<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_14_1330202</id>
	<title>Broadband Rights &amp; the Killer App of 1900</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1260799080000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>newscloud writes <i>"Tech writer Glenn Fleishman compares the arguments against affordable, high speed, broadband Internet access in each home to <a href="http://publicola.net/?p=20687">arguments made against providing for common access to electricity in 1900</a> e.g. '...electric light is not a necessity for every member of the community. It is not the business of any one to see that I use electricity, or gas, or oil in my house, or even that I use any form of artificial light at all.' Says Fleishman, 'Electricity should go to people who had money, not hooked up willy-nilly to everyone ... Like electricity, the notion of whether broadband is an inherent right and necessity of every citizen is up for grabs in the US. Sweden and Finland have already answered the question: <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/10/14/2229231/-1Mb-Broadband-Access-Becomes-Legal-Right-In-Finland">It's a birthright</a>.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>newscloud writes " Tech writer Glenn Fleishman compares the arguments against affordable , high speed , broadband Internet access in each home to arguments made against providing for common access to electricity in 1900 e.g .
'...electric light is not a necessity for every member of the community .
It is not the business of any one to see that I use electricity , or gas , or oil in my house , or even that I use any form of artificial light at all .
' Says Fleishman , 'Electricity should go to people who had money , not hooked up willy-nilly to everyone ... Like electricity , the notion of whether broadband is an inherent right and necessity of every citizen is up for grabs in the US .
Sweden and Finland have already answered the question : It 's a birthright .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>newscloud writes "Tech writer Glenn Fleishman compares the arguments against affordable, high speed, broadband Internet access in each home to arguments made against providing for common access to electricity in 1900 e.g.
'...electric light is not a necessity for every member of the community.
It is not the business of any one to see that I use electricity, or gas, or oil in my house, or even that I use any form of artificial light at all.
' Says Fleishman, 'Electricity should go to people who had money, not hooked up willy-nilly to everyone ... Like electricity, the notion of whether broadband is an inherent right and necessity of every citizen is up for grabs in the US.
Sweden and Finland have already answered the question: It's a birthright.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30431524</id>
	<title>Re:Same Arguments, So Simply Discredit Them</title>
	<author>Narpak</author>
	<datestamp>1260808740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Statements by Norwegian Minister for <a href="http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/fad.html?id=339" title="regjeringen.no">Government Administration and Reform</a> [regjeringen.no] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heidi\_Grande\_R\%C3\%B8ys" title="wikipedia.org">Heidi Grande R&#248;ys</a> [wikipedia.org] and Magnhild Meltveit Kleppa, <a href="http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/krd.html?id=504" title="regjeringen.no">Minister of Local Government and Regional Development</a> [regjeringen.no], on the subject of internet policy.<br> <br>
(Poorly) Translated by me from the following <a href="http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/fad/press-centre/press-releases/2009/utredning-om-bredere-bredband-lagt-fram.html?id=575651" title="regjeringen.no">Press release, 04.09.2009:</a> [regjeringen.no]<p><div class="quote"><p>If cities and districts shall have equal broadband access then everyone should be able to get high-speed broadband with a minimum capacity if 50/10 Mbit/s and mobil broadband with minimum 8/1 Mbit/s.<br> <br>
-A well-developed broadband nett is a precondition for the development of welfare services, economical development in the districts, and to ensure all citizens equal access to information. Broadband is a fundamental infrastructure of society, equal with roads, water and electricity.</p> </div><p>These statements followed the release of a report <a href="http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/fad/Documents/Reports-and-plans/Reports/2009/mal-og-virkemidler-for-bredere-bredband.html?id=575643" title="regjeringen.no">"M&#229;l og virkemidler for bredere bredb&#229;nd"</a> [regjeringen.no] (only in Norwegian so far). "Goals and means for broader broadband."
<br> <a href="http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/fad/pressesenter/pressemeldinger/2009/full-bredbandsdekning-i-norge.html?id=570971" title="regjeringen.no">A rapport from 07.07.2009</a> [regjeringen.no] (also only in Norwegian); estimated that the coverage of broadband in Norway (defined as minimum 640 kbit/s capacity) was now at 99,9\%. A few years back it was decided that full internet coverage, or as close as it was possible to get (Norway have some mountainous areas that are devilishly hard to cover), should be official policy of the Norwegian Government.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Statements by Norwegian Minister for Government Administration and Reform [ regjeringen.no ] Heidi Grande R   ys [ wikipedia.org ] and Magnhild Meltveit Kleppa , Minister of Local Government and Regional Development [ regjeringen.no ] , on the subject of internet policy .
( Poorly ) Translated by me from the following Press release , 04.09.2009 : [ regjeringen.no ] If cities and districts shall have equal broadband access then everyone should be able to get high-speed broadband with a minimum capacity if 50/10 Mbit/s and mobil broadband with minimum 8/1 Mbit/s .
-A well-developed broadband nett is a precondition for the development of welfare services , economical development in the districts , and to ensure all citizens equal access to information .
Broadband is a fundamental infrastructure of society , equal with roads , water and electricity .
These statements followed the release of a report " M   l og virkemidler for bredere bredb   nd " [ regjeringen.no ] ( only in Norwegian so far ) .
" Goals and means for broader broadband .
" A rapport from 07.07.2009 [ regjeringen.no ] ( also only in Norwegian ) ; estimated that the coverage of broadband in Norway ( defined as minimum 640 kbit/s capacity ) was now at 99,9 \ % .
A few years back it was decided that full internet coverage , or as close as it was possible to get ( Norway have some mountainous areas that are devilishly hard to cover ) , should be official policy of the Norwegian Government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Statements by Norwegian Minister for Government Administration and Reform [regjeringen.no] Heidi Grande Røys [wikipedia.org] and Magnhild Meltveit Kleppa, Minister of Local Government and Regional Development [regjeringen.no], on the subject of internet policy.
(Poorly) Translated by me from the following Press release, 04.09.2009: [regjeringen.no]If cities and districts shall have equal broadband access then everyone should be able to get high-speed broadband with a minimum capacity if 50/10 Mbit/s and mobil broadband with minimum 8/1 Mbit/s.
-A well-developed broadband nett is a precondition for the development of welfare services, economical development in the districts, and to ensure all citizens equal access to information.
Broadband is a fundamental infrastructure of society, equal with roads, water and electricity.
These statements followed the release of a report "Mål og virkemidler for bredere bredbånd" [regjeringen.no] (only in Norwegian so far).
"Goals and means for broader broadband.
"
 A rapport from 07.07.2009 [regjeringen.no] (also only in Norwegian); estimated that the coverage of broadband in Norway (defined as minimum 640 kbit/s capacity) was now at 99,9\%.
A few years back it was decided that full internet coverage, or as close as it was possible to get (Norway have some mountainous areas that are devilishly hard to cover), should be official policy of the Norwegian Government.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430526</id>
	<title>So while we're comparing internet to electricity</title>
	<author>Nautical Insanity</author>
	<datestamp>1260803820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>let's compare when we threw money at corporations to upgrade our infrastructure to when we <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee\_Valley\_Authority" title="wikipedia.org">did it ourselves.</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>let 's compare when we threw money at corporations to upgrade our infrastructure to when we did it ourselves .
[ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>let's compare when we threw money at corporations to upgrade our infrastructure to when we did it ourselves.
[wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30431274</id>
	<title>wtf?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260807660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just like Broadband, Electricity does cost money...  You don't get it for free except in very particular and unique circumstances.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just like Broadband , Electricity does cost money... You do n't get it for free except in very particular and unique circumstances .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just like Broadband, Electricity does cost money...  You don't get it for free except in very particular and unique circumstances.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30433444</id>
	<title>Cost control</title>
	<author>StealthSock</author>
	<datestamp>1260817620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Before and during FDR's administration, the free market electric company shills argued that providing "socialized electricity" would be a disaster financially since generating electricity was supposedly so expensive that there was no way the government could provide cheaper service. To back up their claims, they pointed to a few mismanaged municipal electric programs as proof that it could never work.

In reality, many of the electric companies were enjoying fat monopolies and wanted to keep their operations small scale so they could keep prices high. The government finally stepped in during the 1930's and proved that electricity did not have to be so expensive if the provider did not have profit as their only motivation.

This sounds so familiar to another debate over other services that should or should not be "socialized" come to think of it...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Before and during FDR 's administration , the free market electric company shills argued that providing " socialized electricity " would be a disaster financially since generating electricity was supposedly so expensive that there was no way the government could provide cheaper service .
To back up their claims , they pointed to a few mismanaged municipal electric programs as proof that it could never work .
In reality , many of the electric companies were enjoying fat monopolies and wanted to keep their operations small scale so they could keep prices high .
The government finally stepped in during the 1930 's and proved that electricity did not have to be so expensive if the provider did not have profit as their only motivation .
This sounds so familiar to another debate over other services that should or should not be " socialized " come to think of it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Before and during FDR's administration, the free market electric company shills argued that providing "socialized electricity" would be a disaster financially since generating electricity was supposedly so expensive that there was no way the government could provide cheaper service.
To back up their claims, they pointed to a few mismanaged municipal electric programs as proof that it could never work.
In reality, many of the electric companies were enjoying fat monopolies and wanted to keep their operations small scale so they could keep prices high.
The government finally stepped in during the 1930's and proved that electricity did not have to be so expensive if the provider did not have profit as their only motivation.
This sounds so familiar to another debate over other services that should or should not be "socialized" come to think of it...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30435970</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe the telco's are right.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260787680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>One of the reasons why infrastructure in cities is falling apart is because we use all of our resources building infrastructure out to every rural corner of the country, when really we should be concentrating on putting our resources where it affects the most people...in the cities.</p></div><p>The big reason is that the current infrastructure is saturated. It's difficult to do maintenance and upgrades on existing infrastructure, without affecting everybody that's reliant on that network. And due to the population density of major cities, any small change affects a lot of people. If they had started upgrading the infrastructure prior to saturation (or put in place policies that would hold off network saturation), then it'd be much easier to do the upgrades without affection anybody.</p><p>So in the end, the ultimate reason is the lack of foresight and the desire the eek out the last bit of return for every dollar spent. Well, whaddaya know?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the reasons why infrastructure in cities is falling apart is because we use all of our resources building infrastructure out to every rural corner of the country , when really we should be concentrating on putting our resources where it affects the most people...in the cities.The big reason is that the current infrastructure is saturated .
It 's difficult to do maintenance and upgrades on existing infrastructure , without affecting everybody that 's reliant on that network .
And due to the population density of major cities , any small change affects a lot of people .
If they had started upgrading the infrastructure prior to saturation ( or put in place policies that would hold off network saturation ) , then it 'd be much easier to do the upgrades without affection anybody.So in the end , the ultimate reason is the lack of foresight and the desire the eek out the last bit of return for every dollar spent .
Well , whaddaya know ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the reasons why infrastructure in cities is falling apart is because we use all of our resources building infrastructure out to every rural corner of the country, when really we should be concentrating on putting our resources where it affects the most people...in the cities.The big reason is that the current infrastructure is saturated.
It's difficult to do maintenance and upgrades on existing infrastructure, without affecting everybody that's reliant on that network.
And due to the population density of major cities, any small change affects a lot of people.
If they had started upgrading the infrastructure prior to saturation (or put in place policies that would hold off network saturation), then it'd be much easier to do the upgrades without affection anybody.So in the end, the ultimate reason is the lack of foresight and the desire the eek out the last bit of return for every dollar spent.
Well, whaddaya know?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30431350</id>
	<title>Re:Same Arguments, So Simply Discredit Them</title>
	<author>lwsimon</author>
	<datestamp>1260808020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Living in the rural Ozarks, we have decent broadband, with the exception of one provider that absolutely sucks.</p><p>It eventually comes down to property rights, though.  The government lacks the legitimate moral authority to confiscate an individual's property to provide that property to someone else.  Taxing one person to provide for someone else is theft, pure and simple.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Living in the rural Ozarks , we have decent broadband , with the exception of one provider that absolutely sucks.It eventually comes down to property rights , though .
The government lacks the legitimate moral authority to confiscate an individual 's property to provide that property to someone else .
Taxing one person to provide for someone else is theft , pure and simple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Living in the rural Ozarks, we have decent broadband, with the exception of one provider that absolutely sucks.It eventually comes down to property rights, though.
The government lacks the legitimate moral authority to confiscate an individual's property to provide that property to someone else.
Taxing one person to provide for someone else is theft, pure and simple.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30440496</id>
	<title>Re:Suddenly, everything is a right</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260813480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a joke. It calls paid time off a human right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a joke .
It calls paid time off a human right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a joke.
It calls paid time off a human right.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30431798</id>
	<title>Well, it's a bad analogy</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1260809760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Electrification of the USA was not mainstream in some areas until the 1950s.  My late grandmother in law told me that she didn't get electricity until well after the war.  Frankly, for her, it wasn't even really that big of a deal to have it.</p><p>Bottom line is, a lot of people didn't get electricity not because it wasn't provided, but because they just simply didn't want to have it.  It's like, if they were content with life without it, why have it?</p><p>It's the same deal with broadband.  Everyone keeps saying that broadband should be everywhere, but, really, does everyone want it?  There's enough of a sense that when choosing a place to live, the availability of broadband is a consideration.  If people are choosing to do without it, well, maybe they just don't need it as much as the corps we work for would make them think they need it.</p><p>For the most part, for many people, broadband is just entertainment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Electrification of the USA was not mainstream in some areas until the 1950s .
My late grandmother in law told me that she did n't get electricity until well after the war .
Frankly , for her , it was n't even really that big of a deal to have it.Bottom line is , a lot of people did n't get electricity not because it was n't provided , but because they just simply did n't want to have it .
It 's like , if they were content with life without it , why have it ? It 's the same deal with broadband .
Everyone keeps saying that broadband should be everywhere , but , really , does everyone want it ?
There 's enough of a sense that when choosing a place to live , the availability of broadband is a consideration .
If people are choosing to do without it , well , maybe they just do n't need it as much as the corps we work for would make them think they need it.For the most part , for many people , broadband is just entertainment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Electrification of the USA was not mainstream in some areas until the 1950s.
My late grandmother in law told me that she didn't get electricity until well after the war.
Frankly, for her, it wasn't even really that big of a deal to have it.Bottom line is, a lot of people didn't get electricity not because it wasn't provided, but because they just simply didn't want to have it.
It's like, if they were content with life without it, why have it?It's the same deal with broadband.
Everyone keeps saying that broadband should be everywhere, but, really, does everyone want it?
There's enough of a sense that when choosing a place to live, the availability of broadband is a consideration.
If people are choosing to do without it, well, maybe they just don't need it as much as the corps we work for would make them think they need it.For the most part, for many people, broadband is just entertainment.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430908</id>
	<title>Re:Suddenly, everything is a right</title>
	<author>whisper\_jeff</author>
	<datestamp>1260805680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Free speech, the right to bear arms, a common trait of all things that are actually rights is that they do not cost money.</p></div><p>
Ok, I'll preface this with noting that, yes, I'm Canadian so feel free to dismiss my thoughts as those of a (as an American friend likes to joke) "tree-hugging Commie". You put free speech along side the right to bear arms as inalienable and "intangible" rights that do not cost money. The right to bear arms? Are you kidding me? You want the government to start handing out guns for free because it is a right that you were given by birth?<br> <br>
Look, I don't give a rats ass about the arguments for or against the right to bear arms but to imply that those rights and the right to free speech are somehow similar rights - rights that one possesses simply by the virtue of being born - is laughable.<br> <br>
Like I said, I'm a tree-hugging Commie so feel free to ignore, as you desire.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Free speech , the right to bear arms , a common trait of all things that are actually rights is that they do not cost money .
Ok , I 'll preface this with noting that , yes , I 'm Canadian so feel free to dismiss my thoughts as those of a ( as an American friend likes to joke ) " tree-hugging Commie " .
You put free speech along side the right to bear arms as inalienable and " intangible " rights that do not cost money .
The right to bear arms ?
Are you kidding me ?
You want the government to start handing out guns for free because it is a right that you were given by birth ?
Look , I do n't give a rats ass about the arguments for or against the right to bear arms but to imply that those rights and the right to free speech are somehow similar rights - rights that one possesses simply by the virtue of being born - is laughable .
Like I said , I 'm a tree-hugging Commie so feel free to ignore , as you desire .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Free speech, the right to bear arms, a common trait of all things that are actually rights is that they do not cost money.
Ok, I'll preface this with noting that, yes, I'm Canadian so feel free to dismiss my thoughts as those of a (as an American friend likes to joke) "tree-hugging Commie".
You put free speech along side the right to bear arms as inalienable and "intangible" rights that do not cost money.
The right to bear arms?
Are you kidding me?
You want the government to start handing out guns for free because it is a right that you were given by birth?
Look, I don't give a rats ass about the arguments for or against the right to bear arms but to imply that those rights and the right to free speech are somehow similar rights - rights that one possesses simply by the virtue of being born - is laughable.
Like I said, I'm a tree-hugging Commie so feel free to ignore, as you desire.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430962</id>
	<title>Thing is, it wasn't necessary.</title>
	<author>daemonenwind</author>
	<datestamp>1260806040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This was 1900, people.</p><p>Electricity was limited in its uses to lighting and some minor household gadgets.</p><p>People mostly heated their homes with wood, coal, or some petroleum product.  Usually coal.</p><p>Today, no, it would be unthinkable to not have electricity.  But that's mostly because people rely on it for heat, hot water and cooking.  (modern furnances almost never have a pilot light).  But back then it was a nicety.  Much like broadband is today.</p><p>Which isn't to say there isn't a place for municipal broadband.  I consider an internet connection, today, to be as important as a library.</p><p>However, we're getting to used to the notion that things are rights.  Here's a simple test: if you can buy it, it's not a right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This was 1900 , people.Electricity was limited in its uses to lighting and some minor household gadgets.People mostly heated their homes with wood , coal , or some petroleum product .
Usually coal.Today , no , it would be unthinkable to not have electricity .
But that 's mostly because people rely on it for heat , hot water and cooking .
( modern furnances almost never have a pilot light ) .
But back then it was a nicety .
Much like broadband is today.Which is n't to say there is n't a place for municipal broadband .
I consider an internet connection , today , to be as important as a library.However , we 're getting to used to the notion that things are rights .
Here 's a simple test : if you can buy it , it 's not a right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This was 1900, people.Electricity was limited in its uses to lighting and some minor household gadgets.People mostly heated their homes with wood, coal, or some petroleum product.
Usually coal.Today, no, it would be unthinkable to not have electricity.
But that's mostly because people rely on it for heat, hot water and cooking.
(modern furnances almost never have a pilot light).
But back then it was a nicety.
Much like broadband is today.Which isn't to say there isn't a place for municipal broadband.
I consider an internet connection, today, to be as important as a library.However, we're getting to used to the notion that things are rights.
Here's a simple test: if you can buy it, it's not a right.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30434944</id>
	<title>Re:Suddenly, everything is a right</title>
	<author>nschubach</author>
	<datestamp>1260782160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1.  You can make a gun.<br>2.  Arms can be considered a knife, a thick wooden branch from a tree, a rock, or (IMHO) a tank.</p><p>In some cases, a car may also be considered one of many Arms.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
You can make a gun.2 .
Arms can be considered a knife , a thick wooden branch from a tree , a rock , or ( IMHO ) a tank.In some cases , a car may also be considered one of many Arms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
You can make a gun.2.
Arms can be considered a knife, a thick wooden branch from a tree, a rock, or (IMHO) a tank.In some cases, a car may also be considered one of many Arms.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30433280</id>
	<title>Re:Gov't money to private corporations.</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1260816660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does TiVo yet work with digital cable, including encrypted subscription channels , hd, etc? (It didn't several years ago, when I last looked.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does TiVo yet work with digital cable , including encrypted subscription channels , hd , etc ?
( It did n't several years ago , when I last looked .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does TiVo yet work with digital cable, including encrypted subscription channels , hd, etc?
(It didn't several years ago, when I last looked.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30431212</id>
	<title>This is America.  That's communist.  Case closed.</title>
	<author>smchris</author>
	<datestamp>1260807420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why are we even having this perverted discussion about what First World countries are doing?  The lobbyists our congressmen work for will never listen to arguments about common good.</p><p>Ah, yeah.  Electricity \_and\_ phone service.  Rural electrification was before my time but I can really, really vaguely remember one of the family farmers saying he had to take some time off that day to help with some broken phone lines for the coop.  If corporations had had their way, farmers would still be using kerosene at night and reading their kids bedtime stories for entertainment.  [Well, it wasn't \_all\_ bad.]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why are we even having this perverted discussion about what First World countries are doing ?
The lobbyists our congressmen work for will never listen to arguments about common good.Ah , yeah .
Electricity \ _and \ _ phone service .
Rural electrification was before my time but I can really , really vaguely remember one of the family farmers saying he had to take some time off that day to help with some broken phone lines for the coop .
If corporations had had their way , farmers would still be using kerosene at night and reading their kids bedtime stories for entertainment .
[ Well , it was n't \ _all \ _ bad .
]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why are we even having this perverted discussion about what First World countries are doing?
The lobbyists our congressmen work for will never listen to arguments about common good.Ah, yeah.
Electricity \_and\_ phone service.
Rural electrification was before my time but I can really, really vaguely remember one of the family farmers saying he had to take some time off that day to help with some broken phone lines for the coop.
If corporations had had their way, farmers would still be using kerosene at night and reading their kids bedtime stories for entertainment.
[Well, it wasn't \_all\_ bad.
]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430440</id>
	<title>Birthright?</title>
	<author>megaskins</author>
	<datestamp>1260803100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Birthright? WTF? Don't call it that, you dumbass - next thing you know the Government pricks will be confiscating more of our earnings to provide our "birhtright". Jesus, you people...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Birthright ?
WTF ? Do n't call it that , you dumbass - next thing you know the Government pricks will be confiscating more of our earnings to provide our " birhtright " .
Jesus , you people.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Birthright?
WTF? Don't call it that, you dumbass - next thing you know the Government pricks will be confiscating more of our earnings to provide our "birhtright".
Jesus, you people...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30431898</id>
	<title>Re:free speech</title>
	<author>dpilot</author>
	<datestamp>1260810180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>DARN!  I wish I hadn't posted on this thread.  Now I can't give you any mod points.</p><p>Personally, I think if the founding fathers had seen how today's society has developed, the would have enshrined personal privacy more heavily into the Constitution, and they would have more clearly delineated the rights of corportations vs people.</p><p>On a side-point, a few months back when PBS broadcast Ken Burns' "The National Parks - America's Greatest Idea" I recorded it on MythTV.  Over the past few days, I've actually been watching it.  Other than the really nifty stuff that anyone who has visited a National Park knows about, a few other oddities popped up.</p><p>* First off, that national parks exist at all is an ACCIDENT!.  The first "great park" was Yosemite, which was declared a Stat Park by California.  When they got around to wanting to make Yellowstone a great park like Yosemite, Wyoming was a Territory, not a State.  There was no State to make it a State Park, so it got made into the first National Park, basically by default.  It was also a ho-hum type of thing - nobody at the time realized how momentous it was, or would become - what an important precedent it was.</p><p>* Second, the idea of state and national parks wasn't universally liked.  In particular, one man felt that the government had no business setting aside land, and in fact the only thing the government should be able to do with land was deed it over for use by people and companies.  I forget whether it was Yellowstone or Yosemite, but he fought it all the way to the Supreme Court to overturn the very concept of the State/National Park.  Fortunately (IMHO) he lost, cementing the precedent in place.  I suspect many still (or would if they knew about it) wish the decision had gone the other way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>DARN !
I wish I had n't posted on this thread .
Now I ca n't give you any mod points.Personally , I think if the founding fathers had seen how today 's society has developed , the would have enshrined personal privacy more heavily into the Constitution , and they would have more clearly delineated the rights of corportations vs people.On a side-point , a few months back when PBS broadcast Ken Burns ' " The National Parks - America 's Greatest Idea " I recorded it on MythTV .
Over the past few days , I 've actually been watching it .
Other than the really nifty stuff that anyone who has visited a National Park knows about , a few other oddities popped up .
* First off , that national parks exist at all is an ACCIDENT ! .
The first " great park " was Yosemite , which was declared a Stat Park by California .
When they got around to wanting to make Yellowstone a great park like Yosemite , Wyoming was a Territory , not a State .
There was no State to make it a State Park , so it got made into the first National Park , basically by default .
It was also a ho-hum type of thing - nobody at the time realized how momentous it was , or would become - what an important precedent it was .
* Second , the idea of state and national parks was n't universally liked .
In particular , one man felt that the government had no business setting aside land , and in fact the only thing the government should be able to do with land was deed it over for use by people and companies .
I forget whether it was Yellowstone or Yosemite , but he fought it all the way to the Supreme Court to overturn the very concept of the State/National Park .
Fortunately ( IMHO ) he lost , cementing the precedent in place .
I suspect many still ( or would if they knew about it ) wish the decision had gone the other way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DARN!
I wish I hadn't posted on this thread.
Now I can't give you any mod points.Personally, I think if the founding fathers had seen how today's society has developed, the would have enshrined personal privacy more heavily into the Constitution, and they would have more clearly delineated the rights of corportations vs people.On a side-point, a few months back when PBS broadcast Ken Burns' "The National Parks - America's Greatest Idea" I recorded it on MythTV.
Over the past few days, I've actually been watching it.
Other than the really nifty stuff that anyone who has visited a National Park knows about, a few other oddities popped up.
* First off, that national parks exist at all is an ACCIDENT!.
The first "great park" was Yosemite, which was declared a Stat Park by California.
When they got around to wanting to make Yellowstone a great park like Yosemite, Wyoming was a Territory, not a State.
There was no State to make it a State Park, so it got made into the first National Park, basically by default.
It was also a ho-hum type of thing - nobody at the time realized how momentous it was, or would become - what an important precedent it was.
* Second, the idea of state and national parks wasn't universally liked.
In particular, one man felt that the government had no business setting aside land, and in fact the only thing the government should be able to do with land was deed it over for use by people and companies.
I forget whether it was Yellowstone or Yosemite, but he fought it all the way to the Supreme Court to overturn the very concept of the State/National Park.
Fortunately (IMHO) he lost, cementing the precedent in place.
I suspect many still (or would if they knew about it) wish the decision had gone the other way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30431062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30432816</id>
	<title>Re:Same Arguments, So Simply Discredit Them</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260814440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I could write a treatise on how the creation of the Buffalo National Forest has negatively impacted my area.</p><p>In short, you don't know what you're talking about.  Families' lives were ruined by the "assistance" you tout.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I could write a treatise on how the creation of the Buffalo National Forest has negatively impacted my area.In short , you do n't know what you 're talking about .
Families ' lives were ruined by the " assistance " you tout .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I could write a treatise on how the creation of the Buffalo National Forest has negatively impacted my area.In short, you don't know what you're talking about.
Families' lives were ruined by the "assistance" you tout.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30432084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30432410</id>
	<title>Re:Actually, there is no argument.</title>
	<author>Wannabe Code Monkey</author>
	<datestamp>1260812880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Perhaps the writer overlooked this one little fact: Since when did we have a right to electricity? We don't. His argument is a non-starter.</p></div></blockquote><p>It may not be an inalienable right guaranteed in the constitution, but it is a de facto right. Additionally, many states elevate it above simply de facto. Try renting an apartment to someone in Massachusetts without electricity <a href="http://www.mass.gov/Eeohhs2/docs/dph/regs/105cmr410.pdf" title="mass.gov">http://www.mass.gov/Eeohhs2/docs/dph/regs/105cmr410.pdf</a> [mass.gov] (warning, PDF):</p><blockquote><div><p>410.250: Habitable Rooms Other than Kitchen -- Natural Light and Electrical Outlets<br>
The owner shall provide for each habitable room other than a kitchen:<br>
(A) transparent or translucent glass which admits light from the outdoors and which is equal in area to no less than 8\% of the entire floor area of that room.<br>
(B) two separate wall-type convenience outlets, or one such outlet and one electric light fixture. The outlets shall be placed in practical locations and shall insofar as practicable, be on different walls and at least ten feet apart. (See 105 CMR 410.351.)</p></div>
</blockquote><p>The document also goes into outlets and lights for bathrooms and kitchens. And for those who own, I'm guessing there are laws regulating utilities that require them to provide you service.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps the writer overlooked this one little fact : Since when did we have a right to electricity ?
We do n't .
His argument is a non-starter.It may not be an inalienable right guaranteed in the constitution , but it is a de facto right .
Additionally , many states elevate it above simply de facto .
Try renting an apartment to someone in Massachusetts without electricity http : //www.mass.gov/Eeohhs2/docs/dph/regs/105cmr410.pdf [ mass.gov ] ( warning , PDF ) : 410.250 : Habitable Rooms Other than Kitchen -- Natural Light and Electrical Outlets The owner shall provide for each habitable room other than a kitchen : ( A ) transparent or translucent glass which admits light from the outdoors and which is equal in area to no less than 8 \ % of the entire floor area of that room .
( B ) two separate wall-type convenience outlets , or one such outlet and one electric light fixture .
The outlets shall be placed in practical locations and shall insofar as practicable , be on different walls and at least ten feet apart .
( See 105 CMR 410.351 .
) The document also goes into outlets and lights for bathrooms and kitchens .
And for those who own , I 'm guessing there are laws regulating utilities that require them to provide you service .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps the writer overlooked this one little fact: Since when did we have a right to electricity?
We don't.
His argument is a non-starter.It may not be an inalienable right guaranteed in the constitution, but it is a de facto right.
Additionally, many states elevate it above simply de facto.
Try renting an apartment to someone in Massachusetts without electricity http://www.mass.gov/Eeohhs2/docs/dph/regs/105cmr410.pdf [mass.gov] (warning, PDF):410.250: Habitable Rooms Other than Kitchen -- Natural Light and Electrical Outlets
The owner shall provide for each habitable room other than a kitchen:
(A) transparent or translucent glass which admits light from the outdoors and which is equal in area to no less than 8\% of the entire floor area of that room.
(B) two separate wall-type convenience outlets, or one such outlet and one electric light fixture.
The outlets shall be placed in practical locations and shall insofar as practicable, be on different walls and at least ten feet apart.
(See 105 CMR 410.351.
)
The document also goes into outlets and lights for bathrooms and kitchens.
And for those who own, I'm guessing there are laws regulating utilities that require them to provide you service.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30431256</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430474</id>
	<title>Such a strained argument is hardly necessary</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1260803460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You need not go back to electricity; phones will do. We have already decided that communications are something we need to deliver to everyone, and the internet is the new communications medium.</p><p>Arguably, the government should stop promoting television and radio, and should put the effort into figuring out how to make the emergency notification network work on the internet... railroading connections and returning "DISASTER IN PROGRESS" errors, whatever. Then we could [eventually] reclaim all spectrum used by broadcast media for a more noble use: bidirectional communications permitting collaboration between humans. It's not like the shitty ol' push media can't be distributed via internet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You need not go back to electricity ; phones will do .
We have already decided that communications are something we need to deliver to everyone , and the internet is the new communications medium.Arguably , the government should stop promoting television and radio , and should put the effort into figuring out how to make the emergency notification network work on the internet... railroading connections and returning " DISASTER IN PROGRESS " errors , whatever .
Then we could [ eventually ] reclaim all spectrum used by broadcast media for a more noble use : bidirectional communications permitting collaboration between humans .
It 's not like the shitty ol ' push media ca n't be distributed via internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You need not go back to electricity; phones will do.
We have already decided that communications are something we need to deliver to everyone, and the internet is the new communications medium.Arguably, the government should stop promoting television and radio, and should put the effort into figuring out how to make the emergency notification network work on the internet... railroading connections and returning "DISASTER IN PROGRESS" errors, whatever.
Then we could [eventually] reclaim all spectrum used by broadcast media for a more noble use: bidirectional communications permitting collaboration between humans.
It's not like the shitty ol' push media can't be distributed via internet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430912</id>
	<title>Maybe the telco's are right.</title>
	<author>FriendlyPrimate</author>
	<datestamp>1260805740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The libertarian side of me says that maybe providing broadband to all isn't necessarily a good thing.  Likewise, maybe providing electricity to all back in 1900 wasn't necessarily good either.  In the end, we didn't just provide poor people in the country with power.  Instead, we provided an incentive for people to move out into the country, leading to sprawl, demand for more roads, foreign dependence on oil, etc...  From a pure efficiency point-of-view, living in the city is much more efficient than living in the country.  So providing all these services to the country leads to a very inefficient system.  One of the reasons why infrastructure in cities is falling apart is because we use all of our resources building infrastructure out to every rural corner of the country, when really we should be concentrating on putting our resources where it affects the most people...in the cities.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The libertarian side of me says that maybe providing broadband to all is n't necessarily a good thing .
Likewise , maybe providing electricity to all back in 1900 was n't necessarily good either .
In the end , we did n't just provide poor people in the country with power .
Instead , we provided an incentive for people to move out into the country , leading to sprawl , demand for more roads , foreign dependence on oil , etc... From a pure efficiency point-of-view , living in the city is much more efficient than living in the country .
So providing all these services to the country leads to a very inefficient system .
One of the reasons why infrastructure in cities is falling apart is because we use all of our resources building infrastructure out to every rural corner of the country , when really we should be concentrating on putting our resources where it affects the most people...in the cities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The libertarian side of me says that maybe providing broadband to all isn't necessarily a good thing.
Likewise, maybe providing electricity to all back in 1900 wasn't necessarily good either.
In the end, we didn't just provide poor people in the country with power.
Instead, we provided an incentive for people to move out into the country, leading to sprawl, demand for more roads, foreign dependence on oil, etc...  From a pure efficiency point-of-view, living in the city is much more efficient than living in the country.
So providing all these services to the country leads to a very inefficient system.
One of the reasons why infrastructure in cities is falling apart is because we use all of our resources building infrastructure out to every rural corner of the country, when really we should be concentrating on putting our resources where it affects the most people...in the cities.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30431030</id>
	<title>Re:Suddenly, everything is a right</title>
	<author>Lundse</author>
	<datestamp>1260806400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"You do not have a right to tangible things. They cost money".</p><p>So does intangibles like justice. The court system costs money, but is a tangible thing we need to have, in order to secure justice. It is not enough that the government simply not commit injustices, it must secure it for all.</p><p>Free speech is the same - it is not enough that the government not coerce you not to speak, it should ensure everyone is heard. Luckily, this can easily be done today, by making sure everyone has internet access.<br>Or, if you do not believe free speech is all that important (though it is more important to democracy than free elections, according to some), you must at least guarantee that no one is being cheated or coerced out of their piece of the free speech pie - ie. net neutrality.</p><p>(The subject is fascinating, though; can something manmade be a birthright? Language? Education? Free elections?)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" You do not have a right to tangible things .
They cost money " .So does intangibles like justice .
The court system costs money , but is a tangible thing we need to have , in order to secure justice .
It is not enough that the government simply not commit injustices , it must secure it for all.Free speech is the same - it is not enough that the government not coerce you not to speak , it should ensure everyone is heard .
Luckily , this can easily be done today , by making sure everyone has internet access.Or , if you do not believe free speech is all that important ( though it is more important to democracy than free elections , according to some ) , you must at least guarantee that no one is being cheated or coerced out of their piece of the free speech pie - ie .
net neutrality .
( The subject is fascinating , though ; can something manmade be a birthright ?
Language ? Education ?
Free elections ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"You do not have a right to tangible things.
They cost money".So does intangibles like justice.
The court system costs money, but is a tangible thing we need to have, in order to secure justice.
It is not enough that the government simply not commit injustices, it must secure it for all.Free speech is the same - it is not enough that the government not coerce you not to speak, it should ensure everyone is heard.
Luckily, this can easily be done today, by making sure everyone has internet access.Or, if you do not believe free speech is all that important (though it is more important to democracy than free elections, according to some), you must at least guarantee that no one is being cheated or coerced out of their piece of the free speech pie - ie.
net neutrality.
(The subject is fascinating, though; can something manmade be a birthright?
Language? Education?
Free elections?
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430650</id>
	<title>Re:Suddenly, everything is a right</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260804420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're forgetting that man created God. Those inalienable rights, endowed by a creator, are like any other rights that we're talking about.</p><p>The only difference is that the religious wars over them will be between geeks instead of soldiers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're forgetting that man created God .
Those inalienable rights , endowed by a creator , are like any other rights that we 're talking about.The only difference is that the religious wars over them will be between geeks instead of soldiers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're forgetting that man created God.
Those inalienable rights, endowed by a creator, are like any other rights that we're talking about.The only difference is that the religious wars over them will be between geeks instead of soldiers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430498</id>
	<title>It will happen</title>
	<author>gwn</author>
	<datestamp>1260803640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>because it provides a far more intelligent and useful way to interact and be part of society.  However, it will more likely happen because it will give those folks who want to control us a better way to do just that.  Of course as long as you can turn the devices off then you have some control.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>because it provides a far more intelligent and useful way to interact and be part of society .
However , it will more likely happen because it will give those folks who want to control us a better way to do just that .
Of course as long as you can turn the devices off then you have some control .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>because it provides a far more intelligent and useful way to interact and be part of society.
However, it will more likely happen because it will give those folks who want to control us a better way to do just that.
Of course as long as you can turn the devices off then you have some control.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30431608</id>
	<title>Re:Birthright?</title>
	<author>cashman73</author>
	<datestamp>1260809040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>To George W. Bush, "birthright" seems to have just meant that he could get elected President, since his Daddy was. Once that happened, the rest of <b> <i>our</i> </b> "birthrights" went out the door when he trashed the Constitution,. .<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>To George W. Bush , " birthright " seems to have just meant that he could get elected President , since his Daddy was .
Once that happened , the rest of our " birthrights " went out the door when he trashed the Constitution, .
. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To George W. Bush, "birthright" seems to have just meant that he could get elected President, since his Daddy was.
Once that happened, the rest of  our  "birthrights" went out the door when he trashed the Constitution,.
. .</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430598</id>
	<title>The Internet is different</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260804180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Internet access gives people freedom of information and freedom of speech.<br> <br>
You don't want criminals to have freedom of speech, you know. What if one of those child molesters <b>spoke</b> to your children!<br> <br>
If everybody is given an Internet, our next generation will all become pirates and move to Somali!<br> <br>
Think of the children!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Internet access gives people freedom of information and freedom of speech .
You do n't want criminals to have freedom of speech , you know .
What if one of those child molesters spoke to your children !
If everybody is given an Internet , our next generation will all become pirates and move to Somali !
Think of the children !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Internet access gives people freedom of information and freedom of speech.
You don't want criminals to have freedom of speech, you know.
What if one of those child molesters spoke to your children!
If everybody is given an Internet, our next generation will all become pirates and move to Somali!
Think of the children!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30431078</id>
	<title>Same arguments as health care</title>
	<author>HangingChad</author>
	<datestamp>1260806700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Says Fleishman, "Electricity should go to people who had money, not hooked up willy-nilly to everyone...Like electricity, the notion of whether broadband is an inherent right and necessity of every citizen is up for grabs in the US.</i>

</p><p>Same arguments being thrown at health care.  But every week I help load someone exercising their right not to have health care in an ambulance because they collapsed.  Even loaded one of them into a helicopter for a $10,000 trip to the ER. Unless you're prepared to stand by and let people die for lack of emergency care, then what we're doing now doesn't work. Otherwise we end up taking them to ER, with no insurance and no real income and the prices go up for the rest of us.

</p><p>You could make the same argument for electricity.  I have a friend building a homestead in that bastion of liberal thought we call rural Georgia.  The state made him get a rental this winter or they threatened to take his kids and put them in a foster home.  The state of Georgia doesn't view electricity as a luxury if you have kids.  Any one you teabaggers want to argue we don't really need child protective services? Go on, make that case.  Demonstrate how far gone intellectually you really are.

</p><p>As technology changes what in one time was a luxury becomes an integral part of everyday life.  At some point there's a blurry line between necessity and luxury. Making those choices from the perspective of some Grizzly Adams isolationist doesn't really account for the real world consequences.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Says Fleishman , " Electricity should go to people who had money , not hooked up willy-nilly to everyone...Like electricity , the notion of whether broadband is an inherent right and necessity of every citizen is up for grabs in the US .
Same arguments being thrown at health care .
But every week I help load someone exercising their right not to have health care in an ambulance because they collapsed .
Even loaded one of them into a helicopter for a $ 10,000 trip to the ER .
Unless you 're prepared to stand by and let people die for lack of emergency care , then what we 're doing now does n't work .
Otherwise we end up taking them to ER , with no insurance and no real income and the prices go up for the rest of us .
You could make the same argument for electricity .
I have a friend building a homestead in that bastion of liberal thought we call rural Georgia .
The state made him get a rental this winter or they threatened to take his kids and put them in a foster home .
The state of Georgia does n't view electricity as a luxury if you have kids .
Any one you teabaggers want to argue we do n't really need child protective services ?
Go on , make that case .
Demonstrate how far gone intellectually you really are .
As technology changes what in one time was a luxury becomes an integral part of everyday life .
At some point there 's a blurry line between necessity and luxury .
Making those choices from the perspective of some Grizzly Adams isolationist does n't really account for the real world consequences .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Says Fleishman, "Electricity should go to people who had money, not hooked up willy-nilly to everyone...Like electricity, the notion of whether broadband is an inherent right and necessity of every citizen is up for grabs in the US.
Same arguments being thrown at health care.
But every week I help load someone exercising their right not to have health care in an ambulance because they collapsed.
Even loaded one of them into a helicopter for a $10,000 trip to the ER.
Unless you're prepared to stand by and let people die for lack of emergency care, then what we're doing now doesn't work.
Otherwise we end up taking them to ER, with no insurance and no real income and the prices go up for the rest of us.
You could make the same argument for electricity.
I have a friend building a homestead in that bastion of liberal thought we call rural Georgia.
The state made him get a rental this winter or they threatened to take his kids and put them in a foster home.
The state of Georgia doesn't view electricity as a luxury if you have kids.
Any one you teabaggers want to argue we don't really need child protective services?
Go on, make that case.
Demonstrate how far gone intellectually you really are.
As technology changes what in one time was a luxury becomes an integral part of everyday life.
At some point there's a blurry line between necessity and luxury.
Making those choices from the perspective of some Grizzly Adams isolationist doesn't really account for the real world consequences.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30433086</id>
	<title>Re:Such a strained argument is hardly necessary</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260815700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Disaster in progress errors?</p><p>One accident somewhere and the entire Internet is appropriated to 'deal with it effectively'?</p><p>Nice work. You've managed to recreate Deus Ehttp://hardware.slashdot.org/story/09/12/14/1330202/Broadband-Rights-amp-the-Killer-App-of-1900?art\_pos=5#x.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Disaster in progress errors ? One accident somewhere and the entire Internet is appropriated to 'deal with it effectively ' ? Nice work .
You 've managed to recreate Deus Ehttp : //hardware.slashdot.org/story/09/12/14/1330202/Broadband-Rights-amp-the-Killer-App-of-1900 ? art \ _pos = 5 # x .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Disaster in progress errors?One accident somewhere and the entire Internet is appropriated to 'deal with it effectively'?Nice work.
You've managed to recreate Deus Ehttp://hardware.slashdot.org/story/09/12/14/1330202/Broadband-Rights-amp-the-Killer-App-of-1900?art\_pos=5#x.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430698</id>
	<title>Re:Suddenly, everything is a right</title>
	<author>IndustrialComplex</author>
	<datestamp>1260804720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Electricity is not a right. It will get cut off if you don't pay the bill.<br>We must be pretty well off in this country when we can start calling commodities and the inventions of men "rights."<br></i></p><p>You may have not thought to consider what We gave the power companies.  The People, in granting right-of-ways and providing a limited monopoly for the product gave up some of their tangible wealth in the form of unencumbered land and pseudotangible rights in the form of our right to associate with a different company.</p><p>The trade-off for ceding these collective assets/rights is something that we negotiated in the form of universal access.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Electricity is not a right .
It will get cut off if you do n't pay the bill.We must be pretty well off in this country when we can start calling commodities and the inventions of men " rights .
" You may have not thought to consider what We gave the power companies .
The People , in granting right-of-ways and providing a limited monopoly for the product gave up some of their tangible wealth in the form of unencumbered land and pseudotangible rights in the form of our right to associate with a different company.The trade-off for ceding these collective assets/rights is something that we negotiated in the form of universal access .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Electricity is not a right.
It will get cut off if you don't pay the bill.We must be pretty well off in this country when we can start calling commodities and the inventions of men "rights.
"You may have not thought to consider what We gave the power companies.
The People, in granting right-of-ways and providing a limited monopoly for the product gave up some of their tangible wealth in the form of unencumbered land and pseudotangible rights in the form of our right to associate with a different company.The trade-off for ceding these collective assets/rights is something that we negotiated in the form of universal access.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30433740</id>
	<title>Re:Actually, there is no argument.</title>
	<author>nschubach</author>
	<datestamp>1260819060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sure it will be worked into the Constitution at some point the way things are going.</p><p>Amendment XXVIII: The right of every man, woman, and child to have regulated basic public services</p><p>It will include clauses for the suspension of said services on April 15 to certain individuals, the right for federal access to usage records and a slew of other things...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure it will be worked into the Constitution at some point the way things are going.Amendment XXVIII : The right of every man , woman , and child to have regulated basic public servicesIt will include clauses for the suspension of said services on April 15 to certain individuals , the right for federal access to usage records and a slew of other things.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure it will be worked into the Constitution at some point the way things are going.Amendment XXVIII: The right of every man, woman, and child to have regulated basic public servicesIt will include clauses for the suspension of said services on April 15 to certain individuals, the right for federal access to usage records and a slew of other things...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30431256</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430614</id>
	<title>Thinking the same thing, electricity is not free</title>
	<author>SuperKendall</author>
	<datestamp>1260804240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was thinking the same thing, since when did we have the "right" to electricity?  As you said if you don't pay you are out.</p><p>They may really be arguing that everyone should have the opportunity to pay and buy from a state regulated agency - but didn't we learn that electricity is also better when individuals can produce their own and also sell it back to the utility?  In that same way broadband is better off if everyone can compete for customers.</p><p>Sure perhaps the government can help bring broadband to truly rural areas, but the best thing they can do for broadband for the rest of us is regulate there can be no regulation - to let providers spring up where there is a need, like a single cable company that does not serve a region well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was thinking the same thing , since when did we have the " right " to electricity ?
As you said if you do n't pay you are out.They may really be arguing that everyone should have the opportunity to pay and buy from a state regulated agency - but did n't we learn that electricity is also better when individuals can produce their own and also sell it back to the utility ?
In that same way broadband is better off if everyone can compete for customers.Sure perhaps the government can help bring broadband to truly rural areas , but the best thing they can do for broadband for the rest of us is regulate there can be no regulation - to let providers spring up where there is a need , like a single cable company that does not serve a region well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was thinking the same thing, since when did we have the "right" to electricity?
As you said if you don't pay you are out.They may really be arguing that everyone should have the opportunity to pay and buy from a state regulated agency - but didn't we learn that electricity is also better when individuals can produce their own and also sell it back to the utility?
In that same way broadband is better off if everyone can compete for customers.Sure perhaps the government can help bring broadband to truly rural areas, but the best thing they can do for broadband for the rest of us is regulate there can be no regulation - to let providers spring up where there is a need, like a single cable company that does not serve a region well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30433510</id>
	<title>Re:Same Arguments, So Simply Discredit Them</title>
	<author>sleeping143</author>
	<datestamp>1260818040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The thing about electricity is that people couldn't see that it would service more than just lights.</p></div><p>I think it's safe to assume most people don't realize the full potential of the internet, either. Honestly, I don't feel I know much of anything myself about where the internet is going; there are just too many possibilities to forsee.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Unless you have some WAN technology I don't know about or are accepting the issues of broadband over power, I think it's hard to convince someone that a traditional infrastructure covering--say--all of the Ozarks is going to be worth a whole lot more than the few towns and cities in it that are already covered.</p></div><p>Actually, an interesting possibility for covering very large areas is by using waves in the upper RF ranges. These would allow for huge swaths of sparsely populates land to be covered with relatively high-speed service. Of course, it will never be top-notch service, and that's something one must accept about living in rural areas. However, saying rural areas should be relegated to use minimal or no internet service is absurd. I first managed to get my parents off of dial-up this past summer, upgrading to a wireless signal from a tower ~1 mile away. Even so, they still don't get enough bandwidth to use skype or stream youtube videos smoothly, but the alternative was sticking with terrible dial-up on failing (verizon) landlines. Simply put, we have the technology, but we need to make it profitable for someone to implement.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The thing about electricity is that people could n't see that it would service more than just lights.I think it 's safe to assume most people do n't realize the full potential of the internet , either .
Honestly , I do n't feel I know much of anything myself about where the internet is going ; there are just too many possibilities to forsee.Unless you have some WAN technology I do n't know about or are accepting the issues of broadband over power , I think it 's hard to convince someone that a traditional infrastructure covering--say--all of the Ozarks is going to be worth a whole lot more than the few towns and cities in it that are already covered.Actually , an interesting possibility for covering very large areas is by using waves in the upper RF ranges .
These would allow for huge swaths of sparsely populates land to be covered with relatively high-speed service .
Of course , it will never be top-notch service , and that 's something one must accept about living in rural areas .
However , saying rural areas should be relegated to use minimal or no internet service is absurd .
I first managed to get my parents off of dial-up this past summer , upgrading to a wireless signal from a tower ~ 1 mile away .
Even so , they still do n't get enough bandwidth to use skype or stream youtube videos smoothly , but the alternative was sticking with terrible dial-up on failing ( verizon ) landlines .
Simply put , we have the technology , but we need to make it profitable for someone to implement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thing about electricity is that people couldn't see that it would service more than just lights.I think it's safe to assume most people don't realize the full potential of the internet, either.
Honestly, I don't feel I know much of anything myself about where the internet is going; there are just too many possibilities to forsee.Unless you have some WAN technology I don't know about or are accepting the issues of broadband over power, I think it's hard to convince someone that a traditional infrastructure covering--say--all of the Ozarks is going to be worth a whole lot more than the few towns and cities in it that are already covered.Actually, an interesting possibility for covering very large areas is by using waves in the upper RF ranges.
These would allow for huge swaths of sparsely populates land to be covered with relatively high-speed service.
Of course, it will never be top-notch service, and that's something one must accept about living in rural areas.
However, saying rural areas should be relegated to use minimal or no internet service is absurd.
I first managed to get my parents off of dial-up this past summer, upgrading to a wireless signal from a tower ~1 mile away.
Even so, they still don't get enough bandwidth to use skype or stream youtube videos smoothly, but the alternative was sticking with terrible dial-up on failing (verizon) landlines.
Simply put, we have the technology, but we need to make it profitable for someone to implement.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30434310</id>
	<title>Common response to obvious confusion</title>
	<author>DaveAtFraud</author>
	<datestamp>1260822120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As usual here on slashduh and in quite a few other places, people don't seem to understand the difference between a "Right" and an "Entitlement."  A right costs no one anything.  An entitlement can only be provided if someone pays for it.  Some examples:</p><p>Depending on where you live, you may have a right to free speech.  You can communicate your views to anyone who can hear what you have to say or who can't escape listening to you.  It is an entitlement to demand ink, paper and a printing press, radio or TV time or access to some other medium to spread your views.  These all cost someone to provide them to you.</p><p>You do not have a right to housing or food (regardless of some UN declaration).  These can only be provided by your own work or by someone else's work.  Somebody has to produce the materials for the house and build the house and someone has to grow the food.  They can only be provided at someone's expense.</p><p>In the U.S. (and depending on local law) you have the right to "bear arms" (own a gun).  That doesn't mean you automatically get a gun. If you wish to own one, you have to purchase it yourself.  The right comes for free but someone has to pay for the gun if you want one.</p><p>You don't have a right to health care.  It can only be provided to you by paying your own way (savings or insurance), forcing health care professionals to render it on demand (that's known as slavery) or by taxing someone else and forcing them to pay for it.</p><p>It's really that simple.  What are truly "rights" cost no one anything.  If it costs someone something, it's an entitlement and it can only be provided by taking something (taxes, property, labor, etc.) away from someone else.  A political entity MAY choose to provide some or all of the above entitlements and may even confuse people by calling them "rights" but the fact remains that rights are free.</p><p>Cheers,<br>Dave</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As usual here on slashduh and in quite a few other places , people do n't seem to understand the difference between a " Right " and an " Entitlement .
" A right costs no one anything .
An entitlement can only be provided if someone pays for it .
Some examples : Depending on where you live , you may have a right to free speech .
You can communicate your views to anyone who can hear what you have to say or who ca n't escape listening to you .
It is an entitlement to demand ink , paper and a printing press , radio or TV time or access to some other medium to spread your views .
These all cost someone to provide them to you.You do not have a right to housing or food ( regardless of some UN declaration ) .
These can only be provided by your own work or by someone else 's work .
Somebody has to produce the materials for the house and build the house and someone has to grow the food .
They can only be provided at someone 's expense.In the U.S. ( and depending on local law ) you have the right to " bear arms " ( own a gun ) .
That does n't mean you automatically get a gun .
If you wish to own one , you have to purchase it yourself .
The right comes for free but someone has to pay for the gun if you want one.You do n't have a right to health care .
It can only be provided to you by paying your own way ( savings or insurance ) , forcing health care professionals to render it on demand ( that 's known as slavery ) or by taxing someone else and forcing them to pay for it.It 's really that simple .
What are truly " rights " cost no one anything .
If it costs someone something , it 's an entitlement and it can only be provided by taking something ( taxes , property , labor , etc .
) away from someone else .
A political entity MAY choose to provide some or all of the above entitlements and may even confuse people by calling them " rights " but the fact remains that rights are free.Cheers,Dave</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As usual here on slashduh and in quite a few other places, people don't seem to understand the difference between a "Right" and an "Entitlement.
"  A right costs no one anything.
An entitlement can only be provided if someone pays for it.
Some examples:Depending on where you live, you may have a right to free speech.
You can communicate your views to anyone who can hear what you have to say or who can't escape listening to you.
It is an entitlement to demand ink, paper and a printing press, radio or TV time or access to some other medium to spread your views.
These all cost someone to provide them to you.You do not have a right to housing or food (regardless of some UN declaration).
These can only be provided by your own work or by someone else's work.
Somebody has to produce the materials for the house and build the house and someone has to grow the food.
They can only be provided at someone's expense.In the U.S. (and depending on local law) you have the right to "bear arms" (own a gun).
That doesn't mean you automatically get a gun.
If you wish to own one, you have to purchase it yourself.
The right comes for free but someone has to pay for the gun if you want one.You don't have a right to health care.
It can only be provided to you by paying your own way (savings or insurance), forcing health care professionals to render it on demand (that's known as slavery) or by taxing someone else and forcing them to pay for it.It's really that simple.
What are truly "rights" cost no one anything.
If it costs someone something, it's an entitlement and it can only be provided by taking something (taxes, property, labor, etc.
) away from someone else.
A political entity MAY choose to provide some or all of the above entitlements and may even confuse people by calling them "rights" but the fact remains that rights are free.Cheers,Dave</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30435886</id>
	<title>Re:Same Arguments, So Simply Discredit Them</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260787380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When my taxes stop subsidizing farmland I'll buy your argument or the fact that my taxes already paid for most of this so called infastructure.  It's a down right shame that, for what we pay, we don't already have the best network around.  If Comcast would stop lining it's CEO's pockets or if AT&amp;T would stop advertising about their great network and actually build one....   This crap makes me sick!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When my taxes stop subsidizing farmland I 'll buy your argument or the fact that my taxes already paid for most of this so called infastructure .
It 's a down right shame that , for what we pay , we do n't already have the best network around .
If Comcast would stop lining it 's CEO 's pockets or if AT&amp;T would stop advertising about their great network and actually build one.... This crap makes me sick ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When my taxes stop subsidizing farmland I'll buy your argument or the fact that my taxes already paid for most of this so called infastructure.
It's a down right shame that, for what we pay, we don't already have the best network around.
If Comcast would stop lining it's CEO's pockets or if AT&amp;T would stop advertising about their great network and actually build one....   This crap makes me sick!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30435882</id>
	<title>Re:Suddenly, everything is a right</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260787380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok, apparently I have to spell this out for everyone.</p><p>Let's say you live in the middle of nowhere. Let's say you want a gun and some electricity. Let's also say you have the right to access to both.</p><p>Now, if you want a gun, what are your options? There probably isn't a gun shop in the middle of nowhere, so you can build a gun shop, build a gun, drive into town to get a gun, or move into town.</p><p>If you want some electricity, what are your options? If there isn't an accessible grid, you can build a grid, you can build a single generating device for your own use, drive into town to get stored energy, or move into town.</p><p>There isn't a single person in the US that is denied access either electricity or broadband. Sometimes the tradeoffs are unpalatable or downright impractical, but that is hardly the result of any sort of discrimination. Peanut butter is different than butter. Rural living is different than urban living.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , apparently I have to spell this out for everyone.Let 's say you live in the middle of nowhere .
Let 's say you want a gun and some electricity .
Let 's also say you have the right to access to both.Now , if you want a gun , what are your options ?
There probably is n't a gun shop in the middle of nowhere , so you can build a gun shop , build a gun , drive into town to get a gun , or move into town.If you want some electricity , what are your options ?
If there is n't an accessible grid , you can build a grid , you can build a single generating device for your own use , drive into town to get stored energy , or move into town.There is n't a single person in the US that is denied access either electricity or broadband .
Sometimes the tradeoffs are unpalatable or downright impractical , but that is hardly the result of any sort of discrimination .
Peanut butter is different than butter .
Rural living is different than urban living .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, apparently I have to spell this out for everyone.Let's say you live in the middle of nowhere.
Let's say you want a gun and some electricity.
Let's also say you have the right to access to both.Now, if you want a gun, what are your options?
There probably isn't a gun shop in the middle of nowhere, so you can build a gun shop, build a gun, drive into town to get a gun, or move into town.If you want some electricity, what are your options?
If there isn't an accessible grid, you can build a grid, you can build a single generating device for your own use, drive into town to get stored energy, or move into town.There isn't a single person in the US that is denied access either electricity or broadband.
Sometimes the tradeoffs are unpalatable or downright impractical, but that is hardly the result of any sort of discrimination.
Peanut butter is different than butter.
Rural living is different than urban living.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30433024</id>
	<title>Right to bear arms</title>
	<author>phorm</author>
	<datestamp>1260815400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, this reminds me of a point sometime ago. The right to "bear arms" basically means you can keep 'em if you've got 'em, and buy 'em if you can afford 'em.</p><p>It seems that one trick in the bygone days was to put a fairly hefty tax on gun-related items. The common people may have had a right to have them, but only the aristocracy could actually afford them. I can no longer cite the source or it's validity, but such varieties of "sin taxes" would seem to allow the government to effectively ban things they didn't like without actually making a law banning them...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , this reminds me of a point sometime ago .
The right to " bear arms " basically means you can keep 'em if you 've got 'em , and buy 'em if you can afford 'em.It seems that one trick in the bygone days was to put a fairly hefty tax on gun-related items .
The common people may have had a right to have them , but only the aristocracy could actually afford them .
I can no longer cite the source or it 's validity , but such varieties of " sin taxes " would seem to allow the government to effectively ban things they did n't like without actually making a law banning them.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, this reminds me of a point sometime ago.
The right to "bear arms" basically means you can keep 'em if you've got 'em, and buy 'em if you can afford 'em.It seems that one trick in the bygone days was to put a fairly hefty tax on gun-related items.
The common people may have had a right to have them, but only the aristocracy could actually afford them.
I can no longer cite the source or it's validity, but such varieties of "sin taxes" would seem to allow the government to effectively ban things they didn't like without actually making a law banning them...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430522</id>
	<title>Same arguments have been made about many things</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260803820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Advocates for public education once had to deal with basically the same arguments. And, it's certainly true that a free basic education is not a necessity in the same way that food, water, and shelter are--but very few today would dispute that it's a necessity in the sense that, without it, an individual is at a serious disadvantage in life. It's the same with the internet. Sure, you don't NEED it, but it's going to be very hard to live a normal life in an industrialized country in the future WITHOUT at least basic access to it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Advocates for public education once had to deal with basically the same arguments .
And , it 's certainly true that a free basic education is not a necessity in the same way that food , water , and shelter are--but very few today would dispute that it 's a necessity in the sense that , without it , an individual is at a serious disadvantage in life .
It 's the same with the internet .
Sure , you do n't NEED it , but it 's going to be very hard to live a normal life in an industrialized country in the future WITHOUT at least basic access to it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Advocates for public education once had to deal with basically the same arguments.
And, it's certainly true that a free basic education is not a necessity in the same way that food, water, and shelter are--but very few today would dispute that it's a necessity in the sense that, without it, an individual is at a serious disadvantage in life.
It's the same with the internet.
Sure, you don't NEED it, but it's going to be very hard to live a normal life in an industrialized country in the future WITHOUT at least basic access to it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430622</id>
	<title>Re:Gov't money to private corporations.</title>
	<author>Walterk</author>
	<datestamp>1260804300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I have a serious problem with the government spending my tax dollars on rural electricity lines, and then still enabling the dumb electricity companies to monopolize and charge whatever they want for electric.</p><p>If we are paying for the infrastructure, we should own it, and we should be able to share it. Sure, there will be costs. But let's share the costs then, not pretend some capitalist market magic will make us all happy with great service, healthy competition, and constant innovation. I have horrible service, only one company to choose from, and my electricity is a piece of shit. It blackouts for 5 seconds then goes destroys my equipment with surges.</p><p>Man, am I proud to be an American.</p></div><p>And water, and health care, and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... ?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a serious problem with the government spending my tax dollars on rural electricity lines , and then still enabling the dumb electricity companies to monopolize and charge whatever they want for electric.If we are paying for the infrastructure , we should own it , and we should be able to share it .
Sure , there will be costs .
But let 's share the costs then , not pretend some capitalist market magic will make us all happy with great service , healthy competition , and constant innovation .
I have horrible service , only one company to choose from , and my electricity is a piece of shit .
It blackouts for 5 seconds then goes destroys my equipment with surges.Man , am I proud to be an American.And water , and health care , and ... ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a serious problem with the government spending my tax dollars on rural electricity lines, and then still enabling the dumb electricity companies to monopolize and charge whatever they want for electric.If we are paying for the infrastructure, we should own it, and we should be able to share it.
Sure, there will be costs.
But let's share the costs then, not pretend some capitalist market magic will make us all happy with great service, healthy competition, and constant innovation.
I have horrible service, only one company to choose from, and my electricity is a piece of shit.
It blackouts for 5 seconds then goes destroys my equipment with surges.Man, am I proud to be an American.And water, and health care, and ... ?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430378</id>
	<title>Bah!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260802740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The killer app was stereoscopic pictures of women showing their ankles.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The killer app was stereoscopic pictures of women showing their ankles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The killer app was stereoscopic pictures of women showing their ankles.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30432392</id>
	<title>Re:Suddenly, everything is a right</title>
	<author>phlinn</author>
	<datestamp>1260812760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The right to bear arms != the entitlement to own a gun with no cost to you.  The difference is that the government doesn't mandate that gun shops provide service to people, it will not interfere (except for a compelling reason according to the supremem court...), much the way they don't stop you from getting broadband now.   The right to own X is not the same as the right to compel a third party to provide X.  Postive rights types conflate the 2, but they are categorically different things.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The right to bear arms ! = the entitlement to own a gun with no cost to you .
The difference is that the government does n't mandate that gun shops provide service to people , it will not interfere ( except for a compelling reason according to the supremem court... ) , much the way they do n't stop you from getting broadband now .
The right to own X is not the same as the right to compel a third party to provide X. Postive rights types conflate the 2 , but they are categorically different things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The right to bear arms != the entitlement to own a gun with no cost to you.
The difference is that the government doesn't mandate that gun shops provide service to people, it will not interfere (except for a compelling reason according to the supremem court...), much the way they don't stop you from getting broadband now.
The right to own X is not the same as the right to compel a third party to provide X.  Postive rights types conflate the 2, but they are categorically different things.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430872</id>
	<title>Re:Same Arguments, So Simply Discredit Them</title>
	<author>minsk</author>
	<datestamp>1260805500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I mean, traveling scam artists were well known to people at the time"</p><p>Little did they know that electricity, and the ensuing advances in technology, would remove the need for scam artists to travel<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I mean , traveling scam artists were well known to people at the time " Little did they know that electricity , and the ensuing advances in technology , would remove the need for scam artists to travel : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I mean, traveling scam artists were well known to people at the time"Little did they know that electricity, and the ensuing advances in technology, would remove the need for scam artists to travel :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430456</id>
	<title>Electricity isn't a right in the USA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260803280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Electricity isn't a right in the USA. There are plenty of places without electricity that people still live.  There are even more places without safe, drinking water and indoor plumbing.</p><p>Universal access for telephones is the law, but it doesn't apply to everyone either.</p><p>When you don't have safe running water, internet service is really, really low on the desired rights list.</p><p>Pull your heads out from where ever you've had them shoved please.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Electricity is n't a right in the USA .
There are plenty of places without electricity that people still live .
There are even more places without safe , drinking water and indoor plumbing.Universal access for telephones is the law , but it does n't apply to everyone either.When you do n't have safe running water , internet service is really , really low on the desired rights list.Pull your heads out from where ever you 've had them shoved please .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Electricity isn't a right in the USA.
There are plenty of places without electricity that people still live.
There are even more places without safe, drinking water and indoor plumbing.Universal access for telephones is the law, but it doesn't apply to everyone either.When you don't have safe running water, internet service is really, really low on the desired rights list.Pull your heads out from where ever you've had them shoved please.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30431976</id>
	<title>Re:Thinking the same thing, electricity is not fre</title>
	<author>HeckRuler</author>
	<datestamp>1260810660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>but didn't we learn that electricity is also better when individuals can produce their own and also sell it back to the utility? In that same way broadband is better off if everyone can compete for customers.</p></div><p>There is a fundamental difference between electric, internet, and water services. I think our public water system is fantastic. I do not want to have shop around between three water pipes coming into my house which are all ultimately controlled by the same guy.  But, while I'd buy my neighbors solar power, I wouldn't buy his dish water. And just how do you suppose that I sell broadband back to my ISP? It'd be neat if my neighbors set up an ad-hoc network with our wireless routers, but there's no way that the ISP would pay me for that connection. As for electric services, there are public companies and private companies, but it's very much debatable whether deregulation was a good idea. It allowed for Enron to make a lot of money for a little while, and royally screwed over California. And while you're touting the smartgrid about as the way of the future, it took regulation to get the power companies to install the hardware to enable it and it's regulations that forces them to buy it from you.</p><p>It would be WONDERFUL if everyone could compete for customers. I'd be happy if ANYONE was competing with the ISPs in my last three locations. But really, the bar to entry is so high that even major telcom companies whine that they need subsidies to lay down lines.  </p><p><div class="quote"><p>Sure perhaps the government can help bring broadband to truly rural areas, but the best thing they can do for broadband for the rest of us is regulate there can be no regulation - to let providers spring up where there is a need, like a single cable company that does not serve a region well.</p></div><p>Yes, this is a good thing. EXCEPT where the powers that be would use anti-competitive practices to undermine such efforts. Like telcom companies killing municipal wi-fi, motor companies killing public transportation, or Walmart killing off mom&amp;pop shops. </p><p>So you'll have to accept that the public sector is another form of competition. When things get so bad that a critical mass of the populace would rather a leviathan like the government provide a service, bureaucracy and all, then the free market has failed them and the private sector will have to compete with the public sector. (or be regulated, or be privatized). You may not trust the government, but I don't trust big business. </p><p>And remember that competition will not flourish where natural monopolies exist. There's only one river going through town, there is a reason that the state owns it. Where there is a limited resource that everyone needs to use, an official body needs to govern it's use, like a government. </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>but did n't we learn that electricity is also better when individuals can produce their own and also sell it back to the utility ?
In that same way broadband is better off if everyone can compete for customers.There is a fundamental difference between electric , internet , and water services .
I think our public water system is fantastic .
I do not want to have shop around between three water pipes coming into my house which are all ultimately controlled by the same guy .
But , while I 'd buy my neighbors solar power , I would n't buy his dish water .
And just how do you suppose that I sell broadband back to my ISP ?
It 'd be neat if my neighbors set up an ad-hoc network with our wireless routers , but there 's no way that the ISP would pay me for that connection .
As for electric services , there are public companies and private companies , but it 's very much debatable whether deregulation was a good idea .
It allowed for Enron to make a lot of money for a little while , and royally screwed over California .
And while you 're touting the smartgrid about as the way of the future , it took regulation to get the power companies to install the hardware to enable it and it 's regulations that forces them to buy it from you.It would be WONDERFUL if everyone could compete for customers .
I 'd be happy if ANYONE was competing with the ISPs in my last three locations .
But really , the bar to entry is so high that even major telcom companies whine that they need subsidies to lay down lines .
Sure perhaps the government can help bring broadband to truly rural areas , but the best thing they can do for broadband for the rest of us is regulate there can be no regulation - to let providers spring up where there is a need , like a single cable company that does not serve a region well.Yes , this is a good thing .
EXCEPT where the powers that be would use anti-competitive practices to undermine such efforts .
Like telcom companies killing municipal wi-fi , motor companies killing public transportation , or Walmart killing off mom&amp;pop shops .
So you 'll have to accept that the public sector is another form of competition .
When things get so bad that a critical mass of the populace would rather a leviathan like the government provide a service , bureaucracy and all , then the free market has failed them and the private sector will have to compete with the public sector .
( or be regulated , or be privatized ) .
You may not trust the government , but I do n't trust big business .
And remember that competition will not flourish where natural monopolies exist .
There 's only one river going through town , there is a reason that the state owns it .
Where there is a limited resource that everyone needs to use , an official body needs to govern it 's use , like a government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but didn't we learn that electricity is also better when individuals can produce their own and also sell it back to the utility?
In that same way broadband is better off if everyone can compete for customers.There is a fundamental difference between electric, internet, and water services.
I think our public water system is fantastic.
I do not want to have shop around between three water pipes coming into my house which are all ultimately controlled by the same guy.
But, while I'd buy my neighbors solar power, I wouldn't buy his dish water.
And just how do you suppose that I sell broadband back to my ISP?
It'd be neat if my neighbors set up an ad-hoc network with our wireless routers, but there's no way that the ISP would pay me for that connection.
As for electric services, there are public companies and private companies, but it's very much debatable whether deregulation was a good idea.
It allowed for Enron to make a lot of money for a little while, and royally screwed over California.
And while you're touting the smartgrid about as the way of the future, it took regulation to get the power companies to install the hardware to enable it and it's regulations that forces them to buy it from you.It would be WONDERFUL if everyone could compete for customers.
I'd be happy if ANYONE was competing with the ISPs in my last three locations.
But really, the bar to entry is so high that even major telcom companies whine that they need subsidies to lay down lines.
Sure perhaps the government can help bring broadband to truly rural areas, but the best thing they can do for broadband for the rest of us is regulate there can be no regulation - to let providers spring up where there is a need, like a single cable company that does not serve a region well.Yes, this is a good thing.
EXCEPT where the powers that be would use anti-competitive practices to undermine such efforts.
Like telcom companies killing municipal wi-fi, motor companies killing public transportation, or Walmart killing off mom&amp;pop shops.
So you'll have to accept that the public sector is another form of competition.
When things get so bad that a critical mass of the populace would rather a leviathan like the government provide a service, bureaucracy and all, then the free market has failed them and the private sector will have to compete with the public sector.
(or be regulated, or be privatized).
You may not trust the government, but I don't trust big business.
And remember that competition will not flourish where natural monopolies exist.
There's only one river going through town, there is a reason that the state owns it.
Where there is a limited resource that everyone needs to use, an official body needs to govern it's use, like a government. 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30432084</id>
	<title>Re:Same Arguments, So Simply Discredit Them</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1260811080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It eventually comes down to property rights, though. The government lacks the legitimate moral authority to confiscate an individual's property to provide that property to someone else. Taxing one person to provide for someone else is theft, pure and simple.</i></p><p><br>The geek resident in the Ozarks is essentially the product of economic development projects funded by the federal government.</p><p>Here is a little bit about what the Wikipedia has to say about the Ozarks:</p><p><i>Ozark-St. Francis National Forest was created by proclamation of President Theodore Roosevelt in 1908. In 1939, Congress established Mark Twain National Forest at nine sites in Missouri. In 1976, Congress established Hercules-Glades Wilderness, the first of 13 designated wilderness areas in the Ozarks. In 1986, Congress established the Ozark Plateau National Wildlife Refuge in northeast Oklahoma.</i></p><p><i><br>The United States Army Corps of Engineers lakes that were created by damming the White River beginning in 1911 with Lake Taneycomo have provided a large tourist, boating and fishing economy along the Missouri-Arkansas border. Six lakes were created by dams in the White River basin from 1911 through 1960.</i></p><p><i>The Lake of the Ozarks, Pomme de Terre Lake, and Truman Lake in the northern Ozarks were formed by impounding the Osage River and its tributary the Pomme de Terre River in 1931, 1961 and 1979 respectively. Grand Lake in Northeast Oklahoma was created in 1940.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Most of the dams were built for the dual purpose of flood control and hydropower generation.</i></p><p><i><br>The Buffalo National River was created by an Act of Congress in 1972 as the nation's first National River administered by the National Park Service. In Missouri, the Ozark National Scenic Riverways, was established in 1964 along the Current and Jacks Fork River as the first US national park based on a river system. The Eleven Point River is included in the National Wild and Scenic Riverways System established in 1968. These river parks annually draw a combined 1.5 million recreational tourists to the least populated counties in Arkansas and Missouri.</i> </p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Ozarks" title="wikipedia.org">The Ozarks</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It eventually comes down to property rights , though .
The government lacks the legitimate moral authority to confiscate an individual 's property to provide that property to someone else .
Taxing one person to provide for someone else is theft , pure and simple.The geek resident in the Ozarks is essentially the product of economic development projects funded by the federal government.Here is a little bit about what the Wikipedia has to say about the Ozarks : Ozark-St. Francis National Forest was created by proclamation of President Theodore Roosevelt in 1908 .
In 1939 , Congress established Mark Twain National Forest at nine sites in Missouri .
In 1976 , Congress established Hercules-Glades Wilderness , the first of 13 designated wilderness areas in the Ozarks .
In 1986 , Congress established the Ozark Plateau National Wildlife Refuge in northeast Oklahoma.The United States Army Corps of Engineers lakes that were created by damming the White River beginning in 1911 with Lake Taneycomo have provided a large tourist , boating and fishing economy along the Missouri-Arkansas border .
Six lakes were created by dams in the White River basin from 1911 through 1960.The Lake of the Ozarks , Pomme de Terre Lake , and Truman Lake in the northern Ozarks were formed by impounding the Osage River and its tributary the Pomme de Terre River in 1931 , 1961 and 1979 respectively .
Grand Lake in Northeast Oklahoma was created in 1940 .
... Most of the dams were built for the dual purpose of flood control and hydropower generation.The Buffalo National River was created by an Act of Congress in 1972 as the nation 's first National River administered by the National Park Service .
In Missouri , the Ozark National Scenic Riverways , was established in 1964 along the Current and Jacks Fork River as the first US national park based on a river system .
The Eleven Point River is included in the National Wild and Scenic Riverways System established in 1968 .
These river parks annually draw a combined 1.5 million recreational tourists to the least populated counties in Arkansas and Missouri .
The Ozarks [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It eventually comes down to property rights, though.
The government lacks the legitimate moral authority to confiscate an individual's property to provide that property to someone else.
Taxing one person to provide for someone else is theft, pure and simple.The geek resident in the Ozarks is essentially the product of economic development projects funded by the federal government.Here is a little bit about what the Wikipedia has to say about the Ozarks:Ozark-St. Francis National Forest was created by proclamation of President Theodore Roosevelt in 1908.
In 1939, Congress established Mark Twain National Forest at nine sites in Missouri.
In 1976, Congress established Hercules-Glades Wilderness, the first of 13 designated wilderness areas in the Ozarks.
In 1986, Congress established the Ozark Plateau National Wildlife Refuge in northeast Oklahoma.The United States Army Corps of Engineers lakes that were created by damming the White River beginning in 1911 with Lake Taneycomo have provided a large tourist, boating and fishing economy along the Missouri-Arkansas border.
Six lakes were created by dams in the White River basin from 1911 through 1960.The Lake of the Ozarks, Pomme de Terre Lake, and Truman Lake in the northern Ozarks were formed by impounding the Osage River and its tributary the Pomme de Terre River in 1931, 1961 and 1979 respectively.
Grand Lake in Northeast Oklahoma was created in 1940.
... Most of the dams were built for the dual purpose of flood control and hydropower generation.The Buffalo National River was created by an Act of Congress in 1972 as the nation's first National River administered by the National Park Service.
In Missouri, the Ozark National Scenic Riverways, was established in 1964 along the Current and Jacks Fork River as the first US national park based on a river system.
The Eleven Point River is included in the National Wild and Scenic Riverways System established in 1968.
These river parks annually draw a combined 1.5 million recreational tourists to the least populated counties in Arkansas and Missouri.
The Ozarks [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30431350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30435958</id>
	<title>Re:Every generation...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260787680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just to nitpick a little, the sets of Nudity and Porn intersect, but neither is a subset of the other.<br>
<br>
That is, a nude picture may or may not be porn, and porn may or may not include nudity.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just to nitpick a little , the sets of Nudity and Porn intersect , but neither is a subset of the other .
That is , a nude picture may or may not be porn , and porn may or may not include nudity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just to nitpick a little, the sets of Nudity and Porn intersect, but neither is a subset of the other.
That is, a nude picture may or may not be porn, and porn may or may not include nudity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30432344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430408</id>
	<title>Same Arguments, So Simply Discredit Them</title>
	<author>eldavojohn</author>
	<datestamp>1260802920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>

The thing about electricity is that people couldn't see that it would service more than just lights.  But there were a few people out there (like Edison's lab and Tesla) that could see innumerable uses awaiting.  The people just couldn't comprehend it or were rightfully dubious.  I mean, traveling scam artists were well known to people at the time (probably even far before) just look at what Mark Twain was writing <a href="http://www.pbs.org/marktwain/learnmore/writings\_royal.html" title="pbs.org">a decade before</a> [pbs.org].  <br> <br>

If we follow through with this analogy the solution is simple, you merely need to tell us about and convince us that the "inalienable right to broadband" will indeed herald a new era of empowerment--or at least will be easily worth the cost it's going to take getting an infrastructure up that will cover the nation.  Unless you have some WAN technology I don't know about or are accepting the issues of broadband over power, I think it's hard to convince someone that a traditional infrastructure covering--say--all of the Ozarks is going to be worth a whole lot more than the few towns and cities in it that are already covered.  And you'd be out of your mind to ask a taxpayer in the farmlands to subsidize via tax dollars some infrastructure their not going to gain anything from.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The thing about electricity is that people could n't see that it would service more than just lights .
But there were a few people out there ( like Edison 's lab and Tesla ) that could see innumerable uses awaiting .
The people just could n't comprehend it or were rightfully dubious .
I mean , traveling scam artists were well known to people at the time ( probably even far before ) just look at what Mark Twain was writing a decade before [ pbs.org ] .
If we follow through with this analogy the solution is simple , you merely need to tell us about and convince us that the " inalienable right to broadband " will indeed herald a new era of empowerment--or at least will be easily worth the cost it 's going to take getting an infrastructure up that will cover the nation .
Unless you have some WAN technology I do n't know about or are accepting the issues of broadband over power , I think it 's hard to convince someone that a traditional infrastructure covering--say--all of the Ozarks is going to be worth a whole lot more than the few towns and cities in it that are already covered .
And you 'd be out of your mind to ask a taxpayer in the farmlands to subsidize via tax dollars some infrastructure their not going to gain anything from .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>

The thing about electricity is that people couldn't see that it would service more than just lights.
But there were a few people out there (like Edison's lab and Tesla) that could see innumerable uses awaiting.
The people just couldn't comprehend it or were rightfully dubious.
I mean, traveling scam artists were well known to people at the time (probably even far before) just look at what Mark Twain was writing a decade before [pbs.org].
If we follow through with this analogy the solution is simple, you merely need to tell us about and convince us that the "inalienable right to broadband" will indeed herald a new era of empowerment--or at least will be easily worth the cost it's going to take getting an infrastructure up that will cover the nation.
Unless you have some WAN technology I don't know about or are accepting the issues of broadband over power, I think it's hard to convince someone that a traditional infrastructure covering--say--all of the Ozarks is going to be worth a whole lot more than the few towns and cities in it that are already covered.
And you'd be out of your mind to ask a taxpayer in the farmlands to subsidize via tax dollars some infrastructure their not going to gain anything from.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30432014</id>
	<title>Re:Same Arguments, So Simply Discredit Them</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260810840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since when has the government asked taxpayers what to do [except when the answer already fits their agenda]? Usually it's the government telling what it will do, which is alright for precisely this reason. Otherwise, everything might as well be a popular referendum.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since when has the government asked taxpayers what to do [ except when the answer already fits their agenda ] ?
Usually it 's the government telling what it will do , which is alright for precisely this reason .
Otherwise , everything might as well be a popular referendum .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since when has the government asked taxpayers what to do [except when the answer already fits their agenda]?
Usually it's the government telling what it will do, which is alright for precisely this reason.
Otherwise, everything might as well be a popular referendum.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430418</id>
	<title>Sounds familiar</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260802980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seems to be some folks attitude to universal healthcare too.</p><p>It's a good job that these people usually get overridden in the end.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems to be some folks attitude to universal healthcare too.It 's a good job that these people usually get overridden in the end .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems to be some folks attitude to universal healthcare too.It's a good job that these people usually get overridden in the end.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30432048</id>
	<title>The stench of Randroid droppings...</title>
	<author>Chris Tucker</author>
	<datestamp>1260810960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...hangs thick and heavy in the air this morning, with more than a hint of teabaggery mixed in.</p><p>Someone open a window and break out the air freshener!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...hangs thick and heavy in the air this morning , with more than a hint of teabaggery mixed in.Someone open a window and break out the air freshener !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...hangs thick and heavy in the air this morning, with more than a hint of teabaggery mixed in.Someone open a window and break out the air freshener!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30431894</id>
	<title>Re:Electricity isn't a right in the USA</title>
	<author>KlomDark</author>
	<datestamp>1260810180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yah right, go lookup the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural\_Electrification\_Act" title="wikipedia.org">Rural Electrification Act</a> [wikipedia.org] - it basically codified the right to have access to electricity (and later amended to include telephone.)</p><p>So I dunno what you mean by "not a right" - It's not a right to have service for free - but it is a right to have access to a service if you're willing to pay for it.</p><p>Definitely don't know what you mean by "doesn't apply to everyone either" - who doesn't it apply to?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>// Get out of the city some time, slicker...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>// Born in the city, lived many years in the sticks, now back in the city. (After architecting/implementing the first publically available cable modem system in Nebraska back in 1996. First places were pretty much in the sticks - Kearney, Axtell, and Riverdale.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yah right , go lookup the Rural Electrification Act [ wikipedia.org ] - it basically codified the right to have access to electricity ( and later amended to include telephone .
) So I dunno what you mean by " not a right " - It 's not a right to have service for free - but it is a right to have access to a service if you 're willing to pay for it.Definitely do n't know what you mean by " does n't apply to everyone either " - who does n't it apply to ?
// Get out of the city some time , slicker... // Born in the city , lived many years in the sticks , now back in the city .
( After architecting/implementing the first publically available cable modem system in Nebraska back in 1996 .
First places were pretty much in the sticks - Kearney , Axtell , and Riverdale .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yah right, go lookup the Rural Electrification Act [wikipedia.org] - it basically codified the right to have access to electricity (and later amended to include telephone.
)So I dunno what you mean by "not a right" - It's not a right to have service for free - but it is a right to have access to a service if you're willing to pay for it.Definitely don't know what you mean by "doesn't apply to everyone either" - who doesn't it apply to?
// Get out of the city some time, slicker... // Born in the city, lived many years in the sticks, now back in the city.
(After architecting/implementing the first publically available cable modem system in Nebraska back in 1996.
First places were pretty much in the sticks - Kearney, Axtell, and Riverdale.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30433268</id>
	<title>Re:Suddenly, everything is a right</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260816600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The right to 'bear' arms.  Not the right 'to' arms.  Big difference.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The right to 'bear ' arms .
Not the right 'to ' arms .
Big difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The right to 'bear' arms.
Not the right 'to' arms.
Big difference.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30434478</id>
	<title>Re:One step.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260822900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>3 - Human right to porn.</p><p>4 - Human right to 3D multi-sensorial porn.</p></div><p>I'd like to quote you the human rights declaration.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Article 12: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his <b>privacy</b>, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation...</p></div><p><div class="quote"><p>Article 19: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and <b>expression</b>;<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... <b>through any media</b> and regardless of frontiers.</p></div><p><div class="quote"><p>Article 27: Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and...</p></div><p>Yeah. I think that the right to enjoy porn can be found in the universal declaration of human rights.</p><p>People often forget how much stuff can be found there. It seems that some six decades ago governments considered many more things to be human rights than they do today.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>3 - Human right to porn.4 - Human right to 3D multi-sensorial porn.I 'd like to quote you the human rights declaration.Article 12 : No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy , family , home or correspondence , nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation...Article 19 : Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression ; ... through any media and regardless of frontiers.Article 27 : Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community , to enjoy the arts and...Yeah .
I think that the right to enjoy porn can be found in the universal declaration of human rights.People often forget how much stuff can be found there .
It seems that some six decades ago governments considered many more things to be human rights than they do today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3 - Human right to porn.4 - Human right to 3D multi-sensorial porn.I'd like to quote you the human rights declaration.Article 12: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation...Article 19: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; ... through any media and regardless of frontiers.Article 27: Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and...Yeah.
I think that the right to enjoy porn can be found in the universal declaration of human rights.People often forget how much stuff can be found there.
It seems that some six decades ago governments considered many more things to be human rights than they do today.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30432826</id>
	<title>Re:Suddenly, everything is a right</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260814500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The right to bear arms means the government is not allowed to take yours away, not that one will be provided to you.<br>If this were all that a "right to broadband" meant than I could possibly get behind that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The right to bear arms means the government is not allowed to take yours away , not that one will be provided to you.If this were all that a " right to broadband " meant than I could possibly get behind that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The right to bear arms means the government is not allowed to take yours away, not that one will be provided to you.If this were all that a "right to broadband" meant than I could possibly get behind that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30436054</id>
	<title>Re:Suddenly, everything is a right</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260787980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Electricity is not a right.  It will get cut off if you don't pay the bill.</p></div><p>Note that this can depend on local laws. The electricity company here has a minimum service obligation. About enough power comparable to running somewhere between 1.2 to 2 fridges AFAIK depending on the size of family.</p><p>They still get to bill you, send debt-collectors or go through the courts; but they can't cut you off totally.</p><p>Is this a good thing? IMHO, it's well-intentioned, but not entirely good. Poor people are usually located in houses with bad isolation and have appliances that are not energy-efficient.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Electricity is not a right .
It will get cut off if you do n't pay the bill.Note that this can depend on local laws .
The electricity company here has a minimum service obligation .
About enough power comparable to running somewhere between 1.2 to 2 fridges AFAIK depending on the size of family.They still get to bill you , send debt-collectors or go through the courts ; but they ca n't cut you off totally.Is this a good thing ?
IMHO , it 's well-intentioned , but not entirely good .
Poor people are usually located in houses with bad isolation and have appliances that are not energy-efficient .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Electricity is not a right.
It will get cut off if you don't pay the bill.Note that this can depend on local laws.
The electricity company here has a minimum service obligation.
About enough power comparable to running somewhere between 1.2 to 2 fridges AFAIK depending on the size of family.They still get to bill you, send debt-collectors or go through the courts; but they can't cut you off totally.Is this a good thing?
IMHO, it's well-intentioned, but not entirely good.
Poor people are usually located in houses with bad isolation and have appliances that are not energy-efficient.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30431256</id>
	<title>Actually, there is no argument.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260807600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps the writer overlooked this one little fact:  Since when did we have a right to electricity?  We don't.  His argument is a non-starter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps the writer overlooked this one little fact : Since when did we have a right to electricity ?
We do n't .
His argument is a non-starter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps the writer overlooked this one little fact:  Since when did we have a right to electricity?
We don't.
His argument is a non-starter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30435680</id>
	<title>Re:Suddenly, everything is a right</title>
	<author>steelfood</author>
	<datestamp>1260786360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, you're thinking of guns, or firearms. The right to arms extends to the other end of the spectrum, where, well, your arms are.</p><p>The right to bear arms is effectively the right to self defense. Without being armed, you can't really defend yourself, can you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , you 're thinking of guns , or firearms .
The right to arms extends to the other end of the spectrum , where , well , your arms are.The right to bear arms is effectively the right to self defense .
Without being armed , you ca n't really defend yourself , can you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, you're thinking of guns, or firearms.
The right to arms extends to the other end of the spectrum, where, well, your arms are.The right to bear arms is effectively the right to self defense.
Without being armed, you can't really defend yourself, can you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430484</id>
	<title>Suddenly, everything is a right</title>
	<author>KalvinB</author>
	<datestamp>1260803580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Electricity is not a right.  It will get cut off if you don't pay the bill.</p><p>If electricity is a right like free speech then at some point maybe we'll get to cut off free speech because it's a right just like electricity.  Forget to pay your free speech bill and off it goes.</p><p>We have inalienable rights endowed by a creator.  In other words, not given to us by men and as such cannot be taken away by men.</p><p>We must be pretty well off in this country when we can start calling commodities and the inventions of men "rights."</p><p>"Materialism" is not a right.  You do not have a right to stuff.  Free speech, the right to bear arms, a common trait of all things that are actually rights is that they do not cost money.  They are intangible.</p><p>You do not have a right to tangible things.  They cost money.  All you can do is help lower costs so you can afford them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Electricity is not a right .
It will get cut off if you do n't pay the bill.If electricity is a right like free speech then at some point maybe we 'll get to cut off free speech because it 's a right just like electricity .
Forget to pay your free speech bill and off it goes.We have inalienable rights endowed by a creator .
In other words , not given to us by men and as such can not be taken away by men.We must be pretty well off in this country when we can start calling commodities and the inventions of men " rights .
" " Materialism " is not a right .
You do not have a right to stuff .
Free speech , the right to bear arms , a common trait of all things that are actually rights is that they do not cost money .
They are intangible.You do not have a right to tangible things .
They cost money .
All you can do is help lower costs so you can afford them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Electricity is not a right.
It will get cut off if you don't pay the bill.If electricity is a right like free speech then at some point maybe we'll get to cut off free speech because it's a right just like electricity.
Forget to pay your free speech bill and off it goes.We have inalienable rights endowed by a creator.
In other words, not given to us by men and as such cannot be taken away by men.We must be pretty well off in this country when we can start calling commodities and the inventions of men "rights.
""Materialism" is not a right.
You do not have a right to stuff.
Free speech, the right to bear arms, a common trait of all things that are actually rights is that they do not cost money.
They are intangible.You do not have a right to tangible things.
They cost money.
All you can do is help lower costs so you can afford them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30441346</id>
	<title>The city may be "more efficient" --</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260909660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>except in one thing: having and bringing up children. Look at the "more efficient" urbanized European nations - they are well below population replacement rates. Coupled with their pay-as-you-go social service systems, which depend on the ratio of working age people to pensioners to remain roughly the same (minus productivity gains, but productivity does not actually change that fast in developed nations), this presents a serious problem, doesn't it? Replacing a trained quality workforce with largely untrained immigrants from significantly less industrially developed nations does not seem to work so well either - if those nations had the same quality workforce, they would hardly be in such bad state as to suffer mass emigration.</p><p>Perhaps the investments you speak of were the best possible kind for America, despite the drawbacks?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>except in one thing : having and bringing up children .
Look at the " more efficient " urbanized European nations - they are well below population replacement rates .
Coupled with their pay-as-you-go social service systems , which depend on the ratio of working age people to pensioners to remain roughly the same ( minus productivity gains , but productivity does not actually change that fast in developed nations ) , this presents a serious problem , does n't it ?
Replacing a trained quality workforce with largely untrained immigrants from significantly less industrially developed nations does not seem to work so well either - if those nations had the same quality workforce , they would hardly be in such bad state as to suffer mass emigration.Perhaps the investments you speak of were the best possible kind for America , despite the drawbacks ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>except in one thing: having and bringing up children.
Look at the "more efficient" urbanized European nations - they are well below population replacement rates.
Coupled with their pay-as-you-go social service systems, which depend on the ratio of working age people to pensioners to remain roughly the same (minus productivity gains, but productivity does not actually change that fast in developed nations), this presents a serious problem, doesn't it?
Replacing a trained quality workforce with largely untrained immigrants from significantly less industrially developed nations does not seem to work so well either - if those nations had the same quality workforce, they would hardly be in such bad state as to suffer mass emigration.Perhaps the investments you speak of were the best possible kind for America, despite the drawbacks?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430570</id>
	<title>Re:Gov't money to private corporations.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260804120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I have horrible service, only one company to choose from, and my DVR is a piece of shit.</p></div><p>The market already provided <a href="http://www.tivo.com/" title="tivo.com">a solution</a> [tivo.com] to this particular problem.  Yes, it'll cost you more, but most things worth having do.  If you buy cheap (cable company DVR) you get what you pay for......</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have horrible service , only one company to choose from , and my DVR is a piece of shit.The market already provided a solution [ tivo.com ] to this particular problem .
Yes , it 'll cost you more , but most things worth having do .
If you buy cheap ( cable company DVR ) you get what you pay for..... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have horrible service, only one company to choose from, and my DVR is a piece of shit.The market already provided a solution [tivo.com] to this particular problem.
Yes, it'll cost you more, but most things worth having do.
If you buy cheap (cable company DVR) you get what you pay for......
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30434516</id>
	<title>Re:Same Arguments, So Simply Discredit Them</title>
	<author>im\_thatoneguy</author>
	<datestamp>1260823200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every road you drive on was probably someone's property at some time and they probably didn't want to give it up.</p><p>If you want to live in a forest full of anarchists be my guest.  For the rest of us we realize there is a moral authority that sharing and cooperation is a net benefit to each of us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every road you drive on was probably someone 's property at some time and they probably did n't want to give it up.If you want to live in a forest full of anarchists be my guest .
For the rest of us we realize there is a moral authority that sharing and cooperation is a net benefit to each of us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every road you drive on was probably someone's property at some time and they probably didn't want to give it up.If you want to live in a forest full of anarchists be my guest.
For the rest of us we realize there is a moral authority that sharing and cooperation is a net benefit to each of us.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30431350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30432946</id>
	<title>Re:We should have listened to this wisdom</title>
	<author>Myopic</author>
	<datestamp>1260815040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mods, I'm pretty sure you should mark that as "Funny", not "Insightful", since surely the poster realized that people would burn coal if they didn't have access to relatively efficiently electricity. Yeah, electricity has its problems, but it is a huge improvement to the previous alternative. Similarly, cars are vastly less harmful than the previous alternative: horses; which must be fed and cleaned up after, resulting in a far greater environmental impact. These conclusions are so obvious that the poster was certainly being facetiously humorous, not insightful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mods , I 'm pretty sure you should mark that as " Funny " , not " Insightful " , since surely the poster realized that people would burn coal if they did n't have access to relatively efficiently electricity .
Yeah , electricity has its problems , but it is a huge improvement to the previous alternative .
Similarly , cars are vastly less harmful than the previous alternative : horses ; which must be fed and cleaned up after , resulting in a far greater environmental impact .
These conclusions are so obvious that the poster was certainly being facetiously humorous , not insightful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mods, I'm pretty sure you should mark that as "Funny", not "Insightful", since surely the poster realized that people would burn coal if they didn't have access to relatively efficiently electricity.
Yeah, electricity has its problems, but it is a huge improvement to the previous alternative.
Similarly, cars are vastly less harmful than the previous alternative: horses; which must be fed and cleaned up after, resulting in a far greater environmental impact.
These conclusions are so obvious that the poster was certainly being facetiously humorous, not insightful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430770</id>
	<title>Re:Suddenly, everything is a right</title>
	<author>rolfwind</author>
	<datestamp>1260805020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Freedom of Speech is a negative right - congress can't restrict it.  But they're not obliged to give you a tongue if you were born without on.  They don't need to give you a podium either or force private 3rd parties to do so.  FoS merely prohibits the government taking unreasonable actions against you.</p><p>A freedom like (access to) electricity is more like granting monopoly rights to a company in exchange for universal service.  It's not a right to free electricity, merely access to electricity.  Companies often have rights of way and such things, and it wouldn't do to have them monopolize an area and then decide to service only the more profitable half but block any competors from coming in.  The common good - which is in the Constitution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Freedom of Speech is a negative right - congress ca n't restrict it .
But they 're not obliged to give you a tongue if you were born without on .
They do n't need to give you a podium either or force private 3rd parties to do so .
FoS merely prohibits the government taking unreasonable actions against you.A freedom like ( access to ) electricity is more like granting monopoly rights to a company in exchange for universal service .
It 's not a right to free electricity , merely access to electricity .
Companies often have rights of way and such things , and it would n't do to have them monopolize an area and then decide to service only the more profitable half but block any competors from coming in .
The common good - which is in the Constitution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Freedom of Speech is a negative right - congress can't restrict it.
But they're not obliged to give you a tongue if you were born without on.
They don't need to give you a podium either or force private 3rd parties to do so.
FoS merely prohibits the government taking unreasonable actions against you.A freedom like (access to) electricity is more like granting monopoly rights to a company in exchange for universal service.
It's not a right to free electricity, merely access to electricity.
Companies often have rights of way and such things, and it wouldn't do to have them monopolize an area and then decide to service only the more profitable half but block any competors from coming in.
The common good - which is in the Constitution.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30434014</id>
	<title>tell me about it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260820500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have access to NO cable tv. While I'm close enough, the only provider is charter, and they're so bad they cannot keep reliable service to my appartment, and satellite is not an option (I rent, and can't clearcut the place I live at). Monopolies really are oppresive, I don't understand why I can't have access to cable tv and cable internet even though I live in the city.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have access to NO cable tv .
While I 'm close enough , the only provider is charter , and they 're so bad they can not keep reliable service to my appartment , and satellite is not an option ( I rent , and ca n't clearcut the place I live at ) .
Monopolies really are oppresive , I do n't understand why I ca n't have access to cable tv and cable internet even though I live in the city .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have access to NO cable tv.
While I'm close enough, the only provider is charter, and they're so bad they cannot keep reliable service to my appartment, and satellite is not an option (I rent, and can't clearcut the place I live at).
Monopolies really are oppresive, I don't understand why I can't have access to cable tv and cable internet even though I live in the city.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30436278</id>
	<title>Re:Suddenly, everything is a right</title>
	<author>MattSausage</author>
	<datestamp>1260789060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You, sir, are a loony.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You , sir , are a loony .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You, sir, are a loony.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30431084</id>
	<title>Electricity isn't a Birthright either.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260806700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just because a political decision was made doesn't mean that it's right. Slavery was a legal political decision for a long time the USA, and Freedom is a birthright.</p><p>You are blinded by the light.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because a political decision was made does n't mean that it 's right .
Slavery was a legal political decision for a long time the USA , and Freedom is a birthright.You are blinded by the light .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because a political decision was made doesn't mean that it's right.
Slavery was a legal political decision for a long time the USA, and Freedom is a birthright.You are blinded by the light.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430886</id>
	<title>Re:Birthright?</title>
	<author>e2d2</author>
	<datestamp>1260805560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah I don't think people get how things have to be payed for. Either you pay for it willingly by purchasing it or you are taxed for it without a choice in the matter. Over and over I hear that the second "choice" is the best, that the government should handle everything and I should just be okay with it.</p><p>Some things are needed. Some things are not "needs" and broadband is one of them. If you want it then go purchase it. What exactly is broken with the current system? Does everything need to be socialized? Don't people understand that you are paying for it either way? Nothing is free. Pay for it via the government or pay for it via a corporation. Your choice. But stop pretending the socialized way is always better. The shit doesn't compute.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah I do n't think people get how things have to be payed for .
Either you pay for it willingly by purchasing it or you are taxed for it without a choice in the matter .
Over and over I hear that the second " choice " is the best , that the government should handle everything and I should just be okay with it.Some things are needed .
Some things are not " needs " and broadband is one of them .
If you want it then go purchase it .
What exactly is broken with the current system ?
Does everything need to be socialized ?
Do n't people understand that you are paying for it either way ?
Nothing is free .
Pay for it via the government or pay for it via a corporation .
Your choice .
But stop pretending the socialized way is always better .
The shit does n't compute .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah I don't think people get how things have to be payed for.
Either you pay for it willingly by purchasing it or you are taxed for it without a choice in the matter.
Over and over I hear that the second "choice" is the best, that the government should handle everything and I should just be okay with it.Some things are needed.
Some things are not "needs" and broadband is one of them.
If you want it then go purchase it.
What exactly is broken with the current system?
Does everything need to be socialized?
Don't people understand that you are paying for it either way?
Nothing is free.
Pay for it via the government or pay for it via a corporation.
Your choice.
But stop pretending the socialized way is always better.
The shit doesn't compute.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30431106</id>
	<title>Re:One step.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260806880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>6 - Extinction of mankind for lack of actual reproduction</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>6 - Extinction of mankind for lack of actual reproduction</tokentext>
<sentencetext>6 - Extinction of mankind for lack of actual reproduction</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430780</id>
	<title>Re:Suddenly, everything is a right</title>
	<author>140Mandak262Jamuna</author>
	<datestamp>1260805080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Free speech, the right to bear arms, a common trait of all things that are actually rights is that they do not cost money.  They are intangible.</p><p>You do not have a right to tangible things.  They cost money.  All you can do is help lower costs so you can afford them.</p></div><p>So I can have guns even if have no money? Hurray? Where do I collect my Beretta? I am going to call it Sweetness. You can't copyright that name, Steven Colbert!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Free speech , the right to bear arms , a common trait of all things that are actually rights is that they do not cost money .
They are intangible.You do not have a right to tangible things .
They cost money .
All you can do is help lower costs so you can afford them.So I can have guns even if have no money ?
Hurray ? Where do I collect my Beretta ?
I am going to call it Sweetness .
You ca n't copyright that name , Steven Colbert !</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Free speech, the right to bear arms, a common trait of all things that are actually rights is that they do not cost money.
They are intangible.You do not have a right to tangible things.
They cost money.
All you can do is help lower costs so you can afford them.So I can have guns even if have no money?
Hurray? Where do I collect my Beretta?
I am going to call it Sweetness.
You can't copyright that name, Steven Colbert!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30431408</id>
	<title>Re:We should have listened to this wisdom</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260808320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If electricity hadn't become ubiquitous, we'd have a lot less carbon being emitted today from power plants.</p></div><p>And a lot more being generated by people buring wood, oil and coal in their homes for heat, etc. Ever read about Victorian England and all the soot and grime that filled the skies from all the chimneys?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If electricity had n't become ubiquitous , we 'd have a lot less carbon being emitted today from power plants.And a lot more being generated by people buring wood , oil and coal in their homes for heat , etc .
Ever read about Victorian England and all the soot and grime that filled the skies from all the chimneys ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If electricity hadn't become ubiquitous, we'd have a lot less carbon being emitted today from power plants.And a lot more being generated by people buring wood, oil and coal in their homes for heat, etc.
Ever read about Victorian England and all the soot and grime that filled the skies from all the chimneys?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430812</id>
	<title>Re:Suddenly, everything is a right</title>
	<author>Eivind</author>
	<datestamp>1260805200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That doesn't follow. Plenty of things are rights, but you may nevertheless lose them under certain circumstances. You have a right to freedom, but you forfeit it if you break the law in a serious manner.</p><p>Similarily, in most countries you -do- have the right to get electricity installed, typically for a standard price. Whoever runs the net in your area are typically NOT free to say: "sorry, but your house is a little too far from the neighbour, so it'd be a loss for us to install it at that price, we won't."</p><p>Yes, you can lose the right; if you fail to pay for the electricity you consume, the power can be cut. In most jurisdictions though, even this is something the electricity-company can only do under certain fairly strict rules. (no "3 days late -- you're OFF mister!")</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That does n't follow .
Plenty of things are rights , but you may nevertheless lose them under certain circumstances .
You have a right to freedom , but you forfeit it if you break the law in a serious manner.Similarily , in most countries you -do- have the right to get electricity installed , typically for a standard price .
Whoever runs the net in your area are typically NOT free to say : " sorry , but your house is a little too far from the neighbour , so it 'd be a loss for us to install it at that price , we wo n't .
" Yes , you can lose the right ; if you fail to pay for the electricity you consume , the power can be cut .
In most jurisdictions though , even this is something the electricity-company can only do under certain fairly strict rules .
( no " 3 days late -- you 're OFF mister !
" )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That doesn't follow.
Plenty of things are rights, but you may nevertheless lose them under certain circumstances.
You have a right to freedom, but you forfeit it if you break the law in a serious manner.Similarily, in most countries you -do- have the right to get electricity installed, typically for a standard price.
Whoever runs the net in your area are typically NOT free to say: "sorry, but your house is a little too far from the neighbour, so it'd be a loss for us to install it at that price, we won't.
"Yes, you can lose the right; if you fail to pay for the electricity you consume, the power can be cut.
In most jurisdictions though, even this is something the electricity-company can only do under certain fairly strict rules.
(no "3 days late -- you're OFF mister!
")</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30431224</id>
	<title>Re:Suddenly, everything is a right</title>
	<author>knarf</author>
	<datestamp>1260807480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>We have inalienable rights endowed by a creator. In other words, not given to us by men and as such cannot be taken away by men.</p></div></blockquote><p>That, of course, is not true. What most likely happened is that, in the search for a method of crowd control, far back in time some smart person came up with the idea of using the already existing religious beliefs for this purpose. As most religions had and still have an upper class of priests/mullahs/shamans/witch doctors/etc the solution was to engage those religious rulers in the scheme. It is also possible that the idea sprang up out within this religious upper class.</p><p>The smart person, seeing that believers are attuned to whatever needs and wants their gods are supposed to have, created some dictions in name of those gods. The gods, he said, do not like it if you kill your neighbour to steal his sheep, donkey, camel, cow, wife, land and whatnot. They don't like it if in a situation of famine you hoard all food and refuse to come to aid of others. The gods, in short, did not like their followers to upset their own society or to rebel against it. As to whether it was the same smart person who came up with the idea to use those religious beliefs to further strife and war as well is of course a question which remains to be answered. It is clear, however, that the gods generally DO like it for their followers to compete with followers of other gods. This may also be a means of channelling the aggression of the people so that they don't expend it within their own society.</p><blockquote><div><p>Free speech, <strong>the right to bear arms</strong>, a common trait of all things that are actually rights is that they do not cost money.</p><blockquote><div><p>Compare the homicide/manslaughter and accidental death by firearm statistics within the US with those of northern Europe and you'll see what the cost of that right is. Yes, the right to bear arms does cost money, a lot of it in fact.</p><blockquote><div><p>You do not have a right to tangible things. They cost money.</p></div></blockquote><p>If you narrow that to 'luxury goods' you are close to the truth. You do, however, have the right to sufficient food, clothing and shelter to remain alive. Those things generally don't spring up all by themselves, their is a cost involved in their creation. As to whether you want to express that cost in money, cows, hours or someone's time or shiny shells does not really matter. If for whatever legitimate reason you can not procure these things for yourself they should be provided to you,</p><p>If you don't believe me read your holy book or roll or palm leaf or buffalo hide. I'm pretty sure your god(s) will require this of their followers.</p></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We have inalienable rights endowed by a creator .
In other words , not given to us by men and as such can not be taken away by men.That , of course , is not true .
What most likely happened is that , in the search for a method of crowd control , far back in time some smart person came up with the idea of using the already existing religious beliefs for this purpose .
As most religions had and still have an upper class of priests/mullahs/shamans/witch doctors/etc the solution was to engage those religious rulers in the scheme .
It is also possible that the idea sprang up out within this religious upper class.The smart person , seeing that believers are attuned to whatever needs and wants their gods are supposed to have , created some dictions in name of those gods .
The gods , he said , do not like it if you kill your neighbour to steal his sheep , donkey , camel , cow , wife , land and whatnot .
They do n't like it if in a situation of famine you hoard all food and refuse to come to aid of others .
The gods , in short , did not like their followers to upset their own society or to rebel against it .
As to whether it was the same smart person who came up with the idea to use those religious beliefs to further strife and war as well is of course a question which remains to be answered .
It is clear , however , that the gods generally DO like it for their followers to compete with followers of other gods .
This may also be a means of channelling the aggression of the people so that they do n't expend it within their own society.Free speech , the right to bear arms , a common trait of all things that are actually rights is that they do not cost money.Compare the homicide/manslaughter and accidental death by firearm statistics within the US with those of northern Europe and you 'll see what the cost of that right is .
Yes , the right to bear arms does cost money , a lot of it in fact.You do not have a right to tangible things .
They cost money.If you narrow that to 'luxury goods ' you are close to the truth .
You do , however , have the right to sufficient food , clothing and shelter to remain alive .
Those things generally do n't spring up all by themselves , their is a cost involved in their creation .
As to whether you want to express that cost in money , cows , hours or someone 's time or shiny shells does not really matter .
If for whatever legitimate reason you can not procure these things for yourself they should be provided to you,If you do n't believe me read your holy book or roll or palm leaf or buffalo hide .
I 'm pretty sure your god ( s ) will require this of their followers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have inalienable rights endowed by a creator.
In other words, not given to us by men and as such cannot be taken away by men.That, of course, is not true.
What most likely happened is that, in the search for a method of crowd control, far back in time some smart person came up with the idea of using the already existing religious beliefs for this purpose.
As most religions had and still have an upper class of priests/mullahs/shamans/witch doctors/etc the solution was to engage those religious rulers in the scheme.
It is also possible that the idea sprang up out within this religious upper class.The smart person, seeing that believers are attuned to whatever needs and wants their gods are supposed to have, created some dictions in name of those gods.
The gods, he said, do not like it if you kill your neighbour to steal his sheep, donkey, camel, cow, wife, land and whatnot.
They don't like it if in a situation of famine you hoard all food and refuse to come to aid of others.
The gods, in short, did not like their followers to upset their own society or to rebel against it.
As to whether it was the same smart person who came up with the idea to use those religious beliefs to further strife and war as well is of course a question which remains to be answered.
It is clear, however, that the gods generally DO like it for their followers to compete with followers of other gods.
This may also be a means of channelling the aggression of the people so that they don't expend it within their own society.Free speech, the right to bear arms, a common trait of all things that are actually rights is that they do not cost money.Compare the homicide/manslaughter and accidental death by firearm statistics within the US with those of northern Europe and you'll see what the cost of that right is.
Yes, the right to bear arms does cost money, a lot of it in fact.You do not have a right to tangible things.
They cost money.If you narrow that to 'luxury goods' you are close to the truth.
You do, however, have the right to sufficient food, clothing and shelter to remain alive.
Those things generally don't spring up all by themselves, their is a cost involved in their creation.
As to whether you want to express that cost in money, cows, hours or someone's time or shiny shells does not really matter.
If for whatever legitimate reason you can not procure these things for yourself they should be provided to you,If you don't believe me read your holy book or roll or palm leaf or buffalo hide.
I'm pretty sure your god(s) will require this of their followers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30434090</id>
	<title>Re:Thing is, it wasn't necessary.</title>
	<author>Myopic</author>
	<datestamp>1260820980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't buy access to internet service, I can only buy actual internet service once it is available.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't buy access to internet service , I can only buy actual internet service once it is available .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't buy access to internet service, I can only buy actual internet service once it is available.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30434100</id>
	<title>Re:Electricity isn't a right in the USA</title>
	<author>5KVGhost</author>
	<datestamp>1260820980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's true, but folks should not make assumptions about those services based solely on location. Many extremely rural homes do, in fact, have electricity, running water, and indoor plumbing. They're just provided privately by the owners of the property via generators and/or solar, wells, and septic tanks. No municipal services required or desired.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's true , but folks should not make assumptions about those services based solely on location .
Many extremely rural homes do , in fact , have electricity , running water , and indoor plumbing .
They 're just provided privately by the owners of the property via generators and/or solar , wells , and septic tanks .
No municipal services required or desired .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's true, but folks should not make assumptions about those services based solely on location.
Many extremely rural homes do, in fact, have electricity, running water, and indoor plumbing.
They're just provided privately by the owners of the property via generators and/or solar, wells, and septic tanks.
No municipal services required or desired.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430836</id>
	<title>Bah.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260805320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; We have inalienable rights endowed by a creator.</p><p>[citation needed]<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; We have inalienable rights endowed by a creator .
[ citation needed ] : P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; We have inalienable rights endowed by a creator.
[citation needed] :P</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430566</id>
	<title>Re:We should have listened to this wisdom</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260804120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow...being modded "insightful" when going for "funny" sure is a bitch, isn't it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow...being modded " insightful " when going for " funny " sure is a bitch , is n't it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow...being modded "insightful" when going for "funny" sure is a bitch, isn't it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430926</id>
	<title>Re:Suddenly, everything is a right</title>
	<author>icebraining</author>
	<datestamp>1260805800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can have a right to something, and still pay for it.</p><p>Example:</p><blockquote><div><p>the right to bear arms</p></div></blockquote><p>You have the right to bear arms. You <b>don't</b> have the right to free arms, but you <b>do</b> have the implicit right to buy arms, or the right to bear them would be denied. Just like you can have the right to have electricity (or internet) served to your house at a reasonable price, which was what the Finnish have done. It's exactly the same thing.</p><blockquote><div><p>We have inalienable rights endowed by a creator. In other words, not given to us by men and as such cannot be taken away by men.</p></div></blockquote><p>In <i>your</i> opinion.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can have a right to something , and still pay for it.Example : the right to bear armsYou have the right to bear arms .
You do n't have the right to free arms , but you do have the implicit right to buy arms , or the right to bear them would be denied .
Just like you can have the right to have electricity ( or internet ) served to your house at a reasonable price , which was what the Finnish have done .
It 's exactly the same thing.We have inalienable rights endowed by a creator .
In other words , not given to us by men and as such can not be taken away by men.In your opinion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can have a right to something, and still pay for it.Example:the right to bear armsYou have the right to bear arms.
You don't have the right to free arms, but you do have the implicit right to buy arms, or the right to bear them would be denied.
Just like you can have the right to have electricity (or internet) served to your house at a reasonable price, which was what the Finnish have done.
It's exactly the same thing.We have inalienable rights endowed by a creator.
In other words, not given to us by men and as such cannot be taken away by men.In your opinion.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30432344</id>
	<title>Every generation...</title>
	<author>Chemisor</author>
	<datestamp>1260812580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every generation acts as if it were the first to invent sex. Maybe it's because parents are so good at forgetting what they were like at 19... But every history geek ought to know that there were plenty of times in history when sexual mores were as free and relaxed as they are today. And no, your generation did not invent pictures of naked women either. Porn was around for as long as photography, and before that there were painters who could do much better than the porn you had in 1993. And heck, I bet cavemen painted pictures of naked women too, and had way more sex and you do today.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every generation acts as if it were the first to invent sex .
Maybe it 's because parents are so good at forgetting what they were like at 19... But every history geek ought to know that there were plenty of times in history when sexual mores were as free and relaxed as they are today .
And no , your generation did not invent pictures of naked women either .
Porn was around for as long as photography , and before that there were painters who could do much better than the porn you had in 1993 .
And heck , I bet cavemen painted pictures of naked women too , and had way more sex and you do today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every generation acts as if it were the first to invent sex.
Maybe it's because parents are so good at forgetting what they were like at 19... But every history geek ought to know that there were plenty of times in history when sexual mores were as free and relaxed as they are today.
And no, your generation did not invent pictures of naked women either.
Porn was around for as long as photography, and before that there were painters who could do much better than the porn you had in 1993.
And heck, I bet cavemen painted pictures of naked women too, and had way more sex and you do today.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430652</id>
	<title>Re:Electricity isn't a right in the USA</title>
	<author>durrr</author>
	<datestamp>1260804480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I certainly wouldn't mind being able to google "DIY safe running water" if I had none.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I certainly would n't mind being able to google " DIY safe running water " if I had none .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I certainly wouldn't mind being able to google "DIY safe running water" if I had none.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430606</id>
	<title>Thank god broadband at least won't fry an elefant</title>
	<author>yogibaer</author>
	<datestamp>1260804240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Like Edison did in 1903 to prove that alternating current was a bad idea (http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/01/dayintech\_0104) So we more enlightened folks can stick to posters and foul language...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Like Edison did in 1903 to prove that alternating current was a bad idea ( http : //www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/01/dayintech \ _0104 ) So we more enlightened folks can stick to posters and foul language.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like Edison did in 1903 to prove that alternating current was a bad idea (http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/01/dayintech\_0104) So we more enlightened folks can stick to posters and foul language...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30432182</id>
	<title>Re:free speech</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260811620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hm, either my sarcasm detector is completely broken, or you're a complete idiot/nerd (basically the same thing anyway if you consider social intelligence). How many protest marches have you seen on the internet? Now compare that to the number of protest marches/votes/debates outside in the world where the photons you see come from the sun or a lamp, not the backlight of your screen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hm , either my sarcasm detector is completely broken , or you 're a complete idiot/nerd ( basically the same thing anyway if you consider social intelligence ) .
How many protest marches have you seen on the internet ?
Now compare that to the number of protest marches/votes/debates outside in the world where the photons you see come from the sun or a lamp , not the backlight of your screen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hm, either my sarcasm detector is completely broken, or you're a complete idiot/nerd (basically the same thing anyway if you consider social intelligence).
How many protest marches have you seen on the internet?
Now compare that to the number of protest marches/votes/debates outside in the world where the photons you see come from the sun or a lamp, not the backlight of your screen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30431062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430920</id>
	<title>Re:Suddenly, everything is a right</title>
	<author>KevinIsOwn</author>
	<datestamp>1260805740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"Materialism" is not a right. You do not have a right to stuff. Free speech, the right to bear arms, a common trait of all things that are actually rights is that they do not cost money. They are intangible.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
If the common trait of all things that are actually rights is that they do not cost money, then why do you include the right to have weapons on your list? Last time I checked, they were far from free, and shouldn't be on your list at all. Furthermore, I'm going to ignore all of your god talk, because these rights were indeed invented by men. The idea of free speech is a concept dreamed up by man. It isn't tangible, so obviously man did not build it or make it, but I do not require God to have the right to free speech, life, etc.
</p><p>
I agree that materialism is not a right, but lumping electricity in with the right to buy stuff is a stretch. I have never seen an electric bill that doesn't include provisions for people who do not have to pay it under certain circumstances. For example, families with small children in the house, the elderly, (there are more exceptions) can request to not have their electricity cut off even if they can't pay the bill.
</p><p>
That example demonstrates that as a society we value electricity as something more than just a materialistic indulgence, and that's how it should be viewed. Electricity is necessary in the modern world to survive, and if we value some other rights such as the right to continue living, it is easy to extend a right to electricity to certain people in dire need of it to survive.
</p><p>
To bring this back onto the topic of broadband, in many ways it should be viewed as a right, but not in that everyone deserves to have access to it in their home. Internet access is an important and enriching aspect of our lives, and denying it to someone just because they are poor will simply create a knowledge gap between those who can afford internet and those who can't. But, as I said earlier, this doesn't mean everyone necessarily has a right to free internet in their home. We can satisfy the right to free internet by providing access in public libraries and schools, and ensuring that all communities and people have access to these resources.
</p><p>
Ultimately my argument comes down to one of a right to knowledge. Whether it is from books, classrooms, or the internet, this is an undeniable human right. And if the internet is the primary way to gain knowledge in our times, then we should ensure that people have access to it.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Materialism " is not a right .
You do not have a right to stuff .
Free speech , the right to bear arms , a common trait of all things that are actually rights is that they do not cost money .
They are intangible .
If the common trait of all things that are actually rights is that they do not cost money , then why do you include the right to have weapons on your list ?
Last time I checked , they were far from free , and should n't be on your list at all .
Furthermore , I 'm going to ignore all of your god talk , because these rights were indeed invented by men .
The idea of free speech is a concept dreamed up by man .
It is n't tangible , so obviously man did not build it or make it , but I do not require God to have the right to free speech , life , etc .
I agree that materialism is not a right , but lumping electricity in with the right to buy stuff is a stretch .
I have never seen an electric bill that does n't include provisions for people who do not have to pay it under certain circumstances .
For example , families with small children in the house , the elderly , ( there are more exceptions ) can request to not have their electricity cut off even if they ca n't pay the bill .
That example demonstrates that as a society we value electricity as something more than just a materialistic indulgence , and that 's how it should be viewed .
Electricity is necessary in the modern world to survive , and if we value some other rights such as the right to continue living , it is easy to extend a right to electricity to certain people in dire need of it to survive .
To bring this back onto the topic of broadband , in many ways it should be viewed as a right , but not in that everyone deserves to have access to it in their home .
Internet access is an important and enriching aspect of our lives , and denying it to someone just because they are poor will simply create a knowledge gap between those who can afford internet and those who ca n't .
But , as I said earlier , this does n't mean everyone necessarily has a right to free internet in their home .
We can satisfy the right to free internet by providing access in public libraries and schools , and ensuring that all communities and people have access to these resources .
Ultimately my argument comes down to one of a right to knowledge .
Whether it is from books , classrooms , or the internet , this is an undeniable human right .
And if the internet is the primary way to gain knowledge in our times , then we should ensure that people have access to it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Materialism" is not a right.
You do not have a right to stuff.
Free speech, the right to bear arms, a common trait of all things that are actually rights is that they do not cost money.
They are intangible.
If the common trait of all things that are actually rights is that they do not cost money, then why do you include the right to have weapons on your list?
Last time I checked, they were far from free, and shouldn't be on your list at all.
Furthermore, I'm going to ignore all of your god talk, because these rights were indeed invented by men.
The idea of free speech is a concept dreamed up by man.
It isn't tangible, so obviously man did not build it or make it, but I do not require God to have the right to free speech, life, etc.
I agree that materialism is not a right, but lumping electricity in with the right to buy stuff is a stretch.
I have never seen an electric bill that doesn't include provisions for people who do not have to pay it under certain circumstances.
For example, families with small children in the house, the elderly, (there are more exceptions) can request to not have their electricity cut off even if they can't pay the bill.
That example demonstrates that as a society we value electricity as something more than just a materialistic indulgence, and that's how it should be viewed.
Electricity is necessary in the modern world to survive, and if we value some other rights such as the right to continue living, it is easy to extend a right to electricity to certain people in dire need of it to survive.
To bring this back onto the topic of broadband, in many ways it should be viewed as a right, but not in that everyone deserves to have access to it in their home.
Internet access is an important and enriching aspect of our lives, and denying it to someone just because they are poor will simply create a knowledge gap between those who can afford internet and those who can't.
But, as I said earlier, this doesn't mean everyone necessarily has a right to free internet in their home.
We can satisfy the right to free internet by providing access in public libraries and schools, and ensuring that all communities and people have access to these resources.
Ultimately my argument comes down to one of a right to knowledge.
Whether it is from books, classrooms, or the internet, this is an undeniable human right.
And if the internet is the primary way to gain knowledge in our times, then we should ensure that people have access to it.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30435878</id>
	<title>Re:Suddenly, everything is a right</title>
	<author>steelfood</author>
	<datestamp>1260787380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is what amuses me about America. In one post, you argue without a hint of irony that a) rights are endowed by a creator, and not inventions of man; and b) you have the right to bear arms.</p></div><p>See <a href="http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1477578&amp;cid=30435680" title="slashdot.org">my reply</a> [slashdot.org] above.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>But more seriously, I would take exception to your argument that rights are not given by man. It is only by becoming civilised that we can share equal rights. No matter how loudly you shout about your rights, they only exist if others recognise and respect them.</p></div><p>You certainly can look at it that way. If I don't recognize your right to live, I can kill you. But that's the kind of behavior society is predicated upon to prevent. And this comes in the form of justice, punishment, or whatever else you might call it. You can call it a social right then, that the right to live is among those rights inherent by partaking in society.</p><p>The right to expression is the right to thought. We are born with a brain to think, and a mouth to say what we think. If we cannot express ourselves the way our brain desires, then we cannot have thought anymore.</p><p>So these inalienable rights aren't necessarily "rights" in that they can't be taken away. But they're the "rights" that without, we would cease to be human. So they're Creator-given in the sense that these are a necessity to the condition of humanity, without which, we might as well be robots, or dead.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that everyone has not only rights to free speech, but rights to housing, food, clothing and clean water. These are commodities. The right to express yourself politically (vote) is also critical; as is the right of equal access to public service in your country.</p></div><p>The right of expression I addressed above, but many of the others aren't rights of the populace at all, but the duty of any government ruling over a body of people to provide to the populace. There is a difference. You can say that if a government neglects that duty, then it is justified for the populace to replace that government. But these aren't rights, they're just conditions in which a ruling body can be replaced and a new one recognized.</p><p>As for broadband, while expression is a right that comes with the right to independent thought (as if that happens anyway) the transmission of that expression is not a right. I don't have to hear what you want to say. You're welcome to say it, but I am as free to leave as I am to stay.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is what amuses me about America .
In one post , you argue without a hint of irony that a ) rights are endowed by a creator , and not inventions of man ; and b ) you have the right to bear arms.See my reply [ slashdot.org ] above.But more seriously , I would take exception to your argument that rights are not given by man .
It is only by becoming civilised that we can share equal rights .
No matter how loudly you shout about your rights , they only exist if others recognise and respect them.You certainly can look at it that way .
If I do n't recognize your right to live , I can kill you .
But that 's the kind of behavior society is predicated upon to prevent .
And this comes in the form of justice , punishment , or whatever else you might call it .
You can call it a social right then , that the right to live is among those rights inherent by partaking in society.The right to expression is the right to thought .
We are born with a brain to think , and a mouth to say what we think .
If we can not express ourselves the way our brain desires , then we can not have thought anymore.So these inalienable rights are n't necessarily " rights " in that they ca n't be taken away .
But they 're the " rights " that without , we would cease to be human .
So they 're Creator-given in the sense that these are a necessity to the condition of humanity , without which , we might as well be robots , or dead.The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that everyone has not only rights to free speech , but rights to housing , food , clothing and clean water .
These are commodities .
The right to express yourself politically ( vote ) is also critical ; as is the right of equal access to public service in your country.The right of expression I addressed above , but many of the others are n't rights of the populace at all , but the duty of any government ruling over a body of people to provide to the populace .
There is a difference .
You can say that if a government neglects that duty , then it is justified for the populace to replace that government .
But these are n't rights , they 're just conditions in which a ruling body can be replaced and a new one recognized.As for broadband , while expression is a right that comes with the right to independent thought ( as if that happens anyway ) the transmission of that expression is not a right .
I do n't have to hear what you want to say .
You 're welcome to say it , but I am as free to leave as I am to stay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is what amuses me about America.
In one post, you argue without a hint of irony that a) rights are endowed by a creator, and not inventions of man; and b) you have the right to bear arms.See my reply [slashdot.org] above.But more seriously, I would take exception to your argument that rights are not given by man.
It is only by becoming civilised that we can share equal rights.
No matter how loudly you shout about your rights, they only exist if others recognise and respect them.You certainly can look at it that way.
If I don't recognize your right to live, I can kill you.
But that's the kind of behavior society is predicated upon to prevent.
And this comes in the form of justice, punishment, or whatever else you might call it.
You can call it a social right then, that the right to live is among those rights inherent by partaking in society.The right to expression is the right to thought.
We are born with a brain to think, and a mouth to say what we think.
If we cannot express ourselves the way our brain desires, then we cannot have thought anymore.So these inalienable rights aren't necessarily "rights" in that they can't be taken away.
But they're the "rights" that without, we would cease to be human.
So they're Creator-given in the sense that these are a necessity to the condition of humanity, without which, we might as well be robots, or dead.The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that everyone has not only rights to free speech, but rights to housing, food, clothing and clean water.
These are commodities.
The right to express yourself politically (vote) is also critical; as is the right of equal access to public service in your country.The right of expression I addressed above, but many of the others aren't rights of the populace at all, but the duty of any government ruling over a body of people to provide to the populace.
There is a difference.
You can say that if a government neglects that duty, then it is justified for the populace to replace that government.
But these aren't rights, they're just conditions in which a ruling body can be replaced and a new one recognized.As for broadband, while expression is a right that comes with the right to independent thought (as if that happens anyway) the transmission of that expression is not a right.
I don't have to hear what you want to say.
You're welcome to say it, but I am as free to leave as I am to stay.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30434914</id>
	<title>Re:Suddenly, everything is a right</title>
	<author>virg\_mattes</author>
	<datestamp>1260782100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Electricity is not a right. It will get cut off if you don't pay the bill.</p></div><p>
Your malfunction is that you're misreading the article, and the comments about the arguments made.  The article isn't arguing that broadband itself is a right, nor is (or was) electricity.  It's universal <b>access</b> to broadband (or electricity, in the past) that's at issue.  It's not that you should get power for free, it's that the power company is compelled to provide you access if you're willing to pay (that is, they can't flatly refuse to run a wire to your house if you request service).  By the same token, the article is discussing the push to force broadband companies to make broadband accessible to anyone who's willing to pay the bill.  Today, there are some people who can't get broadband access no matter how much they're willing to pay, because cable/phone companies are refusing to pay for infrastructure upgrades.<br>
<br>
Virg</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Electricity is not a right .
It will get cut off if you do n't pay the bill .
Your malfunction is that you 're misreading the article , and the comments about the arguments made .
The article is n't arguing that broadband itself is a right , nor is ( or was ) electricity .
It 's universal access to broadband ( or electricity , in the past ) that 's at issue .
It 's not that you should get power for free , it 's that the power company is compelled to provide you access if you 're willing to pay ( that is , they ca n't flatly refuse to run a wire to your house if you request service ) .
By the same token , the article is discussing the push to force broadband companies to make broadband accessible to anyone who 's willing to pay the bill .
Today , there are some people who ca n't get broadband access no matter how much they 're willing to pay , because cable/phone companies are refusing to pay for infrastructure upgrades .
Virg</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Electricity is not a right.
It will get cut off if you don't pay the bill.
Your malfunction is that you're misreading the article, and the comments about the arguments made.
The article isn't arguing that broadband itself is a right, nor is (or was) electricity.
It's universal access to broadband (or electricity, in the past) that's at issue.
It's not that you should get power for free, it's that the power company is compelled to provide you access if you're willing to pay (that is, they can't flatly refuse to run a wire to your house if you request service).
By the same token, the article is discussing the push to force broadband companies to make broadband accessible to anyone who's willing to pay the bill.
Today, there are some people who can't get broadband access no matter how much they're willing to pay, because cable/phone companies are refusing to pay for infrastructure upgrades.
Virg
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30431422</id>
	<title>Re:One step.</title>
	<author>dpilot</author>
	<datestamp>1260808380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You forgot the universal right/need for "Wyld Stallions" music.</p><p>Be excellent to each other.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You forgot the universal right/need for " Wyld Stallions " music.Be excellent to each other .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forgot the universal right/need for "Wyld Stallions" music.Be excellent to each other.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30431662</id>
	<title>The only reason I am not 100\% against this</title>
	<author>ArsonSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1260809220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like roads and power, the infrastructure needed to service broadband for everyone requires a private company to trample on the property rights of a 3rd party.  If a someone wants electricity but the person that owns the land between them and the power company doesn't want power lines strung across their land at any price (or even a slightly unreasonable price) then they are SOL.  Same thing happens with roads, waterworks, cable TV, and broadband.</p><p>Although it goes against every Libertarian bone in my body to say it, the Government is the only entity that can insure these kinds of things are able to happen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like roads and power , the infrastructure needed to service broadband for everyone requires a private company to trample on the property rights of a 3rd party .
If a someone wants electricity but the person that owns the land between them and the power company does n't want power lines strung across their land at any price ( or even a slightly unreasonable price ) then they are SOL .
Same thing happens with roads , waterworks , cable TV , and broadband.Although it goes against every Libertarian bone in my body to say it , the Government is the only entity that can insure these kinds of things are able to happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like roads and power, the infrastructure needed to service broadband for everyone requires a private company to trample on the property rights of a 3rd party.
If a someone wants electricity but the person that owns the land between them and the power company doesn't want power lines strung across their land at any price (or even a slightly unreasonable price) then they are SOL.
Same thing happens with roads, waterworks, cable TV, and broadband.Although it goes against every Libertarian bone in my body to say it, the Government is the only entity that can insure these kinds of things are able to happen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30431592</id>
	<title>Re:Bah!</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1260808980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The killer app was stereoscopic pictures of women showing their ankles.</p></div><p>Oh, hot!  She's voting!  Yeah, you break all the rules.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The killer app was stereoscopic pictures of women showing their ankles.Oh , hot !
She 's voting !
Yeah , you break all the rules .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The killer app was stereoscopic pictures of women showing their ankles.Oh, hot!
She's voting!
Yeah, you break all the rules.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30432678</id>
	<title>Re:Suddenly, everything is a right</title>
	<author>JesseMcDonald</author>
	<datestamp>1260813900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The right doesn't mean you will get it, it means you will be able to get it.</p></div><p>Not quite. It doesn't mean you will be able to get it&mdash;the government isn't required to sell you a gun even if no one else will. Rather, it means that the government can't interfere with your right to make/acquire, possess, and use weapons <i>per se</i>. They are permitted to interfere with attempts to harm other citizens, of course, but that is entirely independent of the weapon(s) used (if any). Similarly, the right to free speech doesn't mean they are obligated to provide you with a forum, but rather that they can't prevent you from speaking (again, <i>per se</i>), or punish you for it after the fact.</p><p>An analogous "right to broadband" would change little, as there are currently no laws prohibiting the provision of broadband. It would invalidate actual monopolies granted by law, if there are any, but would not automatically provide new would-be ISPs with permission to run lines through others' property (right-of-way), which is where most state- and local-level exclusivity agreements originate.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The right does n't mean you will get it , it means you will be able to get it.Not quite .
It does n't mean you will be able to get it    the government is n't required to sell you a gun even if no one else will .
Rather , it means that the government ca n't interfere with your right to make/acquire , possess , and use weapons per se .
They are permitted to interfere with attempts to harm other citizens , of course , but that is entirely independent of the weapon ( s ) used ( if any ) .
Similarly , the right to free speech does n't mean they are obligated to provide you with a forum , but rather that they ca n't prevent you from speaking ( again , per se ) , or punish you for it after the fact.An analogous " right to broadband " would change little , as there are currently no laws prohibiting the provision of broadband .
It would invalidate actual monopolies granted by law , if there are any , but would not automatically provide new would-be ISPs with permission to run lines through others ' property ( right-of-way ) , which is where most state- and local-level exclusivity agreements originate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The right doesn't mean you will get it, it means you will be able to get it.Not quite.
It doesn't mean you will be able to get it—the government isn't required to sell you a gun even if no one else will.
Rather, it means that the government can't interfere with your right to make/acquire, possess, and use weapons per se.
They are permitted to interfere with attempts to harm other citizens, of course, but that is entirely independent of the weapon(s) used (if any).
Similarly, the right to free speech doesn't mean they are obligated to provide you with a forum, but rather that they can't prevent you from speaking (again, per se), or punish you for it after the fact.An analogous "right to broadband" would change little, as there are currently no laws prohibiting the provision of broadband.
It would invalidate actual monopolies granted by law, if there are any, but would not automatically provide new would-be ISPs with permission to run lines through others' property (right-of-way), which is where most state- and local-level exclusivity agreements originate.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30435222</id>
	<title>Re:Suddenly, everything is a right</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260783720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well seeing as the Bill of Rights is written by men, part of a governmental structure created by men, and every enumerated "right" can be easily abrogated by the government or your neighbor (through force of arms, indoctrination, or servile consent) and can only be called rights insofar as your ability to maintain them through material means (such as arms, wealth, or charisma). All of the "rights" listed have material costs should they be used no different than the "right" to electricity. Should you wish to exercise your second amendment right you need to acquire arms, a material thing which last I checked cost money (even should you inherit them there was still a cost at one point). In fact every amendment in the Bill of Rights has a cost to maintain the government structure that allows these things and we must pay a price to make use of them, freedom is not free. Should the Lord God decide to make His Will manifest it will be most evident and intractable, we should not however commit such apostasy as to conflate our will with His, our creations as His own. What we call a right is our own mortal concoction not to be confused with the sacrosanct endowments of the Divine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well seeing as the Bill of Rights is written by men , part of a governmental structure created by men , and every enumerated " right " can be easily abrogated by the government or your neighbor ( through force of arms , indoctrination , or servile consent ) and can only be called rights insofar as your ability to maintain them through material means ( such as arms , wealth , or charisma ) .
All of the " rights " listed have material costs should they be used no different than the " right " to electricity .
Should you wish to exercise your second amendment right you need to acquire arms , a material thing which last I checked cost money ( even should you inherit them there was still a cost at one point ) .
In fact every amendment in the Bill of Rights has a cost to maintain the government structure that allows these things and we must pay a price to make use of them , freedom is not free .
Should the Lord God decide to make His Will manifest it will be most evident and intractable , we should not however commit such apostasy as to conflate our will with His , our creations as His own .
What we call a right is our own mortal concoction not to be confused with the sacrosanct endowments of the Divine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well seeing as the Bill of Rights is written by men, part of a governmental structure created by men, and every enumerated "right" can be easily abrogated by the government or your neighbor (through force of arms, indoctrination, or servile consent) and can only be called rights insofar as your ability to maintain them through material means (such as arms, wealth, or charisma).
All of the "rights" listed have material costs should they be used no different than the "right" to electricity.
Should you wish to exercise your second amendment right you need to acquire arms, a material thing which last I checked cost money (even should you inherit them there was still a cost at one point).
In fact every amendment in the Bill of Rights has a cost to maintain the government structure that allows these things and we must pay a price to make use of them, freedom is not free.
Should the Lord God decide to make His Will manifest it will be most evident and intractable, we should not however commit such apostasy as to conflate our will with His, our creations as His own.
What we call a right is our own mortal concoction not to be confused with the sacrosanct endowments of the Divine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30432708</id>
	<title>Re:Same Arguments, So Simply Discredit Them</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1260814020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uh, yah, but I'm pretty sure we don't have a *right* to electricity either in the US. If you build a property in the middle of nowhere, you're required to pay for the electricity to be installed there.</p><p>That said, we generally all agree access to electricity is a good thing, but I'm not sure if the premise of the article is sound.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh , yah , but I 'm pretty sure we do n't have a * right * to electricity either in the US .
If you build a property in the middle of nowhere , you 're required to pay for the electricity to be installed there.That said , we generally all agree access to electricity is a good thing , but I 'm not sure if the premise of the article is sound .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh, yah, but I'm pretty sure we don't have a *right* to electricity either in the US.
If you build a property in the middle of nowhere, you're required to pay for the electricity to be installed there.That said, we generally all agree access to electricity is a good thing, but I'm not sure if the premise of the article is sound.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30431968</id>
	<title>Re:Same Arguments, So Simply Discredit Them</title>
	<author>MattSausage</author>
	<datestamp>1260810600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ummmmmm.... so taxes are completely unlawful?  Because I am having a hard time imagining a situation where you or I pay a tax, and that tax money isn't used to help someone who paid less taxes than us. School tax? Support the military? Welfare of any sort? Corporate Welfare? Paying government salaries? Building roads?
<br> <br>
All these things could potentially be used by or used to better the life of someone other than myself.
<br> <br>
In your view is there such a thing as a lawful tax?
<br> <br> Also, I realize that you may well be a rightwing extremeist, and in that case, I'm sure your mountainside compound completely cut off from electricity and public road access is a great tax shelter and I applaud you for living up to your own principles.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ummmmmm.... so taxes are completely unlawful ?
Because I am having a hard time imagining a situation where you or I pay a tax , and that tax money is n't used to help someone who paid less taxes than us .
School tax ?
Support the military ?
Welfare of any sort ?
Corporate Welfare ?
Paying government salaries ?
Building roads ?
All these things could potentially be used by or used to better the life of someone other than myself .
In your view is there such a thing as a lawful tax ?
Also , I realize that you may well be a rightwing extremeist , and in that case , I 'm sure your mountainside compound completely cut off from electricity and public road access is a great tax shelter and I applaud you for living up to your own principles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ummmmmm.... so taxes are completely unlawful?
Because I am having a hard time imagining a situation where you or I pay a tax, and that tax money isn't used to help someone who paid less taxes than us.
School tax?
Support the military?
Welfare of any sort?
Corporate Welfare?
Paying government salaries?
Building roads?
All these things could potentially be used by or used to better the life of someone other than myself.
In your view is there such a thing as a lawful tax?
Also, I realize that you may well be a rightwing extremeist, and in that case, I'm sure your mountainside compound completely cut off from electricity and public road access is a great tax shelter and I applaud you for living up to your own principles.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30431350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430680</id>
	<title>Re:One step.</title>
	<author>francium de neobie</author>
	<datestamp>1260804600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Somewhere between 3 and 4, I'm sure sex will become an Olympics sport.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Somewhere between 3 and 4 , I 'm sure sex will become an Olympics sport .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Somewhere between 3 and 4, I'm sure sex will become an Olympics sport.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430874</id>
	<title>Re:One step.</title>
	<author>thisnamestoolong</author>
	<datestamp>1260805500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd buy that for a dollar!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd buy that for a dollar !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd buy that for a dollar!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430458</id>
	<title>We should have listened to this wisdom</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260803280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If electricity hadn't become ubiquitous, we'd have a lot less carbon being emitted today from power plants.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If electricity had n't become ubiquitous , we 'd have a lot less carbon being emitted today from power plants .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If electricity hadn't become ubiquitous, we'd have a lot less carbon being emitted today from power plants.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30431624</id>
	<title>Re:Thing is, it wasn't necessary.</title>
	<author>chill</author>
	<datestamp>1260809100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not quite.</p><p>I lived on a street once, down in Florida, that had a dozen houses.  It was across the street from a new subdivision.  Our street did NOT have cable service, either TV or Internet.  The subdivision did.  I lived on the corner, and the main junction box was across the street from me, MAYBE 40 feet from my house.  The cable company refused to run cable to our house, saying that most people on our street already had satellite dishes, it wasn't profitable.  No, I couldn't pay for it, they just refused to do it at all.  They can do that.</p><p>The electric companies CANNOT REFUSE to run you power.  They can bill you the tariffed rate, which was set by the gov't, but if you are willing to pay it is ILLEGAL for them to refuse to run the lines.  Ditto with telephone service or any tariffed variation like a T-1 line.</p><p>That is the difference we're talking about.</p><p><a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=tariffed+service" title="google.com">http://www.google.com/search?q=tariffed+service</a> [google.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not quite.I lived on a street once , down in Florida , that had a dozen houses .
It was across the street from a new subdivision .
Our street did NOT have cable service , either TV or Internet .
The subdivision did .
I lived on the corner , and the main junction box was across the street from me , MAYBE 40 feet from my house .
The cable company refused to run cable to our house , saying that most people on our street already had satellite dishes , it was n't profitable .
No , I could n't pay for it , they just refused to do it at all .
They can do that.The electric companies CAN NOT REFUSE to run you power .
They can bill you the tariffed rate , which was set by the gov't , but if you are willing to pay it is ILLEGAL for them to refuse to run the lines .
Ditto with telephone service or any tariffed variation like a T-1 line.That is the difference we 're talking about.http : //www.google.com/search ? q = tariffed + service [ google.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not quite.I lived on a street once, down in Florida, that had a dozen houses.
It was across the street from a new subdivision.
Our street did NOT have cable service, either TV or Internet.
The subdivision did.
I lived on the corner, and the main junction box was across the street from me, MAYBE 40 feet from my house.
The cable company refused to run cable to our house, saying that most people on our street already had satellite dishes, it wasn't profitable.
No, I couldn't pay for it, they just refused to do it at all.
They can do that.The electric companies CANNOT REFUSE to run you power.
They can bill you the tariffed rate, which was set by the gov't, but if you are willing to pay it is ILLEGAL for them to refuse to run the lines.
Ditto with telephone service or any tariffed variation like a T-1 line.That is the difference we're talking about.http://www.google.com/search?q=tariffed+service [google.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30434680</id>
	<title>Re:Suddenly, everything is a right</title>
	<author>virg\_mattes</author>
	<datestamp>1260824160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>These require a communications network. This means broadband to me.</p></div><p>
Why?  Being able to communicate doesn't require broadband access.  Dialup or a cellular modem are more than sufficient for access to the 'Net.  Sure, it won't support watching TV online and high end gaming but I lived on dialup for years and never had any trouble with communications, even voice chat (Ventrilo didn't particularly like dialup but it worked).<br>
<br>
Virg</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>These require a communications network .
This means broadband to me .
Why ? Being able to communicate does n't require broadband access .
Dialup or a cellular modem are more than sufficient for access to the 'Net .
Sure , it wo n't support watching TV online and high end gaming but I lived on dialup for years and never had any trouble with communications , even voice chat ( Ventrilo did n't particularly like dialup but it worked ) .
Virg</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These require a communications network.
This means broadband to me.
Why?  Being able to communicate doesn't require broadband access.
Dialup or a cellular modem are more than sufficient for access to the 'Net.
Sure, it won't support watching TV online and high end gaming but I lived on dialup for years and never had any trouble with communications, even voice chat (Ventrilo didn't particularly like dialup but it worked).
Virg
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30441376</id>
	<title>Re:One step.</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1260910320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>1 - Right to broadband.<br>
2 - Human right to broadband.<br>
3 - Human right to porn.<br>
4 - Human right to 3D multi-sensorial porn.<br>
5 - Ascension of mankind to a new state of consciousness and peace with the universe.</p></div></blockquote><p>

6 - The majority of human kind slowly withers to death as they refuse to separate themselves from Virtual World of Warcraft, go outside and procreate in a real fashion.<br>
7 - Amish inherit the earth.<br>
8 - Barn raising.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 - Right to broadband .
2 - Human right to broadband .
3 - Human right to porn .
4 - Human right to 3D multi-sensorial porn .
5 - Ascension of mankind to a new state of consciousness and peace with the universe .
6 - The majority of human kind slowly withers to death as they refuse to separate themselves from Virtual World of Warcraft , go outside and procreate in a real fashion .
7 - Amish inherit the earth .
8 - Barn raising .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1 - Right to broadband.
2 - Human right to broadband.
3 - Human right to porn.
4 - Human right to 3D multi-sensorial porn.
5 - Ascension of mankind to a new state of consciousness and peace with the universe.
6 - The majority of human kind slowly withers to death as they refuse to separate themselves from Virtual World of Warcraft, go outside and procreate in a real fashion.
7 - Amish inherit the earth.
8 - Barn raising.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30434048</id>
	<title>Re:Same arguments have been made about many things</title>
	<author>Myopic</author>
	<datestamp>1260820680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Advocates for public education still have to deal with basically the same asinine arguments.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Advocates for public education still have to deal with basically the same asinine arguments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Advocates for public education still have to deal with basically the same asinine arguments.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30431396</id>
	<title>Why do this?</title>
	<author>gedrin</author>
	<datestamp>1260808260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Broadband access, via Hughes as just one of several options, is currently available in the following areas:<br> <br>Earth<br> <br>Given that anyone, anywhere in the above location, already has access to an internet connection of 1Mbs+, why is such a law needed?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Broadband access , via Hughes as just one of several options , is currently available in the following areas : Earth Given that anyone , anywhere in the above location , already has access to an internet connection of 1Mbs + , why is such a law needed ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Broadband access, via Hughes as just one of several options, is currently available in the following areas: Earth Given that anyone, anywhere in the above location, already has access to an internet connection of 1Mbs+, why is such a law needed?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30432828</id>
	<title>Re:Same Arguments, So Simply Discredit Them</title>
	<author>cerberusss</author>
	<datestamp>1260814500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Taxing one person to provide for someone else is theft, pure and simple.</p></div><p>Your opinion is so far off the radar for most people, I'd mod you +5 funny.</p><p>Please think about that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Taxing one person to provide for someone else is theft , pure and simple.Your opinion is so far off the radar for most people , I 'd mod you + 5 funny.Please think about that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Taxing one person to provide for someone else is theft, pure and simple.Your opinion is so far off the radar for most people, I'd mod you +5 funny.Please think about that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30431350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30441300</id>
	<title>Sad misunderstanding</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260908940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only irony here is that, speaking the same language, you use the same word "right" for a very different thing.</p><p>Namely, the right to bear arms is not a statement that someone should arm those without a weapon, in the manner that a "right to housing and food" is taken by some to mean that someone(s) must be made to build houses and feed others whether they agree to it or not. It merely means that it is not just for the government to prohibit law-abiding citizens from going armed. This proceeds from the conviction that people should be able to defend themselves with the best means they can afford, and it is not just for a government to deprive them of this capability.</p><p>The rights to "commodities" are a slippery slope. Someone must produce them, that is to say, must be coerced into working and giving up the fruits of their labor for the sake of the needy. Such was the country I grew up in - it essentially confiscated almost everything that everyone earned and provided "free" (rationed) housing, sponsored basic foods and clothing, and even a standardized education (that first and foremost suited its own needs, largely defined as the capability to force it on more and more people). Where the "universal" rights-through-confiscation stop and that system started, I honestly do no know; I only know that it sucked and I was glad when it died.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only irony here is that , speaking the same language , you use the same word " right " for a very different thing.Namely , the right to bear arms is not a statement that someone should arm those without a weapon , in the manner that a " right to housing and food " is taken by some to mean that someone ( s ) must be made to build houses and feed others whether they agree to it or not .
It merely means that it is not just for the government to prohibit law-abiding citizens from going armed .
This proceeds from the conviction that people should be able to defend themselves with the best means they can afford , and it is not just for a government to deprive them of this capability.The rights to " commodities " are a slippery slope .
Someone must produce them , that is to say , must be coerced into working and giving up the fruits of their labor for the sake of the needy .
Such was the country I grew up in - it essentially confiscated almost everything that everyone earned and provided " free " ( rationed ) housing , sponsored basic foods and clothing , and even a standardized education ( that first and foremost suited its own needs , largely defined as the capability to force it on more and more people ) .
Where the " universal " rights-through-confiscation stop and that system started , I honestly do no know ; I only know that it sucked and I was glad when it died .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only irony here is that, speaking the same language, you use the same word "right" for a very different thing.Namely, the right to bear arms is not a statement that someone should arm those without a weapon, in the manner that a "right to housing and food" is taken by some to mean that someone(s) must be made to build houses and feed others whether they agree to it or not.
It merely means that it is not just for the government to prohibit law-abiding citizens from going armed.
This proceeds from the conviction that people should be able to defend themselves with the best means they can afford, and it is not just for a government to deprive them of this capability.The rights to "commodities" are a slippery slope.
Someone must produce them, that is to say, must be coerced into working and giving up the fruits of their labor for the sake of the needy.
Such was the country I grew up in - it essentially confiscated almost everything that everyone earned and provided "free" (rationed) housing, sponsored basic foods and clothing, and even a standardized education (that first and foremost suited its own needs, largely defined as the capability to force it on more and more people).
Where the "universal" rights-through-confiscation stop and that system started, I honestly do no know; I only know that it sucked and I was glad when it died.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30432276</id>
	<title>Re:Thing is, it wasn't necessary.</title>
	<author>lwsimon</author>
	<datestamp>1260812220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I live in the Ozarks, and there are many places here where you can purchase land and build a house without electricity.  It is emphatically not a *right*, and many people go without it by choice.</p><p>A right, by definition, does not require anyone other than you take on a responsibility.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I live in the Ozarks , and there are many places here where you can purchase land and build a house without electricity .
It is emphatically not a * right * , and many people go without it by choice.A right , by definition , does not require anyone other than you take on a responsibility .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I live in the Ozarks, and there are many places here where you can purchase land and build a house without electricity.
It is emphatically not a *right*, and many people go without it by choice.A right, by definition, does not require anyone other than you take on a responsibility.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430740</id>
	<title>Re:Gov't money to private corporations.</title>
	<author>bobs666</author>
	<datestamp>1260804900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you want TV I am thinking Broadcast,
Think public satellite,
not the local ground obstructed
trash the FCC left us with.
And Perhaps MythTV.
<br> <br>
If you want Internet and phone think
house top radio routers.  We are talking
300 megabit channels,
in the GigH. frequency ranges.
How many places do you go where
there is not a house with in 5 miles.
And even then the frequencies
like the old VHF TV bands for people way out
<br> <br>
This would give ISP's a level playing field
And There could then be 100s not 1 or 2
ISP's to provide backbone connections.
It might even be better if the backbone
was public as well.  Its infrastructure
like the Highways.
It can make or break this country.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want TV I am thinking Broadcast , Think public satellite , not the local ground obstructed trash the FCC left us with .
And Perhaps MythTV .
If you want Internet and phone think house top radio routers .
We are talking 300 megabit channels , in the GigH .
frequency ranges .
How many places do you go where there is not a house with in 5 miles .
And even then the frequencies like the old VHF TV bands for people way out This would give ISP 's a level playing field And There could then be 100s not 1 or 2 ISP 's to provide backbone connections .
It might even be better if the backbone was public as well .
Its infrastructure like the Highways .
It can make or break this country .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want TV I am thinking Broadcast,
Think public satellite,
not the local ground obstructed
trash the FCC left us with.
And Perhaps MythTV.
If you want Internet and phone think
house top radio routers.
We are talking
300 megabit channels,
in the GigH.
frequency ranges.
How many places do you go where
there is not a house with in 5 miles.
And even then the frequencies
like the old VHF TV bands for people way out
 
This would give ISP's a level playing field
And There could then be 100s not 1 or 2
ISP's to provide backbone connections.
It might even be better if the backbone
was public as well.
Its infrastructure
like the Highways.
It can make or break this country.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30432632</id>
	<title>Re:Same Arguments, So Simply Discredit Them</title>
	<author>Capt\_Morgan</author>
	<datestamp>1260813660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>LOL...... this got modded Interesting?  I guess the ranting of 12 year olds who call taxation theft is now interesting.

Seriously..... this is just childish whining.

So basically taxing people without cars and building roads is theft...  and taxing pacifists for military spending is theft and all taxation to provide any service that you personally don't use is theft.

Grow up</htmltext>
<tokenext>LOL...... this got modded Interesting ?
I guess the ranting of 12 year olds who call taxation theft is now interesting .
Seriously..... this is just childish whining .
So basically taxing people without cars and building roads is theft... and taxing pacifists for military spending is theft and all taxation to provide any service that you personally do n't use is theft .
Grow up</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LOL...... this got modded Interesting?
I guess the ranting of 12 year olds who call taxation theft is now interesting.
Seriously..... this is just childish whining.
So basically taxing people without cars and building roads is theft...  and taxing pacifists for military spending is theft and all taxation to provide any service that you personally don't use is theft.
Grow up</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30431350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430562</id>
	<title>Re:Gov't money to private corporations.</title>
	<author>Midnight Thunder</author>
	<datestamp>1260804060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I have a serious problem with the government spending my tax dollars on rural broadband lines, and then still enabling the dumb cable companies to monopolize and charge whatever they want for internet service.</i></p><p>This makes me think the government works with the policy "built by the government, screwed by the corporations, but at least its not socialism". The thing is that getting a country working for its people may sound like a socialist approach, but heck isn't that the purpose of government? Corporations should be forced to compete with government. If the corporations don't like it, then f*** off, or offer a better service and "let the market decide" - you can't have it both ways (though apparently they can thanks to screwed up policies and lobby groups).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a serious problem with the government spending my tax dollars on rural broadband lines , and then still enabling the dumb cable companies to monopolize and charge whatever they want for internet service.This makes me think the government works with the policy " built by the government , screwed by the corporations , but at least its not socialism " .
The thing is that getting a country working for its people may sound like a socialist approach , but heck is n't that the purpose of government ?
Corporations should be forced to compete with government .
If the corporations do n't like it , then f * * * off , or offer a better service and " let the market decide " - you ca n't have it both ways ( though apparently they can thanks to screwed up policies and lobby groups ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a serious problem with the government spending my tax dollars on rural broadband lines, and then still enabling the dumb cable companies to monopolize and charge whatever they want for internet service.This makes me think the government works with the policy "built by the government, screwed by the corporations, but at least its not socialism".
The thing is that getting a country working for its people may sound like a socialist approach, but heck isn't that the purpose of government?
Corporations should be forced to compete with government.
If the corporations don't like it, then f*** off, or offer a better service and "let the market decide" - you can't have it both ways (though apparently they can thanks to screwed up policies and lobby groups).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30431570</id>
	<title>Re:Suddenly, everything is a right</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260808920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Durr! Durr! Durr!</p><p>Holy fucking shit, you're a retard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Durr !
Durr ! Durr ! Holy fucking shit , you 're a retard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Durr!
Durr! Durr!Holy fucking shit, you're a retard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430910</id>
	<title>Re:One step.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260805680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and somewhere between 4 and 5 is a calamitous drop in the human birth rate...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and somewhere between 4 and 5 is a calamitous drop in the human birth rate.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and somewhere between 4 and 5 is a calamitous drop in the human birth rate...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30434746</id>
	<title>Re:Suddenly, everything is a right</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260781200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"No matter how loudly you shout about your rights, they only exist if others recognise and respect them."</p><p>You've got it completely backwards. That's why you're "amused" by the idea that a right to the means of self-defense can be inherent; you don't recognize what a right is.</p><p>A right is something that someone else is not allowed to take from you or deny you.</p><p>If no one else is around to "recognize and respect" your rights, you still have them. Because there's no one to infringe on them.</p><p>When no other people are around,</p><p>- You can say what you like.<br>- You can pick up or invent any means whatsoever for defense against predators.<br>- No one can force you to let them live in your home.<br>- No one can search through your belongings.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...and so on.</p><p>Now I happen to agree that things like food, shelter, water, clothing should be rights; that is, as long as there are enough of those things to go around, and THERE ARE in any developed country, it makes no sense to deny people access to those things. Worse, it's dangerous; denying people the means of survival can drive them to desperate, even criminal actions, and since this is a predictable human tendency, the survival-denying society becomes complicit in whatever crimes they commit.</p><p>Which brings us back to the right to bear arms. Self-defense IS ALSO necessary for survival. Denying people the means of self-defense EVERY BIT as abhorrent as denying them the means to eat, to drink, to shield themselves from the elements.</p><p>Funny that your "universal human rights" don't include the right to stop an attack on one's person...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" No matter how loudly you shout about your rights , they only exist if others recognise and respect them .
" You 've got it completely backwards .
That 's why you 're " amused " by the idea that a right to the means of self-defense can be inherent ; you do n't recognize what a right is.A right is something that someone else is not allowed to take from you or deny you.If no one else is around to " recognize and respect " your rights , you still have them .
Because there 's no one to infringe on them.When no other people are around,- You can say what you like.- You can pick up or invent any means whatsoever for defense against predators.- No one can force you to let them live in your home.- No one can search through your belongings .
...and so on.Now I happen to agree that things like food , shelter , water , clothing should be rights ; that is , as long as there are enough of those things to go around , and THERE ARE in any developed country , it makes no sense to deny people access to those things .
Worse , it 's dangerous ; denying people the means of survival can drive them to desperate , even criminal actions , and since this is a predictable human tendency , the survival-denying society becomes complicit in whatever crimes they commit.Which brings us back to the right to bear arms .
Self-defense IS ALSO necessary for survival .
Denying people the means of self-defense EVERY BIT as abhorrent as denying them the means to eat , to drink , to shield themselves from the elements.Funny that your " universal human rights " do n't include the right to stop an attack on one 's person.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"No matter how loudly you shout about your rights, they only exist if others recognise and respect them.
"You've got it completely backwards.
That's why you're "amused" by the idea that a right to the means of self-defense can be inherent; you don't recognize what a right is.A right is something that someone else is not allowed to take from you or deny you.If no one else is around to "recognize and respect" your rights, you still have them.
Because there's no one to infringe on them.When no other people are around,- You can say what you like.- You can pick up or invent any means whatsoever for defense against predators.- No one can force you to let them live in your home.- No one can search through your belongings.
...and so on.Now I happen to agree that things like food, shelter, water, clothing should be rights; that is, as long as there are enough of those things to go around, and THERE ARE in any developed country, it makes no sense to deny people access to those things.
Worse, it's dangerous; denying people the means of survival can drive them to desperate, even criminal actions, and since this is a predictable human tendency, the survival-denying society becomes complicit in whatever crimes they commit.Which brings us back to the right to bear arms.
Self-defense IS ALSO necessary for survival.
Denying people the means of self-defense EVERY BIT as abhorrent as denying them the means to eat, to drink, to shield themselves from the elements.Funny that your "universal human rights" don't include the right to stop an attack on one's person...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30432308</id>
	<title>Re:Suddenly, everything is a right</title>
	<author>fredjh</author>
	<datestamp>1260812400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Look, I don't give a rats ass about the arguments for or against the right to bear arms but to imply that those rights and the right to free speech are somehow similar rights - rights that one possesses simply by the virtue of being born - is laughable.</p></div></blockquote><p>Again, another "foreigner" who doesn't understand the American concept of "negative" rights.</p><p>The bill of rights grants no rights; instead is assumes you already have many rights and simply enumerates ones that the government (in some cases restricted to the federal government) cannot take away.</p><p>At the time they wrote the constitution, they felt it necessary to explicitly point out that an armed populace was less likely to be coerced by government force, but they weren't "granting" the right, they were simply saying the right couldn't be taken away.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Look , I do n't give a rats ass about the arguments for or against the right to bear arms but to imply that those rights and the right to free speech are somehow similar rights - rights that one possesses simply by the virtue of being born - is laughable.Again , another " foreigner " who does n't understand the American concept of " negative " rights.The bill of rights grants no rights ; instead is assumes you already have many rights and simply enumerates ones that the government ( in some cases restricted to the federal government ) can not take away.At the time they wrote the constitution , they felt it necessary to explicitly point out that an armed populace was less likely to be coerced by government force , but they were n't " granting " the right , they were simply saying the right could n't be taken away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look, I don't give a rats ass about the arguments for or against the right to bear arms but to imply that those rights and the right to free speech are somehow similar rights - rights that one possesses simply by the virtue of being born - is laughable.Again, another "foreigner" who doesn't understand the American concept of "negative" rights.The bill of rights grants no rights; instead is assumes you already have many rights and simply enumerates ones that the government (in some cases restricted to the federal government) cannot take away.At the time they wrote the constitution, they felt it necessary to explicitly point out that an armed populace was less likely to be coerced by government force, but they weren't "granting" the right, they were simply saying the right couldn't be taken away.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30433992</id>
	<title>Re:Suddenly, everything is a right</title>
	<author>Myopic</author>
	<datestamp>1260820380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think you quite got it right. Both the right of speech and the right of arms are "birthrights" -- you get them simply for being a citizen of the country. But the government neither provides you with a gun, nor provides you with speech (whatever that would mean). So yes, they are similar in many ways.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think you quite got it right .
Both the right of speech and the right of arms are " birthrights " -- you get them simply for being a citizen of the country .
But the government neither provides you with a gun , nor provides you with speech ( whatever that would mean ) .
So yes , they are similar in many ways .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think you quite got it right.
Both the right of speech and the right of arms are "birthrights" -- you get them simply for being a citizen of the country.
But the government neither provides you with a gun, nor provides you with speech (whatever that would mean).
So yes, they are similar in many ways.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430956</id>
	<title>Re:One step.</title>
	<author>AtomicSnarl</author>
	<datestamp>1260806040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You forgot:
<br> <br>
6 - Profit!</htmltext>
<tokenext>You forgot : 6 - Profit !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forgot:
 
6 - Profit!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430596</id>
	<title>Re:Such a strained argument is hardly necessary</title>
	<author>Cimexus</author>
	<datestamp>1260804180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Surely broadcasting technology (one sender, many receivers) like TV and radio is inherently better suited to one-way communication, and the Internet, due to its point-to-point nature, is inherently much more flexible and able to do the whole collaboration thing though?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Surely broadcasting technology ( one sender , many receivers ) like TV and radio is inherently better suited to one-way communication , and the Internet , due to its point-to-point nature , is inherently much more flexible and able to do the whole collaboration thing though ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Surely broadcasting technology (one sender, many receivers) like TV and radio is inherently better suited to one-way communication, and the Internet, due to its point-to-point nature, is inherently much more flexible and able to do the whole collaboration thing though?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30433676</id>
	<title>Re:Same Arguments, So Simply Discredit Them</title>
	<author>NotOverHere</author>
	<datestamp>1260818820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You insensitive clod! I'm in the Ozarks.</p><p>It's not exactly the middle of nowhere, but ask enough people, and they'll tell you exactly where to go!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You insensitive clod !
I 'm in the Ozarks.It 's not exactly the middle of nowhere , but ask enough people , and they 'll tell you exactly where to go !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You insensitive clod!
I'm in the Ozarks.It's not exactly the middle of nowhere, but ask enough people, and they'll tell you exactly where to go!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430410</id>
	<title>If you want broadband, live where it's available.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260802920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let market forces decide who gets it.  Forcing buildouts to the far corners of rural America will just inflate everyone else's prices.
<br> <br>
In Soviet Russia, broadband comes to you<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...but this is not Soviet Russia.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let market forces decide who gets it .
Forcing buildouts to the far corners of rural America will just inflate everyone else 's prices .
In Soviet Russia , broadband comes to you ...but this is not Soviet Russia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let market forces decide who gets it.
Forcing buildouts to the far corners of rural America will just inflate everyone else's prices.
In Soviet Russia, broadband comes to you ...but this is not Soviet Russia.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30431062</id>
	<title>free speech</title>
	<author>bobs666</author>
	<datestamp>1260806580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>When this Country was created and you
wanted to share your views and exercise
your freedom of Speech you went to the town
square and spoke. This was what free speech
was all about.
<br> <br>
Where is the town square in the 21st Century?
<br> Where do we share our views?
<br> <br>
Why Its right here at shashdot.
Yes its on the Internet.
<br> <br>
Now we pay the ISP's for Speech.
Thats not the Free we should be talking about.
The ISP's want to block traffic they do not like, traffic that does not make them cold cash, we have to watch this closely.

<br> <br>
The founding fathers could not have invisioned
that speech would stray into the gigahertz
bands.  But if they had, Some of that bandwidth
would have been by law given to the people.
Other parts reserved for the public good, like
the military and fire/police etc.  Come to think of it, a working radio infrastructure
would also be useful to the fire/police.

<br> <br>
We should have the right to own
the infrastructure.  We should
have the right to put a radio router
on our roof. And share the connectivity.
We are talking 300 megabit channels, in the GigH. frequency ranges. How many places do you go where there is not a house with in 5 miles.
Its like a Gun, you have to buy it and buy
ammo. The same is true for a radio router,
You have to buy it and feed it electricity.
But we should have the right.
Not be  ignored by the FCC for the
good of the duopoly's/monopoly's.

<br> <br>
A radio last milewould give ISP's a level playing field And There could then be 100s not 1 or 2 ISP's to provide backbone connections. It might even be better if the backbone was public as well. Its infrastructure like the Highways. It can make or break this country.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When this Country was created and you wanted to share your views and exercise your freedom of Speech you went to the town square and spoke .
This was what free speech was all about .
Where is the town square in the 21st Century ?
Where do we share our views ?
Why Its right here at shashdot .
Yes its on the Internet .
Now we pay the ISP 's for Speech .
Thats not the Free we should be talking about .
The ISP 's want to block traffic they do not like , traffic that does not make them cold cash , we have to watch this closely .
The founding fathers could not have invisioned that speech would stray into the gigahertz bands .
But if they had , Some of that bandwidth would have been by law given to the people .
Other parts reserved for the public good , like the military and fire/police etc .
Come to think of it , a working radio infrastructure would also be useful to the fire/police .
We should have the right to own the infrastructure .
We should have the right to put a radio router on our roof .
And share the connectivity .
We are talking 300 megabit channels , in the GigH .
frequency ranges .
How many places do you go where there is not a house with in 5 miles .
Its like a Gun , you have to buy it and buy ammo .
The same is true for a radio router , You have to buy it and feed it electricity .
But we should have the right .
Not be ignored by the FCC for the good of the duopoly 's/monopoly 's .
A radio last milewould give ISP 's a level playing field And There could then be 100s not 1 or 2 ISP 's to provide backbone connections .
It might even be better if the backbone was public as well .
Its infrastructure like the Highways .
It can make or break this country .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When this Country was created and you
wanted to share your views and exercise
your freedom of Speech you went to the town
square and spoke.
This was what free speech
was all about.
Where is the town square in the 21st Century?
Where do we share our views?
Why Its right here at shashdot.
Yes its on the Internet.
Now we pay the ISP's for Speech.
Thats not the Free we should be talking about.
The ISP's want to block traffic they do not like, traffic that does not make them cold cash, we have to watch this closely.
The founding fathers could not have invisioned
that speech would stray into the gigahertz
bands.
But if they had, Some of that bandwidth
would have been by law given to the people.
Other parts reserved for the public good, like
the military and fire/police etc.
Come to think of it, a working radio infrastructure
would also be useful to the fire/police.
We should have the right to own
the infrastructure.
We should
have the right to put a radio router
on our roof.
And share the connectivity.
We are talking 300 megabit channels, in the GigH.
frequency ranges.
How many places do you go where there is not a house with in 5 miles.
Its like a Gun, you have to buy it and buy
ammo.
The same is true for a radio router,
You have to buy it and feed it electricity.
But we should have the right.
Not be  ignored by the FCC for the
good of the duopoly's/monopoly's.
A radio last milewould give ISP's a level playing field And There could then be 100s not 1 or 2 ISP's to provide backbone connections.
It might even be better if the backbone was public as well.
Its infrastructure like the Highways.
It can make or break this country.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30432766</id>
	<title>Re:Such a strained argument is hardly necessary</title>
	<author>ElectricTurtle</author>
	<datestamp>1260814200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Building a system for delivering such messages couldn't possibly go wrong... except I remember all the spam that came to my Windows boxes back in the day before I turned off the service for NET SEND messages (ironically most of the spam was from people trying to sell the directions for turning off NET SEND messages).<br> <br>

I, for one, can't wait until C3r34l\_K1LL3r hijacks the INTERWEBS EMERGENCY BROADCASTING SYSTEM and says to everybody 'for more details on the current disaster, go to goatse.cx immediately!' HILARITY ENSUES.<br> <br>

(For any interwebs n00bz, don't actually go to goatse.cx. Really.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Building a system for delivering such messages could n't possibly go wrong... except I remember all the spam that came to my Windows boxes back in the day before I turned off the service for NET SEND messages ( ironically most of the spam was from people trying to sell the directions for turning off NET SEND messages ) .
I , for one , ca n't wait until C3r34l \ _K1LL3r hijacks the INTERWEBS EMERGENCY BROADCASTING SYSTEM and says to everybody 'for more details on the current disaster , go to goatse.cx immediately !
' HILARITY ENSUES .
( For any interwebs n00bz , do n't actually go to goatse.cx .
Really. )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Building a system for delivering such messages couldn't possibly go wrong... except I remember all the spam that came to my Windows boxes back in the day before I turned off the service for NET SEND messages (ironically most of the spam was from people trying to sell the directions for turning off NET SEND messages).
I, for one, can't wait until C3r34l\_K1LL3r hijacks the INTERWEBS EMERGENCY BROADCASTING SYSTEM and says to everybody 'for more details on the current disaster, go to goatse.cx immediately!
' HILARITY ENSUES.
(For any interwebs n00bz, don't actually go to goatse.cx.
Really.)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30432542</id>
	<title>Re:Same Arguments, So Simply Discredit Them</title>
	<author>IICV</author>
	<datestamp>1260813360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>... or at least will be easily worth the cost it's going to take getting an infrastructure up that will cover the nation.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>

Uh... we've already paid that cost. The telcos just haven't delivered yet, because they don't have to. There was a site explaining how much we've subsidized them through extra charges and exactly what we (haven't) gotten, but I can't find it at the moment.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... or at least will be easily worth the cost it 's going to take getting an infrastructure up that will cover the nation .
Uh... we 've already paid that cost .
The telcos just have n't delivered yet , because they do n't have to .
There was a site explaining how much we 've subsidized them through extra charges and exactly what we ( have n't ) gotten , but I ca n't find it at the moment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... or at least will be easily worth the cost it's going to take getting an infrastructure up that will cover the nation.
Uh... we've already paid that cost.
The telcos just haven't delivered yet, because they don't have to.
There was a site explaining how much we've subsidized them through extra charges and exactly what we (haven't) gotten, but I can't find it at the moment.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30434140</id>
	<title>But...</title>
	<author>TopSpin</author>
	<datestamp>1260821280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If we knew then what we <i>know</i> today, that electrification would require the creation of an immense source of greenhouse gas generation that would rapidly ruin the Earth's atmosphere, as we're being told, would we have been so enthusiastic about deploying this polluting technology to every household?  Today, I have contemporaries that are sincerely evaluating yurts as replacements for traditional houses (theirs and yours) as they mosey about "sustainable living" fairs.  I suspect they most emphatically do not intend that we wire our yurts for AC.  Claiming universal electrification was a great vindication of fairness, or something, at the same time we're being told how selfish we're being for utilizing it appears schizophrenic.</p><p>It is fair to point out that I have conflated sandal wearing enviros with broadband freetards in contructing my straw man.  In my defense I'll assert that most folks that would argue for broadband as a birthright are also likely to subscribe fully to AGW theories.  I won't accept an argument that claims universal electrification can somehow be separated from <b>all</b> of its consequences; governance always has unintended side effects.</p><p>Mandating that everyone be wired up from birth could conceivably have a few problems as well; cut through the welds that secure that fairness hat so firmly to your head for one precious minute and think about what it might mean to make participation on the network an obligation of citizenship.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If we knew then what we know today , that electrification would require the creation of an immense source of greenhouse gas generation that would rapidly ruin the Earth 's atmosphere , as we 're being told , would we have been so enthusiastic about deploying this polluting technology to every household ?
Today , I have contemporaries that are sincerely evaluating yurts as replacements for traditional houses ( theirs and yours ) as they mosey about " sustainable living " fairs .
I suspect they most emphatically do not intend that we wire our yurts for AC .
Claiming universal electrification was a great vindication of fairness , or something , at the same time we 're being told how selfish we 're being for utilizing it appears schizophrenic.It is fair to point out that I have conflated sandal wearing enviros with broadband freetards in contructing my straw man .
In my defense I 'll assert that most folks that would argue for broadband as a birthright are also likely to subscribe fully to AGW theories .
I wo n't accept an argument that claims universal electrification can somehow be separated from all of its consequences ; governance always has unintended side effects.Mandating that everyone be wired up from birth could conceivably have a few problems as well ; cut through the welds that secure that fairness hat so firmly to your head for one precious minute and think about what it might mean to make participation on the network an obligation of citizenship .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If we knew then what we know today, that electrification would require the creation of an immense source of greenhouse gas generation that would rapidly ruin the Earth's atmosphere, as we're being told, would we have been so enthusiastic about deploying this polluting technology to every household?
Today, I have contemporaries that are sincerely evaluating yurts as replacements for traditional houses (theirs and yours) as they mosey about "sustainable living" fairs.
I suspect they most emphatically do not intend that we wire our yurts for AC.
Claiming universal electrification was a great vindication of fairness, or something, at the same time we're being told how selfish we're being for utilizing it appears schizophrenic.It is fair to point out that I have conflated sandal wearing enviros with broadband freetards in contructing my straw man.
In my defense I'll assert that most folks that would argue for broadband as a birthright are also likely to subscribe fully to AGW theories.
I won't accept an argument that claims universal electrification can somehow be separated from all of its consequences; governance always has unintended side effects.Mandating that everyone be wired up from birth could conceivably have a few problems as well; cut through the welds that secure that fairness hat so firmly to your head for one precious minute and think about what it might mean to make participation on the network an obligation of citizenship.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30432212</id>
	<title>Re:Such a strained argument is hardly necessary</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260811800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The internet need not be point-to-point. Multi-casting would work, although you would basically have to mandate that everybody support it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The internet need not be point-to-point .
Multi-casting would work , although you would basically have to mandate that everybody support it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The internet need not be point-to-point.
Multi-casting would work, although you would basically have to mandate that everybody support it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430782</id>
	<title>Re:Suddenly, everything is a right</title>
	<author>Peregr1n</author>
	<datestamp>1260805080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is what amuses me about America. In one post, you argue without a hint of irony that a) rights are endowed by a creator, and not inventions of man; and b) you have the right to bear arms.</p><p>But more seriously, I would take exception to your argument that rights are not given by man. It is only by becoming civilised that we can share equal rights. No matter how loudly you shout about your rights, they only exist if others recognise and respect them.</p><p>The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that everyone has not only rights to free speech, but rights to housing, food, clothing and clean water. These are commodities. The right to express yourself politically (vote) is also critical; as is the right of equal access to public service in your country. These require a communications network. This means broadband to me. Sure, you don't have to FORCE broadband on somebody; plenty of people don't invoke their right to free speech, but are very glad they have the right should they want to. In the same way, I'm fine with the fact that my parents live in the back of beyond and don't want broadband, but I'm glad that they COULD get it if they need it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is what amuses me about America .
In one post , you argue without a hint of irony that a ) rights are endowed by a creator , and not inventions of man ; and b ) you have the right to bear arms.But more seriously , I would take exception to your argument that rights are not given by man .
It is only by becoming civilised that we can share equal rights .
No matter how loudly you shout about your rights , they only exist if others recognise and respect them.The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that everyone has not only rights to free speech , but rights to housing , food , clothing and clean water .
These are commodities .
The right to express yourself politically ( vote ) is also critical ; as is the right of equal access to public service in your country .
These require a communications network .
This means broadband to me .
Sure , you do n't have to FORCE broadband on somebody ; plenty of people do n't invoke their right to free speech , but are very glad they have the right should they want to .
In the same way , I 'm fine with the fact that my parents live in the back of beyond and do n't want broadband , but I 'm glad that they COULD get it if they need it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is what amuses me about America.
In one post, you argue without a hint of irony that a) rights are endowed by a creator, and not inventions of man; and b) you have the right to bear arms.But more seriously, I would take exception to your argument that rights are not given by man.
It is only by becoming civilised that we can share equal rights.
No matter how loudly you shout about your rights, they only exist if others recognise and respect them.The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that everyone has not only rights to free speech, but rights to housing, food, clothing and clean water.
These are commodities.
The right to express yourself politically (vote) is also critical; as is the right of equal access to public service in your country.
These require a communications network.
This means broadband to me.
Sure, you don't have to FORCE broadband on somebody; plenty of people don't invoke their right to free speech, but are very glad they have the right should they want to.
In the same way, I'm fine with the fact that my parents live in the back of beyond and don't want broadband, but I'm glad that they COULD get it if they need it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430444</id>
	<title>Gov't money to private corporations.</title>
	<author>v(*\_*)vvvv</author>
	<datestamp>1260803160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a serious problem with the government spending my tax dollars on rural broadband lines, and then still enabling the dumb cable companies to monopolize and charge whatever they want for internet service.</p><p>If we are paying for the infrastructure, we should own it, and we should be able to share it. Sure, there will be costs. But let's share the costs then, not pretend some capitalist market magic will make us all happy with great service, healthy competition, and constant innovation. I have horrible service, only one company to choose from, and my DVR is a piece of shit. It freezes for 5 seconds then goes through every button I pressed all at once.</p><p>Man, am I proud to be an American.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a serious problem with the government spending my tax dollars on rural broadband lines , and then still enabling the dumb cable companies to monopolize and charge whatever they want for internet service.If we are paying for the infrastructure , we should own it , and we should be able to share it .
Sure , there will be costs .
But let 's share the costs then , not pretend some capitalist market magic will make us all happy with great service , healthy competition , and constant innovation .
I have horrible service , only one company to choose from , and my DVR is a piece of shit .
It freezes for 5 seconds then goes through every button I pressed all at once.Man , am I proud to be an American .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a serious problem with the government spending my tax dollars on rural broadband lines, and then still enabling the dumb cable companies to monopolize and charge whatever they want for internet service.If we are paying for the infrastructure, we should own it, and we should be able to share it.
Sure, there will be costs.
But let's share the costs then, not pretend some capitalist market magic will make us all happy with great service, healthy competition, and constant innovation.
I have horrible service, only one company to choose from, and my DVR is a piece of shit.
It freezes for 5 seconds then goes through every button I pressed all at once.Man, am I proud to be an American.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30432704</id>
	<title>Re:Such a strained argument is hardly necessary</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260813960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Arguably, the government should stop promoting television and radio, and should put the effort into figuring out how to make the emergency notification network work on the internet...</p></div><p>Oh, hell no!</p><p>1. The Internet is not the Web.<br>2. The Internet is not local.<br>3. No one better mess with my packets.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Arguably , the government should stop promoting television and radio , and should put the effort into figuring out how to make the emergency notification network work on the internet...Oh , hell no ! 1 .
The Internet is not the Web.2 .
The Internet is not local.3 .
No one better mess with my packets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Arguably, the government should stop promoting television and radio, and should put the effort into figuring out how to make the emergency notification network work on the internet...Oh, hell no!1.
The Internet is not the Web.2.
The Internet is not local.3.
No one better mess with my packets.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430620</id>
	<title>"Right" is the wrong term.</title>
	<author>Fished</author>
	<datestamp>1260804300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Part of the problem here is that the language of "right" doesn't really capture what we ought to be capturing here.  Webster's defines a right as "something to which one has a just claim."  And that <b>is</b> the right way to look at things like employment discrimination, etc.</p><p>But when we start talking about universal access to services like broadband, healthcare, electric, I think it's much better to speak of it in terms of what's best for society.  Simply put, our society as a whole is better off with a healthy work-force.  Businesses will have more predictable costs, and the playing field between large and small companies, as well as government, will be leveled substantially, promoting innovation.  Likewise, it promotes economic development for everyone to have electricity, not to mention public health--it's no accident that regular bathing became much more popular once everyone had a water heater.  And, in a democracy, isn't the publics access to information equally vital? Isn't the ability for all members of society to communicate on a somewhat equal footing a useful social function?  In other words, let's not talk about this as a moral question, but as a pragmatic one.</p><p>High speed Internet is <b>infrastructure</b>.  Maybe it's not a "right".  But if you don't have it available to all of our population and all of your competitors do, then watch out!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Part of the problem here is that the language of " right " does n't really capture what we ought to be capturing here .
Webster 's defines a right as " something to which one has a just claim .
" And that is the right way to look at things like employment discrimination , etc.But when we start talking about universal access to services like broadband , healthcare , electric , I think it 's much better to speak of it in terms of what 's best for society .
Simply put , our society as a whole is better off with a healthy work-force .
Businesses will have more predictable costs , and the playing field between large and small companies , as well as government , will be leveled substantially , promoting innovation .
Likewise , it promotes economic development for everyone to have electricity , not to mention public health--it 's no accident that regular bathing became much more popular once everyone had a water heater .
And , in a democracy , is n't the publics access to information equally vital ?
Is n't the ability for all members of society to communicate on a somewhat equal footing a useful social function ?
In other words , let 's not talk about this as a moral question , but as a pragmatic one.High speed Internet is infrastructure .
Maybe it 's not a " right " .
But if you do n't have it available to all of our population and all of your competitors do , then watch out !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Part of the problem here is that the language of "right" doesn't really capture what we ought to be capturing here.
Webster's defines a right as "something to which one has a just claim.
"  And that is the right way to look at things like employment discrimination, etc.But when we start talking about universal access to services like broadband, healthcare, electric, I think it's much better to speak of it in terms of what's best for society.
Simply put, our society as a whole is better off with a healthy work-force.
Businesses will have more predictable costs, and the playing field between large and small companies, as well as government, will be leveled substantially, promoting innovation.
Likewise, it promotes economic development for everyone to have electricity, not to mention public health--it's no accident that regular bathing became much more popular once everyone had a water heater.
And, in a democracy, isn't the publics access to information equally vital?
Isn't the ability for all members of society to communicate on a somewhat equal footing a useful social function?
In other words, let's not talk about this as a moral question, but as a pragmatic one.High speed Internet is infrastructure.
Maybe it's not a "right".
But if you don't have it available to all of our population and all of your competitors do, then watch out!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30432486</id>
	<title>Re:Thing is, it wasn't necessary.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260813060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Here's a simple test: if you can buy it, it's not a right.</p></div><p>I don't think you have thought this through very carefully.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's a simple test : if you can buy it , it 's not a right.I do n't think you have thought this through very carefully .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's a simple test: if you can buy it, it's not a right.I don't think you have thought this through very carefully.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430544</id>
	<title>Re:We should have listened to this wisdom</title>
	<author>Sockatume</author>
	<datestamp>1260803880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The CO2's a side-effect of energy production, which is a consequence of our energy consumption. Remove electricity, and you impose a bottleneck on our ability to consume, and as with other energy-rationing measures, you reduce CO2 output at the cost of giving up your way of life. Choose wisely!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The CO2 's a side-effect of energy production , which is a consequence of our energy consumption .
Remove electricity , and you impose a bottleneck on our ability to consume , and as with other energy-rationing measures , you reduce CO2 output at the cost of giving up your way of life .
Choose wisely !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The CO2's a side-effect of energy production, which is a consequence of our energy consumption.
Remove electricity, and you impose a bottleneck on our ability to consume, and as with other energy-rationing measures, you reduce CO2 output at the cost of giving up your way of life.
Choose wisely!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430454</id>
	<title>One step.</title>
	<author>Thanshin</author>
	<datestamp>1260803220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A step in the right direction.</p><p>1 - Right to broadband.<br>2 - Human right to broadband.<br>3 - Human right to porn.<br>4 - Human right to 3D multi-sensorial porn.<br>5 - Ascension of mankind to a new state of consciousness and peace with the universe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A step in the right direction.1 - Right to broadband.2 - Human right to broadband.3 - Human right to porn.4 - Human right to 3D multi-sensorial porn.5 - Ascension of mankind to a new state of consciousness and peace with the universe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A step in the right direction.1 - Right to broadband.2 - Human right to broadband.3 - Human right to porn.4 - Human right to 3D multi-sensorial porn.5 - Ascension of mankind to a new state of consciousness and peace with the universe.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30448614</id>
	<title>Re:Actually, there is no argument.</title>
	<author>EL\_mal0</author>
	<datestamp>1260909120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That doesn't make it a right.  It just makes it a law.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That does n't make it a right .
It just makes it a law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That doesn't make it a right.
It just makes it a law.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30432410</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30433338</id>
	<title>Re:Every generation...</title>
	<author>davester666</author>
	<datestamp>1260817080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it's done in oil or water-colors, it's "art".  For everything else, it's just smut.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it 's done in oil or water-colors , it 's " art " .
For everything else , it 's just smut .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it's done in oil or water-colors, it's "art".
For everything else, it's just smut.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30432344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430916</id>
	<title>Just let the government take over everything</title>
	<author>tomhath</author>
	<datestamp>1260805740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Of course broadband should be owned/operated by the government. And electricity, along with other sources of energy like oil and natural gas. Without question health care should be owned and run by the government. Food production too, we need to nationalize all farms and agribusiness companies immediately. Other natural resources like forests and minerals obviously belong to The People so the government should take them over. And you can't trust things as important as banking, insurance, journalism, or manufacturing to private industry. Did I forget anything? Oh yea, porn, the government also has to provide that according to our needs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course broadband should be owned/operated by the government .
And electricity , along with other sources of energy like oil and natural gas .
Without question health care should be owned and run by the government .
Food production too , we need to nationalize all farms and agribusiness companies immediately .
Other natural resources like forests and minerals obviously belong to The People so the government should take them over .
And you ca n't trust things as important as banking , insurance , journalism , or manufacturing to private industry .
Did I forget anything ?
Oh yea , porn , the government also has to provide that according to our needs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course broadband should be owned/operated by the government.
And electricity, along with other sources of energy like oil and natural gas.
Without question health care should be owned and run by the government.
Food production too, we need to nationalize all farms and agribusiness companies immediately.
Other natural resources like forests and minerals obviously belong to The People so the government should take them over.
And you can't trust things as important as banking, insurance, journalism, or manufacturing to private industry.
Did I forget anything?
Oh yea, porn, the government also has to provide that according to our needs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30431720</id>
	<title>Re:Same Arguments, So Simply Discredit Them</title>
	<author>MikeURL</author>
	<datestamp>1260809400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The potential exists for broadband coverage to dovetail with zero population growth very nicely.  The emergence, finally, of widespread telecommuting as well as in-home entertainment would have two very far reaching effects.  First, we'd consume a lot less energy because we would not be pushing 3-8K lb vehicles around nearly as much.  Second, the burden on road infrastructure would decrease proportionally.
<br> <br>
In fact, we may eventually look upon the notion of driving to work to sit at a computer (or really anything that can be done easily via telecommuting with a broad enough band) to be really, really stupid.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The potential exists for broadband coverage to dovetail with zero population growth very nicely .
The emergence , finally , of widespread telecommuting as well as in-home entertainment would have two very far reaching effects .
First , we 'd consume a lot less energy because we would not be pushing 3-8K lb vehicles around nearly as much .
Second , the burden on road infrastructure would decrease proportionally .
In fact , we may eventually look upon the notion of driving to work to sit at a computer ( or really anything that can be done easily via telecommuting with a broad enough band ) to be really , really stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The potential exists for broadband coverage to dovetail with zero population growth very nicely.
The emergence, finally, of widespread telecommuting as well as in-home entertainment would have two very far reaching effects.
First, we'd consume a lot less energy because we would not be pushing 3-8K lb vehicles around nearly as much.
Second, the burden on road infrastructure would decrease proportionally.
In fact, we may eventually look upon the notion of driving to work to sit at a computer (or really anything that can be done easily via telecommuting with a broad enough band) to be really, really stupid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30433644</id>
	<title>Re:We should have listened to this wisdom</title>
	<author>mitchplanck</author>
	<datestamp>1260818700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If electricity hadn't become ubiquitous, we'd have a lot <b>fewer</b> carbon <b>beings</b> emitted today from power plants.</p></div><p>There, fixed that for you.

I'm not sure what you meant though...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If electricity had n't become ubiquitous , we 'd have a lot fewer carbon beings emitted today from power plants.There , fixed that for you .
I 'm not sure what you meant though.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If electricity hadn't become ubiquitous, we'd have a lot fewer carbon beings emitted today from power plants.There, fixed that for you.
I'm not sure what you meant though...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430754</id>
	<title>Re:Suddenly, everything is a right</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260804960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"Materialism" is not a right.  You do not have a right to stuff.  Free speech, <strong>the right to bear arms</strong>, a common trait of all things that are actually rights is that they do not cost money.  They are intangible.</p><p> <strong>You do not have a right to tangible things</strong>.  They cost money.  All you can do is help lower costs so you can afford them.</p></div><p>Wow, contradictory much?  Arms are tangible items.  I have to buy I gun one isn't guaranteed to be given to me at birth.</p><p>This is actually a great example of the 'rights' to electricity and to broadband.  The right doesn't mean you will get it, it means you will be <strong>able to</strong> get it.  Just like your right to bear arms doesn't mean you will at all time walk around with weapons, it means that you have the right to purchase, own, and use weapons within the law.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Materialism " is not a right .
You do not have a right to stuff .
Free speech , the right to bear arms , a common trait of all things that are actually rights is that they do not cost money .
They are intangible .
You do not have a right to tangible things .
They cost money .
All you can do is help lower costs so you can afford them.Wow , contradictory much ?
Arms are tangible items .
I have to buy I gun one is n't guaranteed to be given to me at birth.This is actually a great example of the 'rights ' to electricity and to broadband .
The right does n't mean you will get it , it means you will be able to get it .
Just like your right to bear arms does n't mean you will at all time walk around with weapons , it means that you have the right to purchase , own , and use weapons within the law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Materialism" is not a right.
You do not have a right to stuff.
Free speech, the right to bear arms, a common trait of all things that are actually rights is that they do not cost money.
They are intangible.
You do not have a right to tangible things.
They cost money.
All you can do is help lower costs so you can afford them.Wow, contradictory much?
Arms are tangible items.
I have to buy I gun one isn't guaranteed to be given to me at birth.This is actually a great example of the 'rights' to electricity and to broadband.
The right doesn't mean you will get it, it means you will be able to get it.
Just like your right to bear arms doesn't mean you will at all time walk around with weapons, it means that you have the right to purchase, own, and use weapons within the law.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30434374</id>
	<title>Re:Every generation...</title>
	<author>Shakrai</author>
	<datestamp>1260822360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And heck, I bet cavemen painted pictures of naked women too, and had way more sex and you do today.</p></div><p>Well yeah.  It's easier if you can club the female and drag her away when she says "no" as opposed to bowing your head in shame and returning to the table with the rest of your equally unlucky friends<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And heck , I bet cavemen painted pictures of naked women too , and had way more sex and you do today.Well yeah .
It 's easier if you can club the female and drag her away when she says " no " as opposed to bowing your head in shame and returning to the table with the rest of your equally unlucky friends ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And heck, I bet cavemen painted pictures of naked women too, and had way more sex and you do today.Well yeah.
It's easier if you can club the female and drag her away when she says "no" as opposed to bowing your head in shame and returning to the table with the rest of your equally unlucky friends ;)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30432344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30434576</id>
	<title>Re:Same Arguments, So Simply Discredit Them</title>
	<author>plague3106</author>
	<datestamp>1260823560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm pretty sure the right of Eminate Domain is in the Consitution, via the Fifth Amendment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm pretty sure the right of Eminate Domain is in the Consitution , via the Fifth Amendment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm pretty sure the right of Eminate Domain is in the Consitution, via the Fifth Amendment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30431350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430778</id>
	<title>Re:We should have listened to this wisdom</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260805080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And, we wouldn't have to have this stupid debate either!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And , we would n't have to have this stupid debate either !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And, we wouldn't have to have this stupid debate either!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430708</id>
	<title>Birthright ??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260804780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think sex is a birth-right too. Where are my willing, attractive and faithful women?<br> <br>(I think "pick two out of three" applies here too.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think sex is a birth-right too .
Where are my willing , attractive and faithful women ?
( I think " pick two out of three " applies here too .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think sex is a birth-right too.
Where are my willing, attractive and faithful women?
(I think "pick two out of three" applies here too.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30432520</id>
	<title>Re:Same Arguments, So Simply Discredit Them</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1260813240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The thing about electricity is that people couldn't see that it would service more than just lights.</i> </p><p>It took a long time to get there.</p><p>I have reprints of Sears, Roebuck  catalogs from the mid-twenties.</p><p> The kitchen of your Sears kit house of 1926 was designed for an ice box, not a refrigerator.</p><p> AC power for a radio was quite new - along with the loudspeaker. The receivers were not cheap and some ladder work was implied.</p><p>You could order an electric fan, a vacuum cleaner, a wringer washer, an iron, a toaster. But that was about it.</p><p>The house crammed with [malfunctioning] electrical gadgets still belongs to Buster Keaton and the one-reel silent comedy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The thing about electricity is that people could n't see that it would service more than just lights .
It took a long time to get there.I have reprints of Sears , Roebuck catalogs from the mid-twenties .
The kitchen of your Sears kit house of 1926 was designed for an ice box , not a refrigerator .
AC power for a radio was quite new - along with the loudspeaker .
The receivers were not cheap and some ladder work was implied.You could order an electric fan , a vacuum cleaner , a wringer washer , an iron , a toaster .
But that was about it.The house crammed with [ malfunctioning ] electrical gadgets still belongs to Buster Keaton and the one-reel silent comedy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thing about electricity is that people couldn't see that it would service more than just lights.
It took a long time to get there.I have reprints of Sears, Roebuck  catalogs from the mid-twenties.
The kitchen of your Sears kit house of 1926 was designed for an ice box, not a refrigerator.
AC power for a radio was quite new - along with the loudspeaker.
The receivers were not cheap and some ladder work was implied.You could order an electric fan, a vacuum cleaner, a wringer washer, an iron, a toaster.
But that was about it.The house crammed with [malfunctioning] electrical gadgets still belongs to Buster Keaton and the one-reel silent comedy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30432982</id>
	<title>Re:Suddenly, everything is a right</title>
	<author>JesseMcDonald</author>
	<datestamp>1260815220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem with positive rights is that they cannot be guaranteed except at the expense of other rights. Commodities and services are not superabundant abstract goods in the manner of negative rights; someone has to provide them. More specifically, to the extent that you rely on their status as "rights", someone must be <em>forced</em> to provide them, thus violating their right to self-determination&mdash;which includes both self-ownership and ownership of property. For this reason the positive-rights aspects of the so-called Universal Declaration of Human Rights carry very little weight within the United States, where the right to self-determination is considered far more fundamental.</p><p>From another point-of-view, in a relatively wealthy society it's easy enough (though thoroughly immoral, IMHO) to wave your hands and declare "let everyone have broadband", and dismiss the consequences as only impacting those richer than yourself. However, even if you're willing to violate equality under the law in this manner, your "rights" can only exist so long as the wealth holds out. What will you do when everyone has been brought down to the same level, and there are no more "rich" for you to leach from?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with positive rights is that they can not be guaranteed except at the expense of other rights .
Commodities and services are not superabundant abstract goods in the manner of negative rights ; someone has to provide them .
More specifically , to the extent that you rely on their status as " rights " , someone must be forced to provide them , thus violating their right to self-determination    which includes both self-ownership and ownership of property .
For this reason the positive-rights aspects of the so-called Universal Declaration of Human Rights carry very little weight within the United States , where the right to self-determination is considered far more fundamental.From another point-of-view , in a relatively wealthy society it 's easy enough ( though thoroughly immoral , IMHO ) to wave your hands and declare " let everyone have broadband " , and dismiss the consequences as only impacting those richer than yourself .
However , even if you 're willing to violate equality under the law in this manner , your " rights " can only exist so long as the wealth holds out .
What will you do when everyone has been brought down to the same level , and there are no more " rich " for you to leach from ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with positive rights is that they cannot be guaranteed except at the expense of other rights.
Commodities and services are not superabundant abstract goods in the manner of negative rights; someone has to provide them.
More specifically, to the extent that you rely on their status as "rights", someone must be forced to provide them, thus violating their right to self-determination—which includes both self-ownership and ownership of property.
For this reason the positive-rights aspects of the so-called Universal Declaration of Human Rights carry very little weight within the United States, where the right to self-determination is considered far more fundamental.From another point-of-view, in a relatively wealthy society it's easy enough (though thoroughly immoral, IMHO) to wave your hands and declare "let everyone have broadband", and dismiss the consequences as only impacting those richer than yourself.
However, even if you're willing to violate equality under the law in this manner, your "rights" can only exist so long as the wealth holds out.
What will you do when everyone has been brought down to the same level, and there are no more "rich" for you to leach from?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30440150</id>
	<title>Re:Suddenly, everything is a right</title>
	<author>BeanThere</author>
	<datestamp>1260810060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"No matter how loudly you shout about your rights, they only exist if others recognise and respect them."</p><p>Then you've missed the whole point. Those rights exist regardless of whether or not others respect them --- others can either respect them or *infringe on them unethically*, but can never take them away. Your right exists even if it's being infringed. Is that so hard to understand?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" No matter how loudly you shout about your rights , they only exist if others recognise and respect them .
" Then you 've missed the whole point .
Those rights exist regardless of whether or not others respect them --- others can either respect them or * infringe on them unethically * , but can never take them away .
Your right exists even if it 's being infringed .
Is that so hard to understand ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"No matter how loudly you shout about your rights, they only exist if others recognise and respect them.
"Then you've missed the whole point.
Those rights exist regardless of whether or not others respect them --- others can either respect them or *infringe on them unethically*, but can never take them away.
Your right exists even if it's being infringed.
Is that so hard to understand?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430782</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1330202_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30432212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1330202_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30431570
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1330202_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1330202_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30431894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1330202_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30431256
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30432410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30448614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1330202_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30432766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1330202_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1330202_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430544
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1330202_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30441300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1330202_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30432014
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1330202_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30435970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1330202_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30433992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1330202_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30434100
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1330202_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430562
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1330202_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30431062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30432182
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1330202_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30440150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1330202_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30436054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1330202_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30432392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1330202_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30432982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1330202_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30440496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1330202_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30432344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30435958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1330202_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30432520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1330202_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30432946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1330202_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30435878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1330202_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30431030
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1330202_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30431350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30434576
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1330202_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30432708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1330202_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30431224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1330202_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430886
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1330202_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30434014
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1330202_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30434310
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1330202_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30433280
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1330202_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30435222
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1330202_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430926
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1330202_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30431608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1330202_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30436278
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1330202_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430652
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1330202_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30431524
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1330202_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30434914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1330202_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30432344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30434374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1330202_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30431976
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1330202_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1330202_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30435886
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1330202_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1330202_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430622
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1330202_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30434944
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1330202_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30431592
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1330202_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30432678
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1330202_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30432344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30433338
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1330202_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30431720
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1330202_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30433086
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1330202_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30431106
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1330202_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30434048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1330202_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30434680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1330202_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30433644
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1330202_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30431062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30431898
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1330202_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430780
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1330202_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30431350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30432632
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1330202_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30432308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1330202_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30433268
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1330202_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1330202_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1330202_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30441346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1330202_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30433510
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1330202_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30431350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30431968
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1330202_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30431350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30434516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1330202_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30432276
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1330202_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30431256
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30433740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1330202_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1330202_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30432826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1330202_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30432704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1330202_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1330202_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1330202_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30431350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30432828
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1330202_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430836
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1330202_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30441376
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1330202_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30434746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1330202_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30432542
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1330202_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30432486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1330202_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1330202_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30431624
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1330202_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30431408
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1330202_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430650
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1330202_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30433024
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1330202_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30435882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1330202_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30431422
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1330202_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30431350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30432084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30432816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1330202_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430812
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1330202_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30435680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1330202_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30434478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1330202_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30434090
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_1330202_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30433676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_1330202.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30432048
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_1330202.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430444
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430622
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430740
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430570
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30433280
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430562
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30434014
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_1330202.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430484
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430812
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430908
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30433992
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30432308
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30434310
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30434914
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30431062
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30431898
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30432182
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430780
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30435222
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430698
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30431570
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430614
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30431976
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30436278
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430754
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30432826
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30435882
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30435680
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30432678
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30434944
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30432392
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30433268
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430782
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30432982
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30435878
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30440496
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30440150
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30433024
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30434746
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30434680
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30441300
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430650
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430920
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430770
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430926
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430836
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30431224
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30436054
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30431030
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_1330202.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430458
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430778
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430544
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430566
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30431408
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30432946
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30433644
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_1330202.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430454
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30434478
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430680
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430874
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430910
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30431106
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430956
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30431422
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30441376
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_1330202.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430408
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30435886
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30433510
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30433676
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30431256
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30432410
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30448614
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30433740
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30432520
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30431524
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30432014
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30431350
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30432084
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30432816
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30434516
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30432632
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30431968
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30432828
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30434576
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30432708
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430872
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30432542
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30431720
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_1330202.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430708
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_1330202.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430962
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30432276
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30431624
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30434090
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30432486
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_1330202.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430378
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30432344
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30434374
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30433338
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30435958
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30431592
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_1330202.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30431212
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_1330202.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430418
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_1330202.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430916
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_1330202.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430410
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_1330202.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430456
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30431894
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430652
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30434100
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_1330202.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30431396
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_1330202.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430912
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30441346
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30435970
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_1330202.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430474
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30432766
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30433086
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30432704
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430596
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30432212
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_1330202.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430440
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30431608
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430886
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_1330202.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430522
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30434048
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_1330202.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_1330202.30430620
</commentlist>
</conversation>
