in the meaningless muddy thinking your post is full of.</p><p>You were dumb enough to bring up Nazism as an argument.  I'll do you one better.  Corporate control of government, also known as regulatory capture, has a name too.  Mussolini himself named it fascism, in his own writings, and that's what it is.  Guess what?  That's what we're getting.  The US is in no danger of becoming a Nazi state, any more than it's in danger of converting to a communist economy.  It IS in danger of becoming a fascist state, and there you sit, advocating more corporate power.</p><p>The Internet is the greatest communication tool ever created by mankind and the FCC is moving to pass regulations to keep it that way, because the CEO of SBC went on the record claiming Google was stealing from them.  It was a blatant lie, a venal attempt to charge people at both ends more money for the exact same service.  The Internet is the greatest communication tool ever created and you DARE to use it to post polemics in favor of DESTROYING it?</p><p>You complete and utter fool.  Stop typing.  Stop talking.  You don't deserve to use the Internet.  You're so stupid you write "communism/socialism" as if they're the same thing.  The Internet is about words, and you are a total failure at understanding words.  Stop polluting the thoughts of people around you with your failure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You seem to think it 's the 50s all over again , not the 60s .
And you 're just as retarded as McCarthy was .
Communism is n't a system of government !
It 's an economic system .
Capitalism is n't a system of government !
It 's an economic system .
Conflating the two results in the meaningless muddy thinking your post is full of.You were dumb enough to bring up Nazism as an argument .
I 'll do you one better .
Corporate control of government , also known as regulatory capture , has a name too .
Mussolini himself named it fascism , in his own writings , and that 's what it is .
Guess what ?
That 's what we 're getting .
The US is in no danger of becoming a Nazi state , any more than it 's in danger of converting to a communist economy .
It IS in danger of becoming a fascist state , and there you sit , advocating more corporate power.The Internet is the greatest communication tool ever created by mankind and the FCC is moving to pass regulations to keep it that way , because the CEO of SBC went on the record claiming Google was stealing from them .
It was a blatant lie , a venal attempt to charge people at both ends more money for the exact same service .
The Internet is the greatest communication tool ever created and you DARE to use it to post polemics in favor of DESTROYING it ? You complete and utter fool .
Stop typing .
Stop talking .
You do n't deserve to use the Internet .
You 're so stupid you write " communism/socialism " as if they 're the same thing .
The Internet is about words , and you are a total failure at understanding words .
Stop polluting the thoughts of people around you with your failure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You seem to think it's the 50s all over again, not the 60s.
And you're just as retarded as McCarthy was.
Communism isn't a system of government!
It's an economic system.
Capitalism isn't a system of government!
It's an economic system.
Conflating the two results in the meaningless muddy thinking your post is full of.You were dumb enough to bring up Nazism as an argument.
I'll do you one better.
Corporate control of government, also known as regulatory capture, has a name too.
Mussolini himself named it fascism, in his own writings, and that's what it is.
Guess what?
That's what we're getting.
The US is in no danger of becoming a Nazi state, any more than it's in danger of converting to a communist economy.
It IS in danger of becoming a fascist state, and there you sit, advocating more corporate power.The Internet is the greatest communication tool ever created by mankind and the FCC is moving to pass regulations to keep it that way, because the CEO of SBC went on the record claiming Google was stealing from them.
It was a blatant lie, a venal attempt to charge people at both ends more money for the exact same service.
The Internet is the greatest communication tool ever created and you DARE to use it to post polemics in favor of DESTROYING it?You complete and utter fool.
Stop typing.
Stop talking.
You don't deserve to use the Internet.
You're so stupid you write "communism/socialism" as if they're the same thing.
The Internet is about words, and you are a total failure at understanding words.
Stop polluting the thoughts of people around you with your failure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845287</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845113</id>
	<title>Are We There Yet?</title>
	<author>mindbrane</author>
	<datestamp>1256307360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was one of those quintessential brats in the back seat of my parent's car mindlessly chanting the eternal question, "Are we there yet?". When addressing questions that incorporate government oversight of national infrastructures that are run by near monopolies there are no destination solutions. There are tentative, context sensitive solutions. The answer isn't unregulated free enterprise, nor is it heavy handed government control. IMHO the answer is the solution offered by mature democracies that have in place the institutions and laws that permit tentative solutions to be put in place then publicly monitored and honed.</p><p>What works in our modern, mature democracies are the checks and balances, supplemented by free speech, and, government and business oversight, that allow us to find a workable middle ground. I'm a liberal but I'm always glad for the common sense conservatives who try to limit government interference. Solving social problems by way of democratic institutions is a messy, contentious affair but, I think, modern history has amply demonstrated that the current crop of mature democracies are the best way to go and it's the somewhat efficient functioning of our institutions that allow us succeed more so than does any other form of government. We succeed because we have in place institutions that allow for open debate and venues to address things when they go wrong. We aren't there yet, but then we aren't ever gonna be so we might as well enjoy the ride given that we've got the best vehicle on the road. </p><p>just my loose change in a contentious debate</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was one of those quintessential brats in the back seat of my parent 's car mindlessly chanting the eternal question , " Are we there yet ? " .
When addressing questions that incorporate government oversight of national infrastructures that are run by near monopolies there are no destination solutions .
There are tentative , context sensitive solutions .
The answer is n't unregulated free enterprise , nor is it heavy handed government control .
IMHO the answer is the solution offered by mature democracies that have in place the institutions and laws that permit tentative solutions to be put in place then publicly monitored and honed.What works in our modern , mature democracies are the checks and balances , supplemented by free speech , and , government and business oversight , that allow us to find a workable middle ground .
I 'm a liberal but I 'm always glad for the common sense conservatives who try to limit government interference .
Solving social problems by way of democratic institutions is a messy , contentious affair but , I think , modern history has amply demonstrated that the current crop of mature democracies are the best way to go and it 's the somewhat efficient functioning of our institutions that allow us succeed more so than does any other form of government .
We succeed because we have in place institutions that allow for open debate and venues to address things when they go wrong .
We are n't there yet , but then we are n't ever gon na be so we might as well enjoy the ride given that we 've got the best vehicle on the road .
just my loose change in a contentious debate</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was one of those quintessential brats in the back seat of my parent's car mindlessly chanting the eternal question, "Are we there yet?".
When addressing questions that incorporate government oversight of national infrastructures that are run by near monopolies there are no destination solutions.
There are tentative, context sensitive solutions.
The answer isn't unregulated free enterprise, nor is it heavy handed government control.
IMHO the answer is the solution offered by mature democracies that have in place the institutions and laws that permit tentative solutions to be put in place then publicly monitored and honed.What works in our modern, mature democracies are the checks and balances, supplemented by free speech, and, government and business oversight, that allow us to find a workable middle ground.
I'm a liberal but I'm always glad for the common sense conservatives who try to limit government interference.
Solving social problems by way of democratic institutions is a messy, contentious affair but, I think, modern history has amply demonstrated that the current crop of mature democracies are the best way to go and it's the somewhat efficient functioning of our institutions that allow us succeed more so than does any other form of government.
We succeed because we have in place institutions that allow for open debate and venues to address things when they go wrong.
We aren't there yet, but then we aren't ever gonna be so we might as well enjoy the ride given that we've got the best vehicle on the road.
just my loose change in a contentious debate</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29849933</id>
	<title>Re:McCain</title>
	<author>coaxial</author>
	<datestamp>1256328960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The corporations are wanting to change the status quo that has brought the innovation to the Internet.  They want to lock down the services and throttle traffic unless the sites pay them money.  That raises the costs of innovation and thus stifles it.</p><p>By coming in and saying, "Hey, doing nothing has been good for all of us.  Keep doing nothing," the government is taking the conservative position.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The corporations are wanting to change the status quo that has brought the innovation to the Internet .
They want to lock down the services and throttle traffic unless the sites pay them money .
That raises the costs of innovation and thus stifles it.By coming in and saying , " Hey , doing nothing has been good for all of us .
Keep doing nothing , " the government is taking the conservative position .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The corporations are wanting to change the status quo that has brought the innovation to the Internet.
They want to lock down the services and throttle traffic unless the sites pay them money.
That raises the costs of innovation and thus stifles it.By coming in and saying, "Hey, doing nothing has been good for all of us.
Keep doing nothing," the government is taking the conservative position.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845349</id>
	<title>Re:And who ...</title>
	<author>deAtog</author>
	<datestamp>1256309100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I completely agree. Remove the word "lawful" from all sections and I'll be much more supportive of their efforts. If all content and application communications were protected under the First Amendment then word "lawful' would only serve to restrict that right in the future by designating specific things as "unlawful". The last thing we need is government overview of what applications or content are considered "lawful".</htmltext>
<tokenext>I completely agree .
Remove the word " lawful " from all sections and I 'll be much more supportive of their efforts .
If all content and application communications were protected under the First Amendment then word " lawful ' would only serve to restrict that right in the future by designating specific things as " unlawful " .
The last thing we need is government overview of what applications or content are considered " lawful " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I completely agree.
Remove the word "lawful" from all sections and I'll be much more supportive of their efforts.
If all content and application communications were protected under the First Amendment then word "lawful' would only serve to restrict that right in the future by designating specific things as "unlawful".
The last thing we need is government overview of what applications or content are considered "lawful".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844507</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845199</id>
	<title>Re:McCain is right, which is surprising.</title>
	<author>cowscows</author>
	<datestamp>1256308140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's just step back, take a deep breath, and think about this for a second. Now repeat after me:</p><p>"The telecoms do no operate in a free market"</p><p>Phone and cable companies are basically giant collections of government granted local monopolies. I live in a large urban area that has about a million people within a 20 minute drive from my house, and yet I only have two crappy options for broadband. My situation is not unique.</p><p>These companies have guaranteed markets, and basically guaranteed profit. In exchange for that, they should be expected and legally required to provide a certain level of service. In regards to my internet connection, unless I'm doing something to actively harm the network, they've got no business telling me where I should or shouldn't get my packets from.</p><p>All that being said, I'm curious what innovation you've been seeing from the telcos that you think is so important to protect? These guys are basically dumb pipes. They just string the infrastructure across the land. They don't design and manufacture switches and servers, they just plug them in and connect them with wires. They don't design the web services that I use, nor do they create the content that I read. They don't make the movies that I watch, and they don't design the games that I play.</p><p>They, at best, provide the infrastructure that other people/companies use to innovate. If you can't see how placing arbitrary restrictions on that infrastructure can negatively affect those other people/companies, then you're not trying very hard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's just step back , take a deep breath , and think about this for a second .
Now repeat after me : " The telecoms do no operate in a free market " Phone and cable companies are basically giant collections of government granted local monopolies .
I live in a large urban area that has about a million people within a 20 minute drive from my house , and yet I only have two crappy options for broadband .
My situation is not unique.These companies have guaranteed markets , and basically guaranteed profit .
In exchange for that , they should be expected and legally required to provide a certain level of service .
In regards to my internet connection , unless I 'm doing something to actively harm the network , they 've got no business telling me where I should or should n't get my packets from.All that being said , I 'm curious what innovation you 've been seeing from the telcos that you think is so important to protect ?
These guys are basically dumb pipes .
They just string the infrastructure across the land .
They do n't design and manufacture switches and servers , they just plug them in and connect them with wires .
They do n't design the web services that I use , nor do they create the content that I read .
They do n't make the movies that I watch , and they do n't design the games that I play.They , at best , provide the infrastructure that other people/companies use to innovate .
If you ca n't see how placing arbitrary restrictions on that infrastructure can negatively affect those other people/companies , then you 're not trying very hard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's just step back, take a deep breath, and think about this for a second.
Now repeat after me:"The telecoms do no operate in a free market"Phone and cable companies are basically giant collections of government granted local monopolies.
I live in a large urban area that has about a million people within a 20 minute drive from my house, and yet I only have two crappy options for broadband.
My situation is not unique.These companies have guaranteed markets, and basically guaranteed profit.
In exchange for that, they should be expected and legally required to provide a certain level of service.
In regards to my internet connection, unless I'm doing something to actively harm the network, they've got no business telling me where I should or shouldn't get my packets from.All that being said, I'm curious what innovation you've been seeing from the telcos that you think is so important to protect?
These guys are basically dumb pipes.
They just string the infrastructure across the land.
They don't design and manufacture switches and servers, they just plug them in and connect them with wires.
They don't design the web services that I use, nor do they create the content that I read.
They don't make the movies that I watch, and they don't design the games that I play.They, at best, provide the infrastructure that other people/companies use to innovate.
If you can't see how placing arbitrary restrictions on that infrastructure can negatively affect those other people/companies, then you're not trying very hard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844577</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844591</id>
	<title>Re:Warning?</title>
	<author>lordandmaker</author>
	<datestamp>1256303760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Why is there a warning that the press release is a Word document?</p></div>
</blockquote><p>

In case you'd assumed that a press release from a communications agency on the subject of the Internet would be a web page?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is there a warning that the press release is a Word document ?
In case you 'd assumed that a press release from a communications agency on the subject of the Internet would be a web page ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is there a warning that the press release is a Word document?
In case you'd assumed that a press release from a communications agency on the subject of the Internet would be a web page?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844533</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29848887</id>
	<title>Re:McCain is wrong, not surprising at all</title>
	<author>Radical Moderate</author>
	<datestamp>1256324820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Few people have more than two ISPs to choose from.  If they both have service agreements that say they can screw you whenever they feel like it, what the hell are you supposed to do?  String your own wires?
<br> <br>
When it comes to broadband, there is no free market.  If there is no free market, there has to be regulation to protect the consumer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Few people have more than two ISPs to choose from .
If they both have service agreements that say they can screw you whenever they feel like it , what the hell are you supposed to do ?
String your own wires ?
When it comes to broadband , there is no free market .
If there is no free market , there has to be regulation to protect the consumer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Few people have more than two ISPs to choose from.
If they both have service agreements that say they can screw you whenever they feel like it, what the hell are you supposed to do?
String your own wires?
When it comes to broadband, there is no free market.
If there is no free market, there has to be regulation to protect the consumer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845453</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845217</id>
	<title>Re:McCain is right, which is surprising.</title>
	<author>visualight</author>
	<datestamp>1256308320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are confused.</p><p>It's already \_not\_ a free market, it is entirely monopolistic, and built with \_public\_ funds to boot.  Also, it's way more expensive than it should be with intentionally substandard connection speeds.</p><p>I'm not defending this particular tact by the FCC, just saying your -wait a minute have I just been trolled?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are confused.It 's already \ _not \ _ a free market , it is entirely monopolistic , and built with \ _public \ _ funds to boot .
Also , it 's way more expensive than it should be with intentionally substandard connection speeds.I 'm not defending this particular tact by the FCC , just saying your -wait a minute have I just been trolled ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are confused.It's already \_not\_ a free market, it is entirely monopolistic, and built with \_public\_ funds to boot.
Also, it's way more expensive than it should be with intentionally substandard connection speeds.I'm not defending this particular tact by the FCC, just saying your -wait a minute have I just been trolled?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844577</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844667</id>
	<title>Re:And who ...</title>
	<author>NotBornYesterday</author>
	<datestamp>1256304300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Indeed.  And what does this mean for those crappy terms-of-service "agreements"?
<br> <br>
If my ISP's TOS forbids me from running a webserver from my house over my home internet connection, but there is no government law written to prevent it, it appears at this point that this law would trump the TOS.  Of course, given the past actions of large ISPs, I wouldn't be surprised if they ignored the law and disconnected customers based on outdated TOS "agreements" (is it really an agreement if it gets shoved down your throat?) until a multi-year, multi-bazzillion dollar class-action lawsuit forced them to acquiesce.
<br> <br>
But that also begs the question, what legal status will the law give to the ISPs' TOSs?  If the law gives them legal effect, what is to prevent ISPs from circumventing net neutrality in their TOS?  For example, "by using this service, you agree to surrender your right to host websites, or offer other server-based services, through your ConGlommoISP, Inc. home account, and agree not to hold ConGlommoISP, Inc. liable in the event we disconnect you and charge you a bunch of fees up the wazoo for violating these Terms of Service."
<br> <br>
No, I didn't read the proposed law.  Yes, this might be answered in there.  I'm waiting for someone who can decipher legalese to do a more informed job than I can.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed .
And what does this mean for those crappy terms-of-service " agreements " ?
If my ISP 's TOS forbids me from running a webserver from my house over my home internet connection , but there is no government law written to prevent it , it appears at this point that this law would trump the TOS .
Of course , given the past actions of large ISPs , I would n't be surprised if they ignored the law and disconnected customers based on outdated TOS " agreements " ( is it really an agreement if it gets shoved down your throat ?
) until a multi-year , multi-bazzillion dollar class-action lawsuit forced them to acquiesce .
But that also begs the question , what legal status will the law give to the ISPs ' TOSs ?
If the law gives them legal effect , what is to prevent ISPs from circumventing net neutrality in their TOS ?
For example , " by using this service , you agree to surrender your right to host websites , or offer other server-based services , through your ConGlommoISP , Inc. home account , and agree not to hold ConGlommoISP , Inc. liable in the event we disconnect you and charge you a bunch of fees up the wazoo for violating these Terms of Service .
" No , I did n't read the proposed law .
Yes , this might be answered in there .
I 'm waiting for someone who can decipher legalese to do a more informed job than I can .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed.
And what does this mean for those crappy terms-of-service "agreements"?
If my ISP's TOS forbids me from running a webserver from my house over my home internet connection, but there is no government law written to prevent it, it appears at this point that this law would trump the TOS.
Of course, given the past actions of large ISPs, I wouldn't be surprised if they ignored the law and disconnected customers based on outdated TOS "agreements" (is it really an agreement if it gets shoved down your throat?
) until a multi-year, multi-bazzillion dollar class-action lawsuit forced them to acquiesce.
But that also begs the question, what legal status will the law give to the ISPs' TOSs?
If the law gives them legal effect, what is to prevent ISPs from circumventing net neutrality in their TOS?
For example, "by using this service, you agree to surrender your right to host websites, or offer other server-based services, through your ConGlommoISP, Inc. home account, and agree not to hold ConGlommoISP, Inc. liable in the event we disconnect you and charge you a bunch of fees up the wazoo for violating these Terms of Service.
"
 
No, I didn't read the proposed law.
Yes, this might be answered in there.
I'm waiting for someone who can decipher legalese to do a more informed job than I can.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844507</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845641</id>
	<title>Re:McCain is right, which is surprising.</title>
	<author>Malenfrant</author>
	<datestamp>1256310660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seeing how in the UK, pretty much all ISPs, the same as banks and other service providers, have a clause saying they can change the terms at will, without government intervention to prevent this you are screwed no matter how informed you are. The whole point of such laws is to prevent service providers doing such things, and is not just a good thing, but is actually necessary to protect consumers from such unscrupulous behaviour, which tends to become the norm without such intervention.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seeing how in the UK , pretty much all ISPs , the same as banks and other service providers , have a clause saying they can change the terms at will , without government intervention to prevent this you are screwed no matter how informed you are .
The whole point of such laws is to prevent service providers doing such things , and is not just a good thing , but is actually necessary to protect consumers from such unscrupulous behaviour , which tends to become the norm without such intervention .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seeing how in the UK, pretty much all ISPs, the same as banks and other service providers, have a clause saying they can change the terms at will, without government intervention to prevent this you are screwed no matter how informed you are.
The whole point of such laws is to prevent service providers doing such things, and is not just a good thing, but is actually necessary to protect consumers from such unscrupulous behaviour, which tends to become the norm without such intervention.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845453</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845301</id>
	<title>Re:And who ...</title>
	<author>Shakrai</author>
	<datestamp>1256308800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>is it really an agreement if it gets shoved down your throat?</p></div><p>Yes, because unless you were dealing with Vito Corleone, nobody <b>forced</b> you to accept it.  There's a difference between "take this or leave it, we don't care" and "either your brains or your signature will appear on this contract"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>is it really an agreement if it gets shoved down your throat ? Yes , because unless you were dealing with Vito Corleone , nobody forced you to accept it .
There 's a difference between " take this or leave it , we do n't care " and " either your brains or your signature will appear on this contract "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is it really an agreement if it gets shoved down your throat?Yes, because unless you were dealing with Vito Corleone, nobody forced you to accept it.
There's a difference between "take this or leave it, we don't care" and "either your brains or your signature will appear on this contract"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844667</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29849999</id>
	<title>Re:McCain</title>
	<author>King Coopa</author>
	<datestamp>1256329200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>McCain is an asshole from a state run by assholes and a member of a political party filled with assholes.
<br> <br>
His head has soft spot of a rotten apple.
<br> <br>
War hero my ass, the idea is to NOT GET SHOT DOWN, DIPSHIT!</htmltext>
<tokenext>McCain is an asshole from a state run by assholes and a member of a political party filled with assholes .
His head has soft spot of a rotten apple .
War hero my ass , the idea is to NOT GET SHOT DOWN , DIPSHIT !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>McCain is an asshole from a state run by assholes and a member of a political party filled with assholes.
His head has soft spot of a rotten apple.
War hero my ass, the idea is to NOT GET SHOT DOWN, DIPSHIT!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844509</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29847353</id>
	<title>Re:government?</title>
	<author>mario\_grgic</author>
	<datestamp>1256319420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your freedom of speech is guaranteed by your government and not something that is a natural outcome of competition between business entities. Many corporations would happily take it away from you (and may have tried). I just don't believe the stupidity of your opinion. The obvious contradiction in your logic is not evident to you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your freedom of speech is guaranteed by your government and not something that is a natural outcome of competition between business entities .
Many corporations would happily take it away from you ( and may have tried ) .
I just do n't believe the stupidity of your opinion .
The obvious contradiction in your logic is not evident to you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your freedom of speech is guaranteed by your government and not something that is a natural outcome of competition between business entities.
Many corporations would happily take it away from you (and may have tried).
I just don't believe the stupidity of your opinion.
The obvious contradiction in your logic is not evident to you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844765</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29848891</id>
	<title>Exploded?  Really John?</title>
	<author>orthancstone</author>
	<datestamp>1256324880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not really sure how 4 major communications players absorbing every local/smaller wireless provider (most of whom were probably already paying the bigger providers for access) is "exploding."  Sounds more like the market's proving that you need to already be the entrenched, big player to survive.
<br> <br>
Talk about a strong market surviving off of limited gov't intervention...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not really sure how 4 major communications players absorbing every local/smaller wireless provider ( most of whom were probably already paying the bigger providers for access ) is " exploding .
" Sounds more like the market 's proving that you need to already be the entrenched , big player to survive .
Talk about a strong market surviving off of limited gov't intervention.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not really sure how 4 major communications players absorbing every local/smaller wireless provider (most of whom were probably already paying the bigger providers for access) is "exploding.
"  Sounds more like the market's proving that you need to already be the entrenched, big player to survive.
Talk about a strong market surviving off of limited gov't intervention...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844607</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29847927</id>
	<title>"Harmful" is more vague</title>
	<author>wsanders</author>
	<datestamp>1256321700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's basically what you have now: "Lawful" is rather clearly defined. I'm more worried about whimsical definitions of "harm".  "Harmful" is plenty vague. Like all them VoIP packets "harming" the network, or "harming" the provider by blocking their spam and ads. Same old spit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's basically what you have now : " Lawful " is rather clearly defined .
I 'm more worried about whimsical definitions of " harm " .
" Harmful " is plenty vague .
Like all them VoIP packets " harming " the network , or " harming " the provider by blocking their spam and ads .
Same old spit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's basically what you have now: "Lawful" is rather clearly defined.
I'm more worried about whimsical definitions of "harm".
"Harmful" is plenty vague.
Like all them VoIP packets "harming" the network, or "harming" the provider by blocking their spam and ads.
Same old spit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844507</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845091</id>
	<title>Re:And who ...</title>
	<author>IBBoard</author>
	<datestamp>1256307180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That was my thought exactly with that phrasing. As it is all of the web hosts who offer the impossible (i.e. limited or extremely high limits for low costs) have a "if you're impacting performance we'll kick you off" condition. Surely "impacting performance" is 'damaging' to the network and its service, therefore all use is effectively damaging it to some degree.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That was my thought exactly with that phrasing .
As it is all of the web hosts who offer the impossible ( i.e .
limited or extremely high limits for low costs ) have a " if you 're impacting performance we 'll kick you off " condition .
Surely " impacting performance " is 'damaging ' to the network and its service , therefore all use is effectively damaging it to some degree .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That was my thought exactly with that phrasing.
As it is all of the web hosts who offer the impossible (i.e.
limited or extremely high limits for low costs) have a "if you're impacting performance we'll kick you off" condition.
Surely "impacting performance" is 'damaging' to the network and its service, therefore all use is effectively damaging it to some degree.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844737</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844967</id>
	<title>Oh, brother</title>
	<author>HangingChad</author>
	<datestamp>1256306340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>McCain called the proposed net neutrality rules a "government takeover" of the Internet.</i>
</p><p>Somebody wake up grandpa.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>McCain called the proposed net neutrality rules a " government takeover " of the Internet .
Somebody wake up grandpa .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> McCain called the proposed net neutrality rules a "government takeover" of the Internet.
Somebody wake up grandpa.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29849227</id>
	<title>Re:McCain</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256326140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean the same companies that were given TAX Payer dollars to build part of that infrastructure?  Oh, I think the 'evil' government should have something to say in terms of what they can and can't do with the resultant infrastructure WE the people gave them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean the same companies that were given TAX Payer dollars to build part of that infrastructure ?
Oh , I think the 'evil ' government should have something to say in terms of what they can and ca n't do with the resultant infrastructure WE the people gave them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean the same companies that were given TAX Payer dollars to build part of that infrastructure?
Oh, I think the 'evil' government should have something to say in terms of what they can and can't do with the resultant infrastructure WE the people gave them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29851425</id>
	<title>Re:McCain is right, which is surprising.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256291400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What if your ISP got into marketing agreement with MSNBC and throttled its competitors, including foxnews.com, so much it became almost unusable.  Would that be OK in your book?</p></div><p>No, it wouldn't be OK in my book . . . but I'd be happy to live with that before I'd be happy to have the government come to my supposed rescue on the issue. The more they get their foot in the door, the harder it is to get them off your porch . . . before you know it they're in your house, and you're making them some tea and wishing they'd just leave. They never will.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What if your ISP got into marketing agreement with MSNBC and throttled its competitors , including foxnews.com , so much it became almost unusable .
Would that be OK in your book ? No , it would n't be OK in my book .
. .
but I 'd be happy to live with that before I 'd be happy to have the government come to my supposed rescue on the issue .
The more they get their foot in the door , the harder it is to get them off your porch .
. .
before you know it they 're in your house , and you 're making them some tea and wishing they 'd just leave .
They never will .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if your ISP got into marketing agreement with MSNBC and throttled its competitors, including foxnews.com, so much it became almost unusable.
Would that be OK in your book?No, it wouldn't be OK in my book .
. .
but I'd be happy to live with that before I'd be happy to have the government come to my supposed rescue on the issue.
The more they get their foot in the door, the harder it is to get them off your porch .
. .
before you know it they're in your house, and you're making them some tea and wishing they'd just leave.
They never will.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845207</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29846729</id>
	<title>Re:And who ...</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1256316480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The same person who decides what is "harming": The one with the biggest pockets.<br>News at 11.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The same person who decides what is " harming " : The one with the biggest pockets.News at 11 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The same person who decides what is "harming": The one with the biggest pockets.News at 11.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844507</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844577</id>
	<title>McCain is right, which is surprising.</title>
	<author>will\_die</author>
	<datestamp>1256303640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>McCain is right, one of the few times, and this would affect free markets and should be stopped.<br>
As various free market groups have put out there is no evidence or even examples of a problem.  Until there is an example or even a discussion of a company going to implement something like this* there is no reason for greater government takeover of the Internet or wireless.  The only thing we are going to see from any proposal at this time less inovation and something like the CAN-SPAM law that will make it harder to get a need law passed if something does happen.<br>
<br>
*Some people having been saying that things like the international Kindle are examples that a net neutrality law needs to stop. Sorry I am not counting blocking pictures as something that ISPs should be blocked from providing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>McCain is right , one of the few times , and this would affect free markets and should be stopped .
As various free market groups have put out there is no evidence or even examples of a problem .
Until there is an example or even a discussion of a company going to implement something like this * there is no reason for greater government takeover of the Internet or wireless .
The only thing we are going to see from any proposal at this time less inovation and something like the CAN-SPAM law that will make it harder to get a need law passed if something does happen .
* Some people having been saying that things like the international Kindle are examples that a net neutrality law needs to stop .
Sorry I am not counting blocking pictures as something that ISPs should be blocked from providing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>McCain is right, one of the few times, and this would affect free markets and should be stopped.
As various free market groups have put out there is no evidence or even examples of a problem.
Until there is an example or even a discussion of a company going to implement something like this* there is no reason for greater government takeover of the Internet or wireless.
The only thing we are going to see from any proposal at this time less inovation and something like the CAN-SPAM law that will make it harder to get a need law passed if something does happen.
*Some people having been saying that things like the international Kindle are examples that a net neutrality law needs to stop.
Sorry I am not counting blocking pictures as something that ISPs should be blocked from providing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29846061</id>
	<title>Re:McCain</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256312760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mod parent up!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod parent up !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod parent up!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844779</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29846139</id>
	<title>Re:McCain</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256313300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>McCain also came out recently as a "gang of 30" member of <a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-october-14-2009/rape-nuts" title="thedailyshow.com" rel="nofollow">Pro-Rape Republicans</a> [thedailyshow.com] who simply won't recognize a good legislation if it crawled up their ass.</p></div><p>I'm sorry, I fail to get the outrage about that one.</p><p>My understanding is that any part of a contract that forbids an employee from pressing charges for illegal conduct by their employers would be null and void.  So if the contract says "you can't press charges for rape" then the court will throw that part of the contract out.</p><p>No need for new laws, no need to get government involved in drafting legal contracts between a private employer and private employee.</p><p>In short, the bill is just useless Democratic grandstanding.  It accomplishes nothing other than further bloating an already bloated and confusing legal system, and is entirely unnecessary as existing law already covers what it attempts to.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>McCain also came out recently as a " gang of 30 " member of Pro-Rape Republicans [ thedailyshow.com ] who simply wo n't recognize a good legislation if it crawled up their ass.I 'm sorry , I fail to get the outrage about that one.My understanding is that any part of a contract that forbids an employee from pressing charges for illegal conduct by their employers would be null and void .
So if the contract says " you ca n't press charges for rape " then the court will throw that part of the contract out.No need for new laws , no need to get government involved in drafting legal contracts between a private employer and private employee.In short , the bill is just useless Democratic grandstanding .
It accomplishes nothing other than further bloating an already bloated and confusing legal system , and is entirely unnecessary as existing law already covers what it attempts to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>McCain also came out recently as a "gang of 30" member of Pro-Rape Republicans [thedailyshow.com] who simply won't recognize a good legislation if it crawled up their ass.I'm sorry, I fail to get the outrage about that one.My understanding is that any part of a contract that forbids an employee from pressing charges for illegal conduct by their employers would be null and void.
So if the contract says "you can't press charges for rape" then the court will throw that part of the contract out.No need for new laws, no need to get government involved in drafting legal contracts between a private employer and private employee.In short, the bill is just useless Democratic grandstanding.
It accomplishes nothing other than further bloating an already bloated and confusing legal system, and is entirely unnecessary as existing law already covers what it attempts to.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844779</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845679</id>
	<title>This is how far 'let private sector be' went :</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1256310900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-october-14-2009/rape-nuts" title="thedailyshow.com">http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-october-14-2009/rape-nuts</a> [thedailyshow.com]</p><p>it has come to this point. because, you let those fucking republicans yelp on and on about 'letting businesses be'.</p><p>net neutrality is no different. its the freedom of internet being legalized. yet, same bastards oppose it with the same old barking.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-october-14-2009/rape-nuts [ thedailyshow.com ] it has come to this point .
because , you let those fucking republicans yelp on and on about 'letting businesses be'.net neutrality is no different .
its the freedom of internet being legalized .
yet , same bastards oppose it with the same old barking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-october-14-2009/rape-nuts [thedailyshow.com]it has come to this point.
because, you let those fucking republicans yelp on and on about 'letting businesses be'.net neutrality is no different.
its the freedom of internet being legalized.
yet, same bastards oppose it with the same old barking.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844675</id>
	<title>We need document neutrality first</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256304300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why is FCC doing its press releases in a proprietary vendor lock in format? Haven't they heard of ODF? We should demand FCC and all government agencies to release their documents in a vendor neutral or vendor agnostic format.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is FCC doing its press releases in a proprietary vendor lock in format ?
Have n't they heard of ODF ?
We should demand FCC and all government agencies to release their documents in a vendor neutral or vendor agnostic format .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is FCC doing its press releases in a proprietary vendor lock in format?
Haven't they heard of ODF?
We should demand FCC and all government agencies to release their documents in a vendor neutral or vendor agnostic format.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29848835</id>
	<title>Re:McCain is right, which is surprising.</title>
	<author>will\_die</author>
	<datestamp>1256324700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And once it actually starts happening then is the time to pass the law.  Currently the guidelines and the threat of a law are preventing companies from enacting all these rumors while they it leaves inventors who are thinking of new ideas or new services can ignore them without a worry.<br>
Until there is a problem or something beyond a bunch of people sitting around saying their may be a problem something in the future, this just a move by the FCC to get themselves in a place they have no business and probably cripple future ideas.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And once it actually starts happening then is the time to pass the law .
Currently the guidelines and the threat of a law are preventing companies from enacting all these rumors while they it leaves inventors who are thinking of new ideas or new services can ignore them without a worry .
Until there is a problem or something beyond a bunch of people sitting around saying their may be a problem something in the future , this just a move by the FCC to get themselves in a place they have no business and probably cripple future ideas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And once it actually starts happening then is the time to pass the law.
Currently the guidelines and the threat of a law are preventing companies from enacting all these rumors while they it leaves inventors who are thinking of new ideas or new services can ignore them without a worry.
Until there is a problem or something beyond a bunch of people sitting around saying their may be a problem something in the future, this just a move by the FCC to get themselves in a place they have no business and probably cripple future ideas.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845207</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844651</id>
	<title>Openoffice shows it flawlessly</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256304180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even though<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.doc format remains an abysmally poor choice for a document produced by a government agency for public distribution, the days when non-Windows users would be inconvenienced by that are long gone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even though .doc format remains an abysmally poor choice for a document produced by a government agency for public distribution , the days when non-Windows users would be inconvenienced by that are long gone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even though .doc format remains an abysmally poor choice for a document produced by a government agency for public distribution, the days when non-Windows users would be inconvenienced by that are long gone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844689</id>
	<title>Re:McCain is right, which is surprising.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256304420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you forgot the sarcasm tags.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you forgot the sarcasm tags .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you forgot the sarcasm tags.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844577</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29847291</id>
	<title>Re:And who ...</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1256319180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think his point was more along the lines of: The ToS of many ISPs is a violation of the proposed net neutrality laws. It doesn't matter if they had you sign an agreement... you CANNOT sign an agreement allowing someone else to violate federal law. Unless your name starts with O and ends in bama. If that were the case we'd see all kinds of fun ToS agreements.<br> <br>"By checking this box you knowingly allow me to rob any bank in California without repercussion."</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think his point was more along the lines of : The ToS of many ISPs is a violation of the proposed net neutrality laws .
It does n't matter if they had you sign an agreement... you CAN NOT sign an agreement allowing someone else to violate federal law .
Unless your name starts with O and ends in bama .
If that were the case we 'd see all kinds of fun ToS agreements .
" By checking this box you knowingly allow me to rob any bank in California without repercussion .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think his point was more along the lines of: The ToS of many ISPs is a violation of the proposed net neutrality laws.
It doesn't matter if they had you sign an agreement... you CANNOT sign an agreement allowing someone else to violate federal law.
Unless your name starts with O and ends in bama.
If that were the case we'd see all kinds of fun ToS agreements.
"By checking this box you knowingly allow me to rob any bank in California without repercussion.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845301</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29851037</id>
	<title>Re:Camels Nose in the Tent</title>
	<author>AlamedaStone</author>
	<datestamp>1256289900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Once you establish that the FCC has the power to regulate the internet, even if the initial regulation is something you approve of, you're likely to find they start using that newly established power in ways you most decidedly do not approve of.</p><p>Calling in the government to deal with something that is really only a potential (rather than actual) problem at this point is liable to end up being a long term loss for internet freedom.</p></div><p>Setting aside the falibility of a slippery-slope argument, the worst the US can do is shoot its own networks in the foot. The rest of the world will just shake their heads and go on while we (continue to) secure ourselves behind the Great Red White and Blue Wall.</p><p>Let's get real, the US government already believes it has the power to regulate the internet. This isn't new. The FCC has long been a thorn in the side of free speech. Should we discourage regulation that tries to secure the speech of our future?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Once you establish that the FCC has the power to regulate the internet , even if the initial regulation is something you approve of , you 're likely to find they start using that newly established power in ways you most decidedly do not approve of.Calling in the government to deal with something that is really only a potential ( rather than actual ) problem at this point is liable to end up being a long term loss for internet freedom.Setting aside the falibility of a slippery-slope argument , the worst the US can do is shoot its own networks in the foot .
The rest of the world will just shake their heads and go on while we ( continue to ) secure ourselves behind the Great Red White and Blue Wall.Let 's get real , the US government already believes it has the power to regulate the internet .
This is n't new .
The FCC has long been a thorn in the side of free speech .
Should we discourage regulation that tries to secure the speech of our future ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once you establish that the FCC has the power to regulate the internet, even if the initial regulation is something you approve of, you're likely to find they start using that newly established power in ways you most decidedly do not approve of.Calling in the government to deal with something that is really only a potential (rather than actual) problem at this point is liable to end up being a long term loss for internet freedom.Setting aside the falibility of a slippery-slope argument, the worst the US can do is shoot its own networks in the foot.
The rest of the world will just shake their heads and go on while we (continue to) secure ourselves behind the Great Red White and Blue Wall.Let's get real, the US government already believes it has the power to regulate the internet.
This isn't new.
The FCC has long been a thorn in the side of free speech.
Should we discourage regulation that tries to secure the speech of our future?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845741</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29849103</id>
	<title>Re:"Lawful uses"</title>
	<author>T Murphy</author>
	<datestamp>1256325720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I guess that concern comes down to whether you want Congress or the courts to define the specifics on net neutrality.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess that concern comes down to whether you want Congress or the courts to define the specifics on net neutrality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess that concern comes down to whether you want Congress or the courts to define the specifics on net neutrality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844835</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844737</id>
	<title>Re:And who ...</title>
	<author>ircmaxell</author>
	<datestamp>1256304840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Forget the lawful part.  Who decides what's damaging to the network!  Could an ISP suddenly declare that more than 1\% usage of a pipe over the course of a month is considered damaging? <br> <br>AT&amp;T already does it for their mobile broadband cards (According to them 3gb per month is excessive.  So 3gb/month over a 2mbit line (It is more, I know) is only 0.45\%)...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Forget the lawful part .
Who decides what 's damaging to the network !
Could an ISP suddenly declare that more than 1 \ % usage of a pipe over the course of a month is considered damaging ?
AT&amp;T already does it for their mobile broadband cards ( According to them 3gb per month is excessive .
So 3gb/month over a 2mbit line ( It is more , I know ) is only 0.45 \ % ) .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Forget the lawful part.
Who decides what's damaging to the network!
Could an ISP suddenly declare that more than 1\% usage of a pipe over the course of a month is considered damaging?
AT&amp;T already does it for their mobile broadband cards (According to them 3gb per month is excessive.
So 3gb/month over a 2mbit line (It is more, I know) is only 0.45\%)...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844507</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844835</id>
	<title>"Lawful uses"</title>
	<author>surmak</author>
	<datestamp>1256305500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder how they plan to enforce the "lawful uses"/"lawful content" clause.  That could turn out to be a hole big enough to drive a truck through.  What if the providers say that the only way to insure that legal content is available to to limit access to the few sites that they have vetted and partnered with.</p><p>I can fully understand giving ISPs the right a prevent DDOS and other attacks on the network, but the enforcement of what is lawful should be limited to that, and not be a license or directive to police the sites and protocols allowed on a network.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder how they plan to enforce the " lawful uses " / " lawful content " clause .
That could turn out to be a hole big enough to drive a truck through .
What if the providers say that the only way to insure that legal content is available to to limit access to the few sites that they have vetted and partnered with.I can fully understand giving ISPs the right a prevent DDOS and other attacks on the network , but the enforcement of what is lawful should be limited to that , and not be a license or directive to police the sites and protocols allowed on a network .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder how they plan to enforce the "lawful uses"/"lawful content" clause.
That could turn out to be a hole big enough to drive a truck through.
What if the providers say that the only way to insure that legal content is available to to limit access to the few sites that they have vetted and partnered with.I can fully understand giving ISPs the right a prevent DDOS and other attacks on the network, but the enforcement of what is lawful should be limited to that, and not be a license or directive to police the sites and protocols allowed on a network.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845027</id>
	<title>What Infrastructure Investments?</title>
	<author>ratboy666</author>
	<datestamp>1256306760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure, those "large companies" can (and did) cut their infrastructure investments... but those investments were paid by public money.</p><p>You are not legally allowed to dig your own cables -- Easements were given by the government to the incumbents.</p><p>So, tell me again how the government ISN'T involved?</p><p>Personally, I don't like to bail on something I have already paid for, but I don't need the Internet "24/7" that much. I can easily deal with "web by mail" and UUCP, or even data transfer via "truck of tapes" again. Strangely enough, if hackers go that route, AND we control the "good stuff" -- that is, the good pirated music/videos and technical information, the "Internet" will go down that path instead.</p><p>Which puts the attempted controls by the "other" cartel at risk. Basically, the content cartel wants a centralized Internet, if there is an Internet at all. The delivery cartel wants to put road-blocks into that centralized Internet, to maximize their profits. The hackers are willing to Balkanize the Internet, screwing both of the cartels.</p><p>The "end-users" really want the product the hackers produce.</p><p>You tell me how this plays out...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , those " large companies " can ( and did ) cut their infrastructure investments... but those investments were paid by public money.You are not legally allowed to dig your own cables -- Easements were given by the government to the incumbents.So , tell me again how the government IS N'T involved ? Personally , I do n't like to bail on something I have already paid for , but I do n't need the Internet " 24/7 " that much .
I can easily deal with " web by mail " and UUCP , or even data transfer via " truck of tapes " again .
Strangely enough , if hackers go that route , AND we control the " good stuff " -- that is , the good pirated music/videos and technical information , the " Internet " will go down that path instead.Which puts the attempted controls by the " other " cartel at risk .
Basically , the content cartel wants a centralized Internet , if there is an Internet at all .
The delivery cartel wants to put road-blocks into that centralized Internet , to maximize their profits .
The hackers are willing to Balkanize the Internet , screwing both of the cartels.The " end-users " really want the product the hackers produce.You tell me how this plays out.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, those "large companies" can (and did) cut their infrastructure investments... but those investments were paid by public money.You are not legally allowed to dig your own cables -- Easements were given by the government to the incumbents.So, tell me again how the government ISN'T involved?Personally, I don't like to bail on something I have already paid for, but I don't need the Internet "24/7" that much.
I can easily deal with "web by mail" and UUCP, or even data transfer via "truck of tapes" again.
Strangely enough, if hackers go that route, AND we control the "good stuff" -- that is, the good pirated music/videos and technical information, the "Internet" will go down that path instead.Which puts the attempted controls by the "other" cartel at risk.
Basically, the content cartel wants a centralized Internet, if there is an Internet at all.
The delivery cartel wants to put road-blocks into that centralized Internet, to maximize their profits.
The hackers are willing to Balkanize the Internet, screwing both of the cartels.The "end-users" really want the product the hackers produce.You tell me how this plays out...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844871</id>
	<title>GURBAMINT TAKEOVER!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256305680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gurbamint takeover! Gurbamint takeover! Run run! Free murkits, not duh soh-shul-izzum! Gurbamint!</p><p>Hey everybody, look! I'm a Republican! I'm dumb enough to believe that corporations can police themselves! Never mind that with the hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies and land grants we give to the telcos, they might as well be publicly owned. Also never mind that when it comes to abusing their monopoly power to restrict 'lawful' content, double-dip with bandwidth fees, and send rates skyrocketing for practically everybody, the telcos have been giddy with anticipation. This isn't about being tech savvy, Ted Stevens already embarrassed his party enough over that. This is about having the common sense to realize that a major piece of essential infrastructure the public has had an enormous role in building - which is now subject to abject mismanagement, worsening obsolescence, and a total dearth of competition thanks to the companies that are now in charge of it - should be subject to some simple rules to make sure it continues functioning as desired - by us.</p><p>In conservative la-la land, capitalism is only fair if you can't ask for lube while the rich skullfuck you. Maybe we should start asking for all that subsidy money back, especially for the shit the telcos never intended to deliver.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gurbamint takeover !
Gurbamint takeover !
Run run !
Free murkits , not duh soh-shul-izzum !
Gurbamint ! Hey everybody , look !
I 'm a Republican !
I 'm dumb enough to believe that corporations can police themselves !
Never mind that with the hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies and land grants we give to the telcos , they might as well be publicly owned .
Also never mind that when it comes to abusing their monopoly power to restrict 'lawful ' content , double-dip with bandwidth fees , and send rates skyrocketing for practically everybody , the telcos have been giddy with anticipation .
This is n't about being tech savvy , Ted Stevens already embarrassed his party enough over that .
This is about having the common sense to realize that a major piece of essential infrastructure the public has had an enormous role in building - which is now subject to abject mismanagement , worsening obsolescence , and a total dearth of competition thanks to the companies that are now in charge of it - should be subject to some simple rules to make sure it continues functioning as desired - by us.In conservative la-la land , capitalism is only fair if you ca n't ask for lube while the rich skullfuck you .
Maybe we should start asking for all that subsidy money back , especially for the shit the telcos never intended to deliver .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gurbamint takeover!
Gurbamint takeover!
Run run!
Free murkits, not duh soh-shul-izzum!
Gurbamint!Hey everybody, look!
I'm a Republican!
I'm dumb enough to believe that corporations can police themselves!
Never mind that with the hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies and land grants we give to the telcos, they might as well be publicly owned.
Also never mind that when it comes to abusing their monopoly power to restrict 'lawful' content, double-dip with bandwidth fees, and send rates skyrocketing for practically everybody, the telcos have been giddy with anticipation.
This isn't about being tech savvy, Ted Stevens already embarrassed his party enough over that.
This is about having the common sense to realize that a major piece of essential infrastructure the public has had an enormous role in building - which is now subject to abject mismanagement, worsening obsolescence, and a total dearth of competition thanks to the companies that are now in charge of it - should be subject to some simple rules to make sure it continues functioning as desired - by us.In conservative la-la land, capitalism is only fair if you can't ask for lube while the rich skullfuck you.
Maybe we should start asking for all that subsidy money back, especially for the shit the telcos never intended to deliver.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844885</id>
	<title>Re:government?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256305800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>LOL there is no such thing as pro-abortion</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>LOL there is no such thing as pro-abortion</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LOL there is no such thing as pro-abortion</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844765</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845153</id>
	<title>Re:government?</title>
	<author>Dragonslicer</author>
	<datestamp>1256307660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The libertarian side of me gets really worried when the government gets involved in anything that says "neutrality"
I'm sorry, but freedom of speech is freedom of speech...PERIOD!</p></div><p>Maybe I'm being naive, but isn't the ultimate goal of Network Neutrality to ensure that people have the freedom to use their Internet connections however they want, without some entity between the endpoints interfering solely for that entity's financial gain?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The libertarian side of me gets really worried when the government gets involved in anything that says " neutrality " I 'm sorry , but freedom of speech is freedom of speech...PERIOD ! Maybe I 'm being naive , but is n't the ultimate goal of Network Neutrality to ensure that people have the freedom to use their Internet connections however they want , without some entity between the endpoints interfering solely for that entity 's financial gain ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The libertarian side of me gets really worried when the government gets involved in anything that says "neutrality"
I'm sorry, but freedom of speech is freedom of speech...PERIOD!Maybe I'm being naive, but isn't the ultimate goal of Network Neutrality to ensure that people have the freedom to use their Internet connections however they want, without some entity between the endpoints interfering solely for that entity's financial gain?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844765</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844585</id>
	<title>Government takeover</title>
	<author>Errol backfiring</author>
	<datestamp>1256303760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>McCain called the proposed net neutrality rules a "government takeover" of the Internet.</p></div><p>Does he have a problem with that then? Is the Echelon <em>not</em> a government takeover? Is ACTA <em>not</em> a government takeover?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>McCain called the proposed net neutrality rules a " government takeover " of the Internet.Does he have a problem with that then ?
Is the Echelon not a government takeover ?
Is ACTA not a government takeover ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>McCain called the proposed net neutrality rules a "government takeover" of the Internet.Does he have a problem with that then?
Is the Echelon not a government takeover?
Is ACTA not a government takeover?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845711</id>
	<title>The battle is lost</title>
	<author>mario\_grgic</author>
	<datestamp>1256310960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With comments like these:</p><p><a href="http://blog.openinternet.gov/?p=1&amp;cpage=128" title="openinternet.gov">http://blog.openinternet.gov/?p=1&amp;cpage=128</a> [openinternet.gov]</p><p>I think it's game over for net neutrality in the USA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With comments like these : http : //blog.openinternet.gov/ ? p = 1&amp;cpage = 128 [ openinternet.gov ] I think it 's game over for net neutrality in the USA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With comments like these:http://blog.openinternet.gov/?p=1&amp;cpage=128 [openinternet.gov]I think it's game over for net neutrality in the USA.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844639</id>
	<title>Re:And who ...</title>
	<author>piotru</author>
	<datestamp>1256304120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More important: Who checks the content for "lawful" or "not lawful"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More important : Who checks the content for " lawful " or " not lawful " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More important: Who checks the content for "lawful" or "not lawful"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844507</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29851651</id>
	<title>Re:government?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256292240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Forget it... seems like Libertarians are as blind as Mac zealots... (or any zealots for that matter)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Forget it... seems like Libertarians are as blind as Mac zealots... ( or any zealots for that matter )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Forget it... seems like Libertarians are as blind as Mac zealots... (or any zealots for that matter)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845153</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844561</id>
	<title>Drudge</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256303520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This article was linked on the Drudge Report as "Julius [Caeser, implied] wants to regulate the internet."</p><p>I consider it, rather, a common carrier issue, akin to the situation we had with the railways 100 years ago - they were able to leverage their power over transit into other areas. You know, like how Microsoft used its OS dominance to destroy a rival in another field (web browsers). While all the networks are crying out that its a solution in need of a problem, the whole issue was <i>raised</i> because the telco's all started talking excitedly about how they could do all sorts of shady things, like double-dipping for bandwidth charges, that network neutrality would stop.</p><p>I'm a libertarian, and I support net neutrality, since oligopolies are market failures (see for example the price of cell phones in America over time). The actual implementation? Seems to actually have too many loopholes to me. They can, for example, tier service in order to deal with "net congestion". Hah.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This article was linked on the Drudge Report as " Julius [ Caeser , implied ] wants to regulate the internet .
" I consider it , rather , a common carrier issue , akin to the situation we had with the railways 100 years ago - they were able to leverage their power over transit into other areas .
You know , like how Microsoft used its OS dominance to destroy a rival in another field ( web browsers ) .
While all the networks are crying out that its a solution in need of a problem , the whole issue was raised because the telco 's all started talking excitedly about how they could do all sorts of shady things , like double-dipping for bandwidth charges , that network neutrality would stop.I 'm a libertarian , and I support net neutrality , since oligopolies are market failures ( see for example the price of cell phones in America over time ) .
The actual implementation ?
Seems to actually have too many loopholes to me .
They can , for example , tier service in order to deal with " net congestion " .
Hah .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This article was linked on the Drudge Report as "Julius [Caeser, implied] wants to regulate the internet.
"I consider it, rather, a common carrier issue, akin to the situation we had with the railways 100 years ago - they were able to leverage their power over transit into other areas.
You know, like how Microsoft used its OS dominance to destroy a rival in another field (web browsers).
While all the networks are crying out that its a solution in need of a problem, the whole issue was raised because the telco's all started talking excitedly about how they could do all sorts of shady things, like double-dipping for bandwidth charges, that network neutrality would stop.I'm a libertarian, and I support net neutrality, since oligopolies are market failures (see for example the price of cell phones in America over time).
The actual implementation?
Seems to actually have too many loopholes to me.
They can, for example, tier service in order to deal with "net congestion".
Hah.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844615</id>
	<title>a "government takeover" of the Internet.</title>
	<author>wiredog</author>
	<datestamp>1256304060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah.  Next thing you know the feds will be trying to take over medicare.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah .
Next thing you know the feds will be trying to take over medicare .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah.
Next thing you know the feds will be trying to take over medicare.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29846091</id>
	<title>Re:Drudge</title>
	<author>Curunir\_wolf</author>
	<datestamp>1256313000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I <a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1406601&amp;cid=29765837" title="slashdot.org">commented on this before.</a> [slashdot.org] </p><p>Basically, I'm more frightened by the current administration's plans for "what to do about the Internet" than I am the ISP's plans.  Especially when you start finding "dangerous speech" on the Internet, and classifying certain groups as "hate groups" just because you disagree with them.  For instance, the Southern Poverty Law Center has now decided that <a href="http://oathkeepers.org/oath/" title="oathkeepers.org"> the Oath Keepers organization </a> [oathkeepers.org] is a <a href="http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2009/10/21/oath-keepers-say-theyre-on-patrol-in-iraq/" title="splcenter.org"> is a hate group.</a> [splcenter.org]  What's to prevent the FCC from declaring that "hate speech" is not "legal content", and shutting down access to that site.
</p><p>Check out my other post with links to HR 3458 and the "Cybersecurity Act".  There are lots of plans for deeper and deeper regulation of Internet traffic that, frankly, should be frightening to anyone that wants to keep the networks free from interference.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I commented on this before .
[ slashdot.org ] Basically , I 'm more frightened by the current administration 's plans for " what to do about the Internet " than I am the ISP 's plans .
Especially when you start finding " dangerous speech " on the Internet , and classifying certain groups as " hate groups " just because you disagree with them .
For instance , the Southern Poverty Law Center has now decided that the Oath Keepers organization [ oathkeepers.org ] is a is a hate group .
[ splcenter.org ] What 's to prevent the FCC from declaring that " hate speech " is not " legal content " , and shutting down access to that site .
Check out my other post with links to HR 3458 and the " Cybersecurity Act " .
There are lots of plans for deeper and deeper regulation of Internet traffic that , frankly , should be frightening to anyone that wants to keep the networks free from interference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I commented on this before.
[slashdot.org] Basically, I'm more frightened by the current administration's plans for "what to do about the Internet" than I am the ISP's plans.
Especially when you start finding "dangerous speech" on the Internet, and classifying certain groups as "hate groups" just because you disagree with them.
For instance, the Southern Poverty Law Center has now decided that  the Oath Keepers organization  [oathkeepers.org] is a  is a hate group.
[splcenter.org]  What's to prevent the FCC from declaring that "hate speech" is not "legal content", and shutting down access to that site.
Check out my other post with links to HR 3458 and the "Cybersecurity Act".
There are lots of plans for deeper and deeper regulation of Internet traffic that, frankly, should be frightening to anyone that wants to keep the networks free from interference.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844561</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845355</id>
	<title>Re:McCain</title>
	<author>Richard\_at\_work</author>
	<datestamp>1256309160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Authority comes from the entities mandate in law, not its title.  Does the FCCs mandate extend to the internet?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Authority comes from the entities mandate in law , not its title .
Does the FCCs mandate extend to the internet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Authority comes from the entities mandate in law, not its title.
Does the FCCs mandate extend to the internet?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845043</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845869</id>
	<title>Why the warning about MS Word Document?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256311740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh no, the industry standard for documents is used! Seems a bit silly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh no , the industry standard for documents is used !
Seems a bit silly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh no, the industry standard for documents is used!
Seems a bit silly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29846347</id>
	<title>Re:And who ...</title>
	<author>Demonantis</author>
	<datestamp>1256314440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I suspect the TOS could be argued that it is infringing on your rights afforded by law making it null and void. That is why warranties always mention that the law trumps them when it does so it doesn't nullify the agreement. Plus there is some case law like the My Space case that got thrown out. Of course I am just guessing so I might be wrong.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I suspect the TOS could be argued that it is infringing on your rights afforded by law making it null and void .
That is why warranties always mention that the law trumps them when it does so it does n't nullify the agreement .
Plus there is some case law like the My Space case that got thrown out .
Of course I am just guessing so I might be wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suspect the TOS could be argued that it is infringing on your rights afforded by law making it null and void.
That is why warranties always mention that the law trumps them when it does so it doesn't nullify the agreement.
Plus there is some case law like the My Space case that got thrown out.
Of course I am just guessing so I might be wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844667</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844945</id>
	<title>You could pilot the Titanic through that loophole</title>
	<author>onyxruby</author>
	<datestamp>1256306220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Allowed to throttle content that is not legal". That loophole is big enough to pilot the Titanic through. That could easily be interpreted to block everything from p2p traffic to VOIP. This loophole would flat kill P2P in entirety and severely hurt VOIP and all with the ISP's having governments blessings. Many things are legal in one country and not in another.</p><p>This loophole needs removed in entirety for all such rules, I can guarantee you that any type of traffic you can think of is illegal, somewhere (Dutch trying to shutdown Swedish P2P, nazi artifacts illegal in France, most newspapers are illegal in certain hardline islamic countries and so on). The Internet is international by nature, it needs to be a neutral platform for the sake of international peace. If someone is breaking a local law (kiddie porn or the like), we already have plenty of laws to send them to prison as needed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Allowed to throttle content that is not legal " .
That loophole is big enough to pilot the Titanic through .
That could easily be interpreted to block everything from p2p traffic to VOIP .
This loophole would flat kill P2P in entirety and severely hurt VOIP and all with the ISP 's having governments blessings .
Many things are legal in one country and not in another.This loophole needs removed in entirety for all such rules , I can guarantee you that any type of traffic you can think of is illegal , somewhere ( Dutch trying to shutdown Swedish P2P , nazi artifacts illegal in France , most newspapers are illegal in certain hardline islamic countries and so on ) .
The Internet is international by nature , it needs to be a neutral platform for the sake of international peace .
If someone is breaking a local law ( kiddie porn or the like ) , we already have plenty of laws to send them to prison as needed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Allowed to throttle content that is not legal".
That loophole is big enough to pilot the Titanic through.
That could easily be interpreted to block everything from p2p traffic to VOIP.
This loophole would flat kill P2P in entirety and severely hurt VOIP and all with the ISP's having governments blessings.
Many things are legal in one country and not in another.This loophole needs removed in entirety for all such rules, I can guarantee you that any type of traffic you can think of is illegal, somewhere (Dutch trying to shutdown Swedish P2P, nazi artifacts illegal in France, most newspapers are illegal in certain hardline islamic countries and so on).
The Internet is international by nature, it needs to be a neutral platform for the sake of international peace.
If someone is breaking a local law (kiddie porn or the like), we already have plenty of laws to send them to prison as needed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29846081</id>
	<title>Praise the Lode and pass the wifi netbook.</title>
	<author>Snufu</author>
	<datestamp>1256312880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>  McCain called the proposed net neutrality rules a "government takeover" of the Internet.</p></div><p>

Keep the durned gub'ment out of my interwebs! <br> Except, you know, the part about how the gub'ment funded its invention and development, and made the internet widespread and accessible. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History\_of\_the\_Internet" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History\_of\_the\_Internet</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>McCain called the proposed net neutrality rules a " government takeover " of the Internet .
Keep the durned gub'ment out of my interwebs !
Except , you know , the part about how the gub'ment funded its invention and development , and made the internet widespread and accessible .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History \ _of \ _the \ _Internet [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  McCain called the proposed net neutrality rules a "government takeover" of the Internet.
Keep the durned gub'ment out of my interwebs!
Except, you know, the part about how the gub'ment funded its invention and development, and made the internet widespread and accessible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History\_of\_the\_Internet [wikipedia.org]
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845123</id>
	<title>It says a lot</title>
	<author>Dunbal</author>
	<datestamp>1256307420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just the fact that their press release is in Microsoft Word format says a lot about what we can expect for so called "net neutrality".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just the fact that their press release is in Microsoft Word format says a lot about what we can expect for so called " net neutrality " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just the fact that their press release is in Microsoft Word format says a lot about what we can expect for so called "net neutrality".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845213</id>
	<title>FIGHT THE IDIOT, MORON, DEMOCRAT NET NEUTRALITY!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256308320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What is it with the idiot, moron, Marxist, democrats?  They seem to think that any business model other than "give things and services away for free, by taxing the living daylights out of the populace" is an evil business that needs to be changed!</p><p>It is obvious to anyone that engages their brain, thinks, and actually researches the news of the day - both sides of the argument, that the programs and policies of the democrats (Marxists, socialists, progressives, etc.) ARE the policies, laws, etc., that are leading to the destruction of the United States economy!</p><p>It is plainly obvious that the words and actions of the democrats (Marxists, socialists, progressives, etc.) ARE transparent - their lies, greed, graft, corruption, etc. are plainly obvious!</p><p>WRITE YOUR CONGRESSMEN AND TELL THEM THAT NET NEUTRALITY NEEDS TO BE STOPPED!!</p><p>Tell them that all democrats need to be impeached and removed from office.  Then the independants, communists and finally the republicans.</p><p>Tell them that they need to stop spending NOW.  That the Government Accounting Office (GAO) has recently said that the current spending levels ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE!  Translated for the idiot, moron deomcrats, that means THE VALUE OF THE DOLLAR FALLS TO NOTHING!!!</p><p>Tell them that Americans DO NOT WANT HEALTHCARE FROM THE GOVERNMENT!  Because we know that all government programs prove that the government can not operate within budget!  They continually drive up costs and reduce service!  THAT IS PRECISELY WHY PRIVATE COMPANIES DO SO WELL!!!!  Because the government fails and the private sector takes the same thing and excells!</p><p>Tell them that WE WANT ENFORCEMENT OF CURRENT IMMIRATION LAWS AND THE REMOVAL OF "SANCTUARY CITIES"!  Illegal aliens are just that - ILLEGAL!!!  DEPORT THEM!!  and the children of illegals should not have automatic U.S. citizenship!!!</p><p>Tell them to REMOVE THE CZARS!!!!  They do not have congressional oversight and they are not needed!!!</p><p>Tell them to reverse all bills that have been passed into law since the innaguration!  They have all been perverted by items attached by democrats and are either wastefully spending our hard earned tax dollars, foolsihly reducing the strength of the dollar and our millitary or are otherwise bad of The United States.</p><p>Tell them to vote NO for any democrat bill - they are all corrupt!</p><p>Tell tehm to pay down the deficit!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What is it with the idiot , moron , Marxist , democrats ?
They seem to think that any business model other than " give things and services away for free , by taxing the living daylights out of the populace " is an evil business that needs to be changed ! It is obvious to anyone that engages their brain , thinks , and actually researches the news of the day - both sides of the argument , that the programs and policies of the democrats ( Marxists , socialists , progressives , etc .
) ARE the policies , laws , etc. , that are leading to the destruction of the United States economy ! It is plainly obvious that the words and actions of the democrats ( Marxists , socialists , progressives , etc .
) ARE transparent - their lies , greed , graft , corruption , etc .
are plainly obvious ! WRITE YOUR CONGRESSMEN AND TELL THEM THAT NET NEUTRALITY NEEDS TO BE STOPPED !
! Tell them that all democrats need to be impeached and removed from office .
Then the independants , communists and finally the republicans.Tell them that they need to stop spending NOW .
That the Government Accounting Office ( GAO ) has recently said that the current spending levels ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE !
Translated for the idiot , moron deomcrats , that means THE VALUE OF THE DOLLAR FALLS TO NOTHING ! !
! Tell them that Americans DO NOT WANT HEALTHCARE FROM THE GOVERNMENT !
Because we know that all government programs prove that the government can not operate within budget !
They continually drive up costs and reduce service !
THAT IS PRECISELY WHY PRIVATE COMPANIES DO SO WELL ! ! ! !
Because the government fails and the private sector takes the same thing and excells ! Tell them that WE WANT ENFORCEMENT OF CURRENT IMMIRATION LAWS AND THE REMOVAL OF " SANCTUARY CITIES " !
Illegal aliens are just that - ILLEGAL ! ! !
DEPORT THEM ! !
and the children of illegals should not have automatic U.S .
citizenship ! ! ! Tell them to REMOVE THE CZARS ! ! ! !
They do not have congressional oversight and they are not needed ! !
! Tell them to reverse all bills that have been passed into law since the innaguration !
They have all been perverted by items attached by democrats and are either wastefully spending our hard earned tax dollars , foolsihly reducing the strength of the dollar and our millitary or are otherwise bad of The United States.Tell them to vote NO for any democrat bill - they are all corrupt ! Tell tehm to pay down the deficit !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is it with the idiot, moron, Marxist, democrats?
They seem to think that any business model other than "give things and services away for free, by taxing the living daylights out of the populace" is an evil business that needs to be changed!It is obvious to anyone that engages their brain, thinks, and actually researches the news of the day - both sides of the argument, that the programs and policies of the democrats (Marxists, socialists, progressives, etc.
) ARE the policies, laws, etc., that are leading to the destruction of the United States economy!It is plainly obvious that the words and actions of the democrats (Marxists, socialists, progressives, etc.
) ARE transparent - their lies, greed, graft, corruption, etc.
are plainly obvious!WRITE YOUR CONGRESSMEN AND TELL THEM THAT NET NEUTRALITY NEEDS TO BE STOPPED!
!Tell them that all democrats need to be impeached and removed from office.
Then the independants, communists and finally the republicans.Tell them that they need to stop spending NOW.
That the Government Accounting Office (GAO) has recently said that the current spending levels ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE!
Translated for the idiot, moron deomcrats, that means THE VALUE OF THE DOLLAR FALLS TO NOTHING!!
!Tell them that Americans DO NOT WANT HEALTHCARE FROM THE GOVERNMENT!
Because we know that all government programs prove that the government can not operate within budget!
They continually drive up costs and reduce service!
THAT IS PRECISELY WHY PRIVATE COMPANIES DO SO WELL!!!!
Because the government fails and the private sector takes the same thing and excells!Tell them that WE WANT ENFORCEMENT OF CURRENT IMMIRATION LAWS AND THE REMOVAL OF "SANCTUARY CITIES"!
Illegal aliens are just that - ILLEGAL!!!
DEPORT THEM!!
and the children of illegals should not have automatic U.S.
citizenship!!!Tell them to REMOVE THE CZARS!!!!
They do not have congressional oversight and they are not needed!!
!Tell them to reverse all bills that have been passed into law since the innaguration!
They have all been perverted by items attached by democrats and are either wastefully spending our hard earned tax dollars, foolsihly reducing the strength of the dollar and our millitary or are otherwise bad of The United States.Tell them to vote NO for any democrat bill - they are all corrupt!Tell tehm to pay down the deficit!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844949</id>
	<title>"lawful applications", "lawful services" and also</title>
	<author>Joe The Dragon</author>
	<datestamp>1256306220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"lawful applications", "lawful services" and also be used for unlawful things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" lawful applications " , " lawful services " and also be used for unlawful things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"lawful applications", "lawful services" and also be used for unlawful things.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844847</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844663</id>
	<title>Re:McCain</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256304300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's interesting how he works.  He was the fellow that introduced the bill to force libraries and schools to install Internet filters (by threatening their funding) -- filters that often didn't work properly.</p><p>Apparently, putting mandatory restrictions on the Internet doesn't count as a government takeover, whereas maintaining the more-or-less even playing field of the Internet does.  Or this is just more of that nonsense about how any activity the Democrats do is socialist, communist, taking away freedom, etc.</p><p>I'm embarrassed that I supported this guy for President in 2000, even if only until the above information came to my attention.  Can we just figure out how to keep the Internet more or less like it's been?  It's brought a lot of fun and a lot of money to people as-is, and that's only gonna get better if the people running the series of tubes continue to have reason to upgrade them once in a while.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's interesting how he works .
He was the fellow that introduced the bill to force libraries and schools to install Internet filters ( by threatening their funding ) -- filters that often did n't work properly.Apparently , putting mandatory restrictions on the Internet does n't count as a government takeover , whereas maintaining the more-or-less even playing field of the Internet does .
Or this is just more of that nonsense about how any activity the Democrats do is socialist , communist , taking away freedom , etc.I 'm embarrassed that I supported this guy for President in 2000 , even if only until the above information came to my attention .
Can we just figure out how to keep the Internet more or less like it 's been ?
It 's brought a lot of fun and a lot of money to people as-is , and that 's only gon na get better if the people running the series of tubes continue to have reason to upgrade them once in a while .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's interesting how he works.
He was the fellow that introduced the bill to force libraries and schools to install Internet filters (by threatening their funding) -- filters that often didn't work properly.Apparently, putting mandatory restrictions on the Internet doesn't count as a government takeover, whereas maintaining the more-or-less even playing field of the Internet does.
Or this is just more of that nonsense about how any activity the Democrats do is socialist, communist, taking away freedom, etc.I'm embarrassed that I supported this guy for President in 2000, even if only until the above information came to my attention.
Can we just figure out how to keep the Internet more or less like it's been?
It's brought a lot of fun and a lot of money to people as-is, and that's only gonna get better if the people running the series of tubes continue to have reason to upgrade them once in a while.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844509</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844711</id>
	<title>Re:McCain</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256304600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually McCain has a point, the FCC has no authority to regulate the internet.  The internet is and has been doing just fine without government intervention adding government regulation into the mix will stifle innovation, the little companies the net-neutrality is designed for will not invest in infrastructure they don't have the capital and the evil large companies will have to cut infrastructure investments to compete with the small companies who use their infrastructure for free.  The Good Intentions of net-neutrality will have grave consequences.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually McCain has a point , the FCC has no authority to regulate the internet .
The internet is and has been doing just fine without government intervention adding government regulation into the mix will stifle innovation , the little companies the net-neutrality is designed for will not invest in infrastructure they do n't have the capital and the evil large companies will have to cut infrastructure investments to compete with the small companies who use their infrastructure for free .
The Good Intentions of net-neutrality will have grave consequences .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually McCain has a point, the FCC has no authority to regulate the internet.
The internet is and has been doing just fine without government intervention adding government regulation into the mix will stifle innovation, the little companies the net-neutrality is designed for will not invest in infrastructure they don't have the capital and the evil large companies will have to cut infrastructure investments to compete with the small companies who use their infrastructure for free.
The Good Intentions of net-neutrality will have grave consequences.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844509</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844847</id>
	<title>Something about this bugs me</title>
	<author>davide marney</author>
	<datestamp>1256305620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The proposed rules only apply to "lawful content", "lawful applications", "lawful services", and "lawful devices".  I'm not sure what I think about this.  By way of analogy, do we have laws for our public highway system that limits our use of the road based on what <i>content</i> we carry in our vehicles?  Is our use of the roadway illegal if we intend to use something we're carrying for an <i>evil purpose or application</i>?  I can see where my vehicle (device) might be unlawfully configured (over the maximum weight limit, for example), and that might be analogous to a lawful network device, but even then, only in so far as it affects use of the network itself, not in any other context.</p><p>Why do we need this automatic extension of contexts?  It will mean that anything illegal in one context (say, money-laundering), is going to also be automatically illegal in the entirely different context of how it is being conveyed.  It would not only be illegal to launder money, but if one uses the Internet, it would be <i>additionally illegal</i> to have merely conveyed instructions to do so.</p><p>That we will get all manner of unintended, unhappy side consequences out of this mixing of contexts seems almost guaranteed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The proposed rules only apply to " lawful content " , " lawful applications " , " lawful services " , and " lawful devices " .
I 'm not sure what I think about this .
By way of analogy , do we have laws for our public highway system that limits our use of the road based on what content we carry in our vehicles ?
Is our use of the roadway illegal if we intend to use something we 're carrying for an evil purpose or application ?
I can see where my vehicle ( device ) might be unlawfully configured ( over the maximum weight limit , for example ) , and that might be analogous to a lawful network device , but even then , only in so far as it affects use of the network itself , not in any other context.Why do we need this automatic extension of contexts ?
It will mean that anything illegal in one context ( say , money-laundering ) , is going to also be automatically illegal in the entirely different context of how it is being conveyed .
It would not only be illegal to launder money , but if one uses the Internet , it would be additionally illegal to have merely conveyed instructions to do so.That we will get all manner of unintended , unhappy side consequences out of this mixing of contexts seems almost guaranteed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The proposed rules only apply to "lawful content", "lawful applications", "lawful services", and "lawful devices".
I'm not sure what I think about this.
By way of analogy, do we have laws for our public highway system that limits our use of the road based on what content we carry in our vehicles?
Is our use of the roadway illegal if we intend to use something we're carrying for an evil purpose or application?
I can see where my vehicle (device) might be unlawfully configured (over the maximum weight limit, for example), and that might be analogous to a lawful network device, but even then, only in so far as it affects use of the network itself, not in any other context.Why do we need this automatic extension of contexts?
It will mean that anything illegal in one context (say, money-laundering), is going to also be automatically illegal in the entirely different context of how it is being conveyed.
It would not only be illegal to launder money, but if one uses the Internet, it would be additionally illegal to have merely conveyed instructions to do so.That we will get all manner of unintended, unhappy side consequences out of this mixing of contexts seems almost guaranteed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845597</id>
	<title>are you stupid ?</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1256310420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the corporations dont want to leave internet 'as it is'. they want to CHANGE it, so they will be able to run their networks as cable networks. this is why you need net neutrality rules. net neutrality rules are no different than rules that govern the highways -&gt; no highway administration can decide who passes over the road or charge any traffic according to source, not the type and amount.</p><p>get a fucking brain and realize what's going on before purporting knee jerk alan greenspanist comments.</p><p><a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1406601&amp;cid=29770311" title="slashdot.org">http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1406601&amp;cid=29770311</a> [slashdot.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the corporations dont want to leave internet 'as it is' .
they want to CHANGE it , so they will be able to run their networks as cable networks .
this is why you need net neutrality rules .
net neutrality rules are no different than rules that govern the highways - &gt; no highway administration can decide who passes over the road or charge any traffic according to source , not the type and amount.get a fucking brain and realize what 's going on before purporting knee jerk alan greenspanist comments.http : //tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 1406601&amp;cid = 29770311 [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the corporations dont want to leave internet 'as it is'.
they want to CHANGE it, so they will be able to run their networks as cable networks.
this is why you need net neutrality rules.
net neutrality rules are no different than rules that govern the highways -&gt; no highway administration can decide who passes over the road or charge any traffic according to source, not the type and amount.get a fucking brain and realize what's going on before purporting knee jerk alan greenspanist comments.http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1406601&amp;cid=29770311 [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845039</id>
	<title>Re:McCain</title>
	<author>cheshiremoe</author>
	<datestamp>1256306820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The FCC is already regulating the companies that provide internet infrastructure.  Telecoms and Cable companies tubes carry voice and video over the same hardware/physical layer that data does and that is Regulated by the FCC.  Was it not the FCC that fined Comcast for playing man in the middle and sending stop packets to torrent users.  <br> <br>

Just because the internet has been fine so far does not mean that it will be fine in the future... As the internet provides more and better competition to the traditional services of the Telecoms and Cable COs they will have more and more incentive to use there control over the network to crush their competitors or to extort companies to pay for fast lane service over their portion of the network.  If their allowed to do that the internet will stop being a free market.  The providers will still charge customers for the last mile, but inside the cloud you packets will be free to go as fast as the network can handle.
<br> <br>
You don't want your home service to be come outrageously expensive, being charged by the megabyte do you?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The FCC is already regulating the companies that provide internet infrastructure .
Telecoms and Cable companies tubes carry voice and video over the same hardware/physical layer that data does and that is Regulated by the FCC .
Was it not the FCC that fined Comcast for playing man in the middle and sending stop packets to torrent users .
Just because the internet has been fine so far does not mean that it will be fine in the future... As the internet provides more and better competition to the traditional services of the Telecoms and Cable COs they will have more and more incentive to use there control over the network to crush their competitors or to extort companies to pay for fast lane service over their portion of the network .
If their allowed to do that the internet will stop being a free market .
The providers will still charge customers for the last mile , but inside the cloud you packets will be free to go as fast as the network can handle .
You do n't want your home service to be come outrageously expensive , being charged by the megabyte do you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The FCC is already regulating the companies that provide internet infrastructure.
Telecoms and Cable companies tubes carry voice and video over the same hardware/physical layer that data does and that is Regulated by the FCC.
Was it not the FCC that fined Comcast for playing man in the middle and sending stop packets to torrent users.
Just because the internet has been fine so far does not mean that it will be fine in the future... As the internet provides more and better competition to the traditional services of the Telecoms and Cable COs they will have more and more incentive to use there control over the network to crush their competitors or to extort companies to pay for fast lane service over their portion of the network.
If their allowed to do that the internet will stop being a free market.
The providers will still charge customers for the last mile, but inside the cloud you packets will be free to go as fast as the network can handle.
You don't want your home service to be come outrageously expensive, being charged by the megabyte do you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845151</id>
	<title>Re:McCain is right, which is surprising.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256307600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not really appropriate to talk about free markets and the telecom industry at the same time. The telecommunications industry has largely emerged as a product of Government infrastructure investment and the privatization of the infrastructure has not created a free market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not really appropriate to talk about free markets and the telecom industry at the same time .
The telecommunications industry has largely emerged as a product of Government infrastructure investment and the privatization of the infrastructure has not created a free market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not really appropriate to talk about free markets and the telecom industry at the same time.
The telecommunications industry has largely emerged as a product of Government infrastructure investment and the privatization of the infrastructure has not created a free market.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844577</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845087</id>
	<title>Mr. McCain?</title>
	<author>Pollux</author>
	<datestamp>1256307180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>McCain called the proposed net neutrality rules a "government takeover" of the Internet.</i></p><p>Mr. McCain, since the government pretty much <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARPANet" title="wikipedia.org">invented the internet</a> [wikipedia.org], please feel free to step in occasionally to make sure capitalism doesn't drive it back into the ground.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>McCain called the proposed net neutrality rules a " government takeover " of the Internet.Mr .
McCain , since the government pretty much invented the internet [ wikipedia.org ] , please feel free to step in occasionally to make sure capitalism does n't drive it back into the ground .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>McCain called the proposed net neutrality rules a "government takeover" of the Internet.Mr.
McCain, since the government pretty much invented the internet [wikipedia.org], please feel free to step in occasionally to make sure capitalism doesn't drive it back into the ground.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844637</id>
	<title>Re:McCain is right, which is surprising.</title>
	<author>Malenfrant</author>
	<datestamp>1256304120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>This was not in the US, but a couple of years ago my ISP decided to throttle connections to MMOs, making these games practically unplayable. As I was tied into a 12 month contract which still had 8 months to go, this was extremely annoying. This is a practical and actual example which net neutrality laws would have prevented.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This was not in the US , but a couple of years ago my ISP decided to throttle connections to MMOs , making these games practically unplayable .
As I was tied into a 12 month contract which still had 8 months to go , this was extremely annoying .
This is a practical and actual example which net neutrality laws would have prevented .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This was not in the US, but a couple of years ago my ISP decided to throttle connections to MMOs, making these games practically unplayable.
As I was tied into a 12 month contract which still had 8 months to go, this was extremely annoying.
This is a practical and actual example which net neutrality laws would have prevented.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844577</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845063</id>
	<title>Re:We need document neutrality first</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256306940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They do, so I don't know how this is modded "informative," unless informative means "do your homework before spouting bullshit" today.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They do , so I do n't know how this is modded " informative , " unless informative means " do your homework before spouting bullshit " today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They do, so I don't know how this is modded "informative," unless informative means "do your homework before spouting bullshit" today.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844675</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29847877</id>
	<title>Re:Net Neutrality.. or Common Carrier status..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256321520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Let the Telcos choose (this does not apply to cable unfortunately)...</p><p>oh yes it does apply to MSOs!  Cable companies are generally given a municipal monopoly.  that's YOUR and MY city giving them the right to run wires.  we subsidized THEM.</p><p>Common Carrier should apply to cable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Let the Telcos choose ( this does not apply to cable unfortunately ) ...oh yes it does apply to MSOs !
Cable companies are generally given a municipal monopoly .
that 's YOUR and MY city giving them the right to run wires .
we subsidized THEM.Common Carrier should apply to cable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Let the Telcos choose (this does not apply to cable unfortunately)...oh yes it does apply to MSOs!
Cable companies are generally given a municipal monopoly.
that's YOUR and MY city giving them the right to run wires.
we subsidized THEM.Common Carrier should apply to cable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845279</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844695</id>
	<title>Re:McCain is right, which is surprising.</title>
	<author>Jaysyn</author>
	<datestamp>1256304540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Somebody hasn't been paying attention.  The FCC is already in charge of regulating communications.  They've had guidelines for Net Neutrality since 2005.  Now they are just going to take those existing guidelines &amp; make them laws so that they can fine companies for not following them.  None of this would have happened if said ISPs weren't getting hard-ons over trying to screw-over their customers both big (Google) &amp; small (me &amp; you).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Somebody has n't been paying attention .
The FCC is already in charge of regulating communications .
They 've had guidelines for Net Neutrality since 2005 .
Now they are just going to take those existing guidelines &amp; make them laws so that they can fine companies for not following them .
None of this would have happened if said ISPs were n't getting hard-ons over trying to screw-over their customers both big ( Google ) &amp; small ( me &amp; you ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Somebody hasn't been paying attention.
The FCC is already in charge of regulating communications.
They've had guidelines for Net Neutrality since 2005.
Now they are just going to take those existing guidelines &amp; make them laws so that they can fine companies for not following them.
None of this would have happened if said ISPs weren't getting hard-ons over trying to screw-over their customers both big (Google) &amp; small (me &amp; you).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844577</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_0240207_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844577
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845207
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29846037
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_0240207_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844507
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844765
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845153
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29847117
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_0240207_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844507
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29847277
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_0240207_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845741
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29851037
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_0240207_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844675
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29847087
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_0240207_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844507
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844765
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29847353
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_0240207_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844847
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29846235
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_0240207_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844507
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844737
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29847737
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_0240207_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844507
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844765
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845153
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29851651
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_0240207_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844663
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_0240207_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844835
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29849103
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_0240207_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844507
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29847291
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_0240207_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844507
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844765
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29850365
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_0240207_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844675
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29847195
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_0240207_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844507
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845349
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_0240207_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29849227
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_0240207_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844577
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845207
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29851981
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_0240207_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844577
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844695
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29846665
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_0240207_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29849999
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_0240207_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844607
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845081
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_0240207_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844779
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29846061
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_0240207_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844507
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844765
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845153
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845549
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_0240207_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29849819
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_0240207_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844577
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845207
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29848669
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_0240207_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845597
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_0240207_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844779
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29846139
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_0240207_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845043
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845355
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_0240207_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844577
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844637
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845641
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_0240207_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844577
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844637
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29848887
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_0240207_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844847
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844949
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_0240207_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844607
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845351
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_0240207_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29847411
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_0240207_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844533
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844591
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_0240207_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844577
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844695
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29849183
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_0240207_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844507
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29846729
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_0240207_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844577
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845217
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_0240207_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844561
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845937
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29848793
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_0240207_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844675
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845063
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_0240207_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844507
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844765
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845455
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_0240207_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29849933
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_0240207_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29847409
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_0240207_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844577
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845199
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_0240207_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844507
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844639
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_0240207_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844577
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845207
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29851425
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_0240207_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844561
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845053
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_0240207_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844507
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29846347
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_0240207_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844561
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29846091
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_0240207_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845279
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29847877
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_0240207_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845279
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29851833
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_0240207_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845039
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_0240207_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845809
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_0240207_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844507
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845789
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29853299
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_0240207_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844507
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844765
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844885
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_0240207_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844507
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844765
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845153
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29849529
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_0240207_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29847271
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_0240207_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844507
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844737
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845091
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_0240207_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845279
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29849829
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_0240207_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844577
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845151
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_0240207_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844577
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844689
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_0240207_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844507
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29847927
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_0240207_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844561
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844923
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_0240207_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844577
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845207
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29848835
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_0240207_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844607
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29848891
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_0240207.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844871
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_0240207.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844533
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844591
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_0240207.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845087
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_0240207.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844847
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29846235
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844949
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_0240207.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844509
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844779
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29846061
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29846139
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844663
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844711
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29847409
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29849933
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29849227
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845597
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845043
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845355
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845039
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845027
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29849819
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29849999
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29847411
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_0240207.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844559
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_0240207.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845287
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845809
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29847271
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_0240207.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844945
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_0240207.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844569
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_0240207.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845279
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29851833
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29847877
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29849829
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_0240207.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844607
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845351
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29848891
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845081
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_0240207.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844835
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29849103
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_0240207.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29846081
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_0240207.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844651
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_0240207.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845711
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_0240207.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844561
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29846091
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844923
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845053
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845937
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29848793
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_0240207.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845741
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29851037
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_0240207.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844507
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844765
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845455
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29847353
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844885
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845153
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845549
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29847117
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29849529
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29851651
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29850365
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844667
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845301
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845789
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29853299
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29847291
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29846347
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29847277
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29847927
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29846729
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845349
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844737
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29847737
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845091
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844639
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_0240207.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844577
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845199
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845151
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845207
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29846037
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29848669
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29851981
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29851425
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29848835
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844637
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845453
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845641
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29848887
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845217
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844689
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844695
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29846665
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29849183
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_0240207.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845213
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_0240207.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29844675
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29847087
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29847195
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_0240207.29845063
</commentlist>
</conversation>
