<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_29_1436254</id>
	<title>Bruce Schneier On Airport Security</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1262110560000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>the4thdimension writes <i>"Bruce Schneier has an opinion piece on CNN this morning that <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2009/OPINION/12/29/schneier.air.travel.security.theater/index.html">illustrates his view on airport security</a>. Given that he has several books on security, his opinion carries some weight. In the article, Bruce discusses the rarity of terrorism, the pitfalls of security theater, and the actual difficulty surrounding improving security. What are your thoughts? Do you think that we can actually make air travel (and any other kind of travel, for that matter) truly secure?"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>the4thdimension writes " Bruce Schneier has an opinion piece on CNN this morning that illustrates his view on airport security .
Given that he has several books on security , his opinion carries some weight .
In the article , Bruce discusses the rarity of terrorism , the pitfalls of security theater , and the actual difficulty surrounding improving security .
What are your thoughts ?
Do you think that we can actually make air travel ( and any other kind of travel , for that matter ) truly secure ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the4thdimension writes "Bruce Schneier has an opinion piece on CNN this morning that illustrates his view on airport security.
Given that he has several books on security, his opinion carries some weight.
In the article, Bruce discusses the rarity of terrorism, the pitfalls of security theater, and the actual difficulty surrounding improving security.
What are your thoughts?
Do you think that we can actually make air travel (and any other kind of travel, for that matter) truly secure?
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585428</id>
	<title>Quit helping them!!!</title>
	<author>LockeOnLogic</author>
	<datestamp>1262119320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think the answer is quite clear, BAN PHOTOSHOP NOW! Or the terrorists will win</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the answer is quite clear , BAN PHOTOSHOP NOW !
Or the terrorists will win</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the answer is quite clear, BAN PHOTOSHOP NOW!
Or the terrorists will win</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30593686</id>
	<title>Re:no</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1259856840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it's "truly secure" that's "true security". What, exactly, is "true" security? By one definition we already have it -- for instance, since more airplanes crash because of human error and equipment failure than from terrorism, I'd say we DO have "true security". After all, it doesn't matter if your tail falls off because of poor maintenance, or because a terrorist put a bomb on it. Either way, you're dead.</p><p>More importantly in his essay, he has it exactly right -- we should not give in to fear. Our gutless politicians have turned "the land of the free and the home of the brave" into the land of the surveiled with a police car on every corner and the home of the yellow bellied coward. It sickens me what the politicians have done to my country since 9-11.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it 's " truly secure " that 's " true security " .
What , exactly , is " true " security ?
By one definition we already have it -- for instance , since more airplanes crash because of human error and equipment failure than from terrorism , I 'd say we DO have " true security " .
After all , it does n't matter if your tail falls off because of poor maintenance , or because a terrorist put a bomb on it .
Either way , you 're dead.More importantly in his essay , he has it exactly right -- we should not give in to fear .
Our gutless politicians have turned " the land of the free and the home of the brave " into the land of the surveiled with a police car on every corner and the home of the yellow bellied coward .
It sickens me what the politicians have done to my country since 9-11 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it's "truly secure" that's "true security".
What, exactly, is "true" security?
By one definition we already have it -- for instance, since more airplanes crash because of human error and equipment failure than from terrorism, I'd say we DO have "true security".
After all, it doesn't matter if your tail falls off because of poor maintenance, or because a terrorist put a bomb on it.
Either way, you're dead.More importantly in his essay, he has it exactly right -- we should not give in to fear.
Our gutless politicians have turned "the land of the free and the home of the brave" into the land of the surveiled with a police car on every corner and the home of the yellow bellied coward.
It sickens me what the politicians have done to my country since 9-11.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584356</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30588370</id>
	<title>The most important line of air defense...</title>
	<author>wumingzi</author>
	<datestamp>1262089080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>was completed by early morning on 11 September 2001.</p><p>Once upon a time, people hijacked airplanes.  Airplanes were flown to Cuba, Russia, Taiwan, Mainland China, Africa, wherever people wanted to go for whatever personal or political axes they had to grind.</p><p>After this, the ICAO convened a treaty in 1970 which required that any country that flew airplanes treat hijacking as a felony.  No exceptions.  In the old days, if an airline pilot flew from (China/Taiwan) to (Taiwan/China), he would get gold, women, his name in the paper, etc. as a propaganda tool to show that (Capitalism/Communism) was a superior form of government which people yearned for.  No more.  Do that today, you go to prison.  Period.</p><p>Even wacky countries we don't like much like Libya, Cuba, North Korea, etc. are signatories to this treaty.  Hijack an airplane, go to jail.  No exceptions.  Anywhere.</p><p>It was a very effective treaty.  As a result, a set of "rules of engagement" came up around hijacking.  Keep calm.  Don't make any sudden moves.  Fly the airplane wherever in the world the hijackers want to go.  Wherever you land, there will be negotiators if they play nice, and SWAT teams in reserve if they don't.  Getting in a fight in the air can only endanger innocent people's lives.</p><p>After 2001, nobody is <b>EVER</b> going to follow those rules of engagement again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>was completed by early morning on 11 September 2001.Once upon a time , people hijacked airplanes .
Airplanes were flown to Cuba , Russia , Taiwan , Mainland China , Africa , wherever people wanted to go for whatever personal or political axes they had to grind.After this , the ICAO convened a treaty in 1970 which required that any country that flew airplanes treat hijacking as a felony .
No exceptions .
In the old days , if an airline pilot flew from ( China/Taiwan ) to ( Taiwan/China ) , he would get gold , women , his name in the paper , etc .
as a propaganda tool to show that ( Capitalism/Communism ) was a superior form of government which people yearned for .
No more .
Do that today , you go to prison .
Period.Even wacky countries we do n't like much like Libya , Cuba , North Korea , etc .
are signatories to this treaty .
Hijack an airplane , go to jail .
No exceptions .
Anywhere.It was a very effective treaty .
As a result , a set of " rules of engagement " came up around hijacking .
Keep calm .
Do n't make any sudden moves .
Fly the airplane wherever in the world the hijackers want to go .
Wherever you land , there will be negotiators if they play nice , and SWAT teams in reserve if they do n't .
Getting in a fight in the air can only endanger innocent people 's lives.After 2001 , nobody is EVER going to follow those rules of engagement again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>was completed by early morning on 11 September 2001.Once upon a time, people hijacked airplanes.
Airplanes were flown to Cuba, Russia, Taiwan, Mainland China, Africa, wherever people wanted to go for whatever personal or political axes they had to grind.After this, the ICAO convened a treaty in 1970 which required that any country that flew airplanes treat hijacking as a felony.
No exceptions.
In the old days, if an airline pilot flew from (China/Taiwan) to (Taiwan/China), he would get gold, women, his name in the paper, etc.
as a propaganda tool to show that (Capitalism/Communism) was a superior form of government which people yearned for.
No more.
Do that today, you go to prison.
Period.Even wacky countries we don't like much like Libya, Cuba, North Korea, etc.
are signatories to this treaty.
Hijack an airplane, go to jail.
No exceptions.
Anywhere.It was a very effective treaty.
As a result, a set of "rules of engagement" came up around hijacking.
Keep calm.
Don't make any sudden moves.
Fly the airplane wherever in the world the hijackers want to go.
Wherever you land, there will be negotiators if they play nice, and SWAT teams in reserve if they don't.
Getting in a fight in the air can only endanger innocent people's lives.After 2001, nobody is EVER going to follow those rules of engagement again.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30586986</id>
	<title>Re:Yes I do Know</title>
	<author>Araes</author>
	<datestamp>1262083500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The simple answer is to allow far less travel even inside our borders. International flights should be extremely limited. That will not only insure better health and safety but will also diminish the availability of air craft to terrorists as well.  Nations such as the old USSR that restricted travel were not totally wrong in that policy.</p></div><p>This is just as wrong for similar reasons as our terrorism policy.  It allows threats of disaster to shift our internal policy and disrupt our society.  Its a short step from this to wearing facemasks everywhere and not touching doorknobs.  Hell, lets all just separate ourselves equidistantly and never have human contact so we can stop stay perfectly safe.

Your quoting "In Soviet Russia" without a joke for goodness sake.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The simple answer is to allow far less travel even inside our borders .
International flights should be extremely limited .
That will not only insure better health and safety but will also diminish the availability of air craft to terrorists as well .
Nations such as the old USSR that restricted travel were not totally wrong in that policy.This is just as wrong for similar reasons as our terrorism policy .
It allows threats of disaster to shift our internal policy and disrupt our society .
Its a short step from this to wearing facemasks everywhere and not touching doorknobs .
Hell , lets all just separate ourselves equidistantly and never have human contact so we can stop stay perfectly safe .
Your quoting " In Soviet Russia " without a joke for goodness sake .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The simple answer is to allow far less travel even inside our borders.
International flights should be extremely limited.
That will not only insure better health and safety but will also diminish the availability of air craft to terrorists as well.
Nations such as the old USSR that restricted travel were not totally wrong in that policy.This is just as wrong for similar reasons as our terrorism policy.
It allows threats of disaster to shift our internal policy and disrupt our society.
Its a short step from this to wearing facemasks everywhere and not touching doorknobs.
Hell, lets all just separate ourselves equidistantly and never have human contact so we can stop stay perfectly safe.
Your quoting "In Soviet Russia" without a joke for goodness sake.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584536</id>
	<title>Our biggest problem</title>
	<author>autocracy</author>
	<datestamp>1262115180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>&ldquo;I feel better with the heightened security because I feel safe,&rdquo; said Belisle, who was flying to Washington, D.C., to visit her son in Virginia.</p></div><p>Source: my local newspaper this morning. We call it security theatre. It's annoying, wasteful, ineffective in our minds. For much of the world, it's a teddy bear that keeps the closet monsters away. People just feel better.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>   I feel better with the heightened security because I feel safe ,    said Belisle , who was flying to Washington , D.C. , to visit her son in Virginia.Source : my local newspaper this morning .
We call it security theatre .
It 's annoying , wasteful , ineffective in our minds .
For much of the world , it 's a teddy bear that keeps the closet monsters away .
People just feel better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>“I feel better with the heightened security because I feel safe,” said Belisle, who was flying to Washington, D.C., to visit her son in Virginia.Source: my local newspaper this morning.
We call it security theatre.
It's annoying, wasteful, ineffective in our minds.
For much of the world, it's a teddy bear that keeps the closet monsters away.
People just feel better.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30587150</id>
	<title>Re:no</title>
	<author>johnek</author>
	<datestamp>1262084220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually the answer is Yes. We can. Just not in it's current form. Today travel is considered a right. It isn't. Instead of deciding who to keep off of an airplane. Decide who to let ON an airplane. Problem solved. I for one would sacrifice some privacy to know the person sitting next to me has done the same.

Since I know this will never happen, although it should, I'll probably never fly again. I used to travel by air 5-6 times a year. It's sad that so few can endanger and inconvenience so many.





sig = null;</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually the answer is Yes .
We can .
Just not in it 's current form .
Today travel is considered a right .
It is n't .
Instead of deciding who to keep off of an airplane .
Decide who to let ON an airplane .
Problem solved .
I for one would sacrifice some privacy to know the person sitting next to me has done the same .
Since I know this will never happen , although it should , I 'll probably never fly again .
I used to travel by air 5-6 times a year .
It 's sad that so few can endanger and inconvenience so many .
sig = null ;</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually the answer is Yes.
We can.
Just not in it's current form.
Today travel is considered a right.
It isn't.
Instead of deciding who to keep off of an airplane.
Decide who to let ON an airplane.
Problem solved.
I for one would sacrifice some privacy to know the person sitting next to me has done the same.
Since I know this will never happen, although it should, I'll probably never fly again.
I used to travel by air 5-6 times a year.
It's sad that so few can endanger and inconvenience so many.
sig = null;</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584356</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585538</id>
	<title>Yes and no</title>
	<author>fprefect</author>
	<datestamp>1262119800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First, I think people pigeonhole too much as just "security theatre", such as the liquids ban. In this instance, if there were no such ban, the guy may have brought on a gallon of explosives instead of what he could fit in his tightie-whities. Yes, there are hundreds of other ways to take down a plane than box-cutters or binary explosives, but it's naive to think that since we can't stop *everything* that we should just shrug and roll back *all* air-travel restrictions.</p><p>The same goes for the photo ID canard... sure, it's possible fake a photo ID, but such trivial checks make it more difficult for someone off the street to just walk out with unattended equipment or penetrate the local network. Is it going to stop a determined thief or terrorist... no, but it's not necessarily the intent. Even Bruce would have to concede that opportunistic-theft is statistically much more likely than movie-style heists.</p><p>Basic security is necessary in our society, not just for terror attacks, but for random acts of violence and theft. There's nothing wrong with checking up on people or reporting suspicious activity. We're not talking Patriot Act and black boot tactics, just "suspicious lump sums" and "neighorhood watch" type common sense. It's like security at Best Buy or Wal-Mart... sure, they may fail to prevent some merchandise from walking out the door, but without them, it would be open-season.</p><p>Now, on the other hand, I think he's got a solid point about the dangers of over-reacting and the resilience of an open-democracy. Our law enforcement and investigative branches are capable of pursuing the enemy, much better than our armed forces are. And finally, we need to spend more time and money supporting the first responders, so that they are well-prepared for the next major catastrophe  -- be it man-made or natural.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First , I think people pigeonhole too much as just " security theatre " , such as the liquids ban .
In this instance , if there were no such ban , the guy may have brought on a gallon of explosives instead of what he could fit in his tightie-whities .
Yes , there are hundreds of other ways to take down a plane than box-cutters or binary explosives , but it 's naive to think that since we ca n't stop * everything * that we should just shrug and roll back * all * air-travel restrictions.The same goes for the photo ID canard... sure , it 's possible fake a photo ID , but such trivial checks make it more difficult for someone off the street to just walk out with unattended equipment or penetrate the local network .
Is it going to stop a determined thief or terrorist... no , but it 's not necessarily the intent .
Even Bruce would have to concede that opportunistic-theft is statistically much more likely than movie-style heists.Basic security is necessary in our society , not just for terror attacks , but for random acts of violence and theft .
There 's nothing wrong with checking up on people or reporting suspicious activity .
We 're not talking Patriot Act and black boot tactics , just " suspicious lump sums " and " neighorhood watch " type common sense .
It 's like security at Best Buy or Wal-Mart... sure , they may fail to prevent some merchandise from walking out the door , but without them , it would be open-season.Now , on the other hand , I think he 's got a solid point about the dangers of over-reacting and the resilience of an open-democracy .
Our law enforcement and investigative branches are capable of pursuing the enemy , much better than our armed forces are .
And finally , we need to spend more time and money supporting the first responders , so that they are well-prepared for the next major catastrophe -- be it man-made or natural .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, I think people pigeonhole too much as just "security theatre", such as the liquids ban.
In this instance, if there were no such ban, the guy may have brought on a gallon of explosives instead of what he could fit in his tightie-whities.
Yes, there are hundreds of other ways to take down a plane than box-cutters or binary explosives, but it's naive to think that since we can't stop *everything* that we should just shrug and roll back *all* air-travel restrictions.The same goes for the photo ID canard... sure, it's possible fake a photo ID, but such trivial checks make it more difficult for someone off the street to just walk out with unattended equipment or penetrate the local network.
Is it going to stop a determined thief or terrorist... no, but it's not necessarily the intent.
Even Bruce would have to concede that opportunistic-theft is statistically much more likely than movie-style heists.Basic security is necessary in our society, not just for terror attacks, but for random acts of violence and theft.
There's nothing wrong with checking up on people or reporting suspicious activity.
We're not talking Patriot Act and black boot tactics, just "suspicious lump sums" and "neighorhood watch" type common sense.
It's like security at Best Buy or Wal-Mart... sure, they may fail to prevent some merchandise from walking out the door, but without them, it would be open-season.Now, on the other hand, I think he's got a solid point about the dangers of over-reacting and the resilience of an open-democracy.
Our law enforcement and investigative branches are capable of pursuing the enemy, much better than our armed forces are.
And finally, we need to spend more time and money supporting the first responders, so that they are well-prepared for the next major catastrophe  -- be it man-made or natural.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585604</id>
	<title>Why Airplanes?</title>
	<author>gedrin</author>
	<datestamp>1262120040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's got to be a reason.  Why commercial aircraft?  In spite of all the failures in the system, and the gaps when it does function, they're much harder targets than most places.  If my goal was to kill lots of people spectacularly, I'm sure it would be easier to use a lower powered bomb and just drive it into a daycare center at pick up time.  It seems like a good question to ask, and I've heard very few answers that seem to make sense.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's got to be a reason .
Why commercial aircraft ?
In spite of all the failures in the system , and the gaps when it does function , they 're much harder targets than most places .
If my goal was to kill lots of people spectacularly , I 'm sure it would be easier to use a lower powered bomb and just drive it into a daycare center at pick up time .
It seems like a good question to ask , and I 've heard very few answers that seem to make sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's got to be a reason.
Why commercial aircraft?
In spite of all the failures in the system, and the gaps when it does function, they're much harder targets than most places.
If my goal was to kill lots of people spectacularly, I'm sure it would be easier to use a lower powered bomb and just drive it into a daycare center at pick up time.
It seems like a good question to ask, and I've heard very few answers that seem to make sense.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30586248</id>
	<title>Re:Get real; there is an overriding state interest</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262079780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Congratulations you just lost the war on terror.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Congratulations you just lost the war on terror .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Congratulations you just lost the war on terror.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585278</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30586508</id>
	<title>Less Security</title>
	<author>play\_in\_traffic</author>
	<datestamp>1262081040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would pay more for less security and less waiting/lines when I travel domestically by air.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would pay more for less security and less waiting/lines when I travel domestically by air .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would pay more for less security and less waiting/lines when I travel domestically by air.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584738</id>
	<title>Re:Can we make Air Travel Secure?</title>
	<author>LOLLinux</author>
	<datestamp>1262116020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Benjamin Franklin said it best when he said   "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."</p></div><p>Except Benjamin Franklin never said that.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>A frequently-misquoted phrase commonly attributed to Benjamin Franklin. Many misquotations simplify or generalise the sentence somewhat, or add parts not in the original quote, such as "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both", one of the more common variants.</p><p>The original quote is taken from, "A Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania," first published anonymously in London in 1759. The quote is an excerpt from a letter written in 1755 from the Assembly to the Governor of Pennsylvania.</p><p><i>Benjamin Franklin did publish the edition printed in Philadelphia, and most likely the original, <b>but denied writing any part of it.</b> </i> The quote however may have originated from Franklin, but was excerpted for the book by the author.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Benjamin Franklin said it best when he said " Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both .
" Except Benjamin Franklin never said that.A frequently-misquoted phrase commonly attributed to Benjamin Franklin .
Many misquotations simplify or generalise the sentence somewhat , or add parts not in the original quote , such as " Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both " , one of the more common variants.The original quote is taken from , " A Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania , " first published anonymously in London in 1759 .
The quote is an excerpt from a letter written in 1755 from the Assembly to the Governor of Pennsylvania.Benjamin Franklin did publish the edition printed in Philadelphia , and most likely the original , but denied writing any part of it .
The quote however may have originated from Franklin , but was excerpted for the book by the author .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Benjamin Franklin said it best when he said   "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
"Except Benjamin Franklin never said that.A frequently-misquoted phrase commonly attributed to Benjamin Franklin.
Many misquotations simplify or generalise the sentence somewhat, or add parts not in the original quote, such as "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both", one of the more common variants.The original quote is taken from, "A Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania," first published anonymously in London in 1759.
The quote is an excerpt from a letter written in 1755 from the Assembly to the Governor of Pennsylvania.Benjamin Franklin did publish the edition printed in Philadelphia, and most likely the original, but denied writing any part of it.
The quote however may have originated from Franklin, but was excerpted for the book by the author.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585106</id>
	<title>Re:Bruce is only pointing out the obvious. . . .</title>
	<author>PPH</author>
	<datestamp>1262117880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ever see the holding area for passengers boarding an El Al flight? It'll make you yearn for the good old days of taking your shoes off and the occasional random body cavity search.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ever see the holding area for passengers boarding an El Al flight ?
It 'll make you yearn for the good old days of taking your shoes off and the occasional random body cavity search .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ever see the holding area for passengers boarding an El Al flight?
It'll make you yearn for the good old days of taking your shoes off and the occasional random body cavity search.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30589964</id>
	<title>Re:no</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262101200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your ham-fisted approach creates more terrorists, not less. How do you think this hatred of the west was created - that's right, we were killing their friends and family.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your ham-fisted approach creates more terrorists , not less .
How do you think this hatred of the west was created - that 's right , we were killing their friends and family .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your ham-fisted approach creates more terrorists, not less.
How do you think this hatred of the west was created - that's right, we were killing their friends and family.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30588464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584452</id>
	<title>Yes I do Know</title>
	<author>b4upoo</author>
	<datestamp>1262114760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>           Terrorism is the smallest of security problems for air craft. The greatest issue is the rapid delivery of diseases from all corners of the world which threatens all of us all of the time. For example a common flu strain will easily kill far more people than we lost on 9/11. Rarer strains could wipe out millions.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; The simple answer is to allow far less travel even inside our borders. International flights should be extremely limited. That will not only insure better health and safety but will also diminish the availability of air craft to terrorists as well.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Nations such as the old USSR that restricted travel were not totally wrong in that policy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Terrorism is the smallest of security problems for air craft .
The greatest issue is the rapid delivery of diseases from all corners of the world which threatens all of us all of the time .
For example a common flu strain will easily kill far more people than we lost on 9/11 .
Rarer strains could wipe out millions .
                        The simple answer is to allow far less travel even inside our borders .
International flights should be extremely limited .
That will not only insure better health and safety but will also diminish the availability of air craft to terrorists as well .
                        Nations such as the old USSR that restricted travel were not totally wrong in that policy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>           Terrorism is the smallest of security problems for air craft.
The greatest issue is the rapid delivery of diseases from all corners of the world which threatens all of us all of the time.
For example a common flu strain will easily kill far more people than we lost on 9/11.
Rarer strains could wipe out millions.
                        The simple answer is to allow far less travel even inside our borders.
International flights should be extremely limited.
That will not only insure better health and safety but will also diminish the availability of air craft to terrorists as well.
                        Nations such as the old USSR that restricted travel were not totally wrong in that policy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30590824</id>
	<title>Re:Can we make Air Travel Secure?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262111100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your comment about the Israelis caused me to remember that I was haunted by a joke I made years earlier as I watched the events of 9-11. During the time when a lot of flights were being hijacked to Cuba, an acquaintance made a comment to me about all the security precautions that should be taken to stop this; the usual highly intelligent stuff about searches and limitations. I told him that seemed like a lot of inconvenience, expense, and time wasting - what we should really do is equip every plane with a stock of pistols equal to the number of seats on the plane, every passenger would be handed one upon boarding and they would return it to the airplane's gun rack on exiting. Hijacking anything full of armed individuals seems like an unsolvable problem.</p><p>Especially after I learned what had happened in Pennsylvania, I wondered if we should revisit an old truth: The best way to stop damage caused by armed bad people is to surround them with armed good people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your comment about the Israelis caused me to remember that I was haunted by a joke I made years earlier as I watched the events of 9-11 .
During the time when a lot of flights were being hijacked to Cuba , an acquaintance made a comment to me about all the security precautions that should be taken to stop this ; the usual highly intelligent stuff about searches and limitations .
I told him that seemed like a lot of inconvenience , expense , and time wasting - what we should really do is equip every plane with a stock of pistols equal to the number of seats on the plane , every passenger would be handed one upon boarding and they would return it to the airplane 's gun rack on exiting .
Hijacking anything full of armed individuals seems like an unsolvable problem.Especially after I learned what had happened in Pennsylvania , I wondered if we should revisit an old truth : The best way to stop damage caused by armed bad people is to surround them with armed good people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your comment about the Israelis caused me to remember that I was haunted by a joke I made years earlier as I watched the events of 9-11.
During the time when a lot of flights were being hijacked to Cuba, an acquaintance made a comment to me about all the security precautions that should be taken to stop this; the usual highly intelligent stuff about searches and limitations.
I told him that seemed like a lot of inconvenience, expense, and time wasting - what we should really do is equip every plane with a stock of pistols equal to the number of seats on the plane, every passenger would be handed one upon boarding and they would return it to the airplane's gun rack on exiting.
Hijacking anything full of armed individuals seems like an unsolvable problem.Especially after I learned what had happened in Pennsylvania, I wondered if we should revisit an old truth: The best way to stop damage caused by armed bad people is to surround them with armed good people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30586470</id>
	<title>There is a way to make travel secure</title>
	<author>wizzerking</author>
	<datestamp>1262080800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We have two options
1: everybody travels naked, with no carry on or checked luggage, all luggage will be shipped by UPS, FedEx or the Like.

2: Nobody Travels except in their own car, or in cars with people they are familiar with.
In this case we will have the situation of travel board websites and people will just organize themselves any way.  Examples are commuter stops in San Francisco, or the old fashioned boards in college about who is traveling where, and who would like to pay for gas, or food.

As far as I am concerned we should all be using the internet for conferences, etc.  My company literally forbids traveling in the USA unless teh client absolutely will pay for my time, and travel expenses.  In the case of Europe, well I had hoped to visit some locations, but not by plane, i think I will travel by old fashioned boat.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We have two options 1 : everybody travels naked , with no carry on or checked luggage , all luggage will be shipped by UPS , FedEx or the Like .
2 : Nobody Travels except in their own car , or in cars with people they are familiar with .
In this case we will have the situation of travel board websites and people will just organize themselves any way .
Examples are commuter stops in San Francisco , or the old fashioned boards in college about who is traveling where , and who would like to pay for gas , or food .
As far as I am concerned we should all be using the internet for conferences , etc .
My company literally forbids traveling in the USA unless teh client absolutely will pay for my time , and travel expenses .
In the case of Europe , well I had hoped to visit some locations , but not by plane , i think I will travel by old fashioned boat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have two options
1: everybody travels naked, with no carry on or checked luggage, all luggage will be shipped by UPS, FedEx or the Like.
2: Nobody Travels except in their own car, or in cars with people they are familiar with.
In this case we will have the situation of travel board websites and people will just organize themselves any way.
Examples are commuter stops in San Francisco, or the old fashioned boards in college about who is traveling where, and who would like to pay for gas, or food.
As far as I am concerned we should all be using the internet for conferences, etc.
My company literally forbids traveling in the USA unless teh client absolutely will pay for my time, and travel expenses.
In the case of Europe, well I had hoped to visit some locations, but not by plane, i think I will travel by old fashioned boat.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30591900</id>
	<title>Re:What about making other things more secure firs</title>
	<author>babybird</author>
	<datestamp>1259841660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's usually between 1/3 and 1/2, but that's if you also count suicide-- both self-inflicted suicide as well as "suicide by cop."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's usually between 1/3 and 1/2 , but that 's if you also count suicide-- both self-inflicted suicide as well as " suicide by cop .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's usually between 1/3 and 1/2, but that's if you also count suicide-- both self-inflicted suicide as well as "suicide by cop.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584748</id>
	<title>A better article about Schneier exploits</title>
	<author>joeflies</author>
	<datestamp>1262116080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Atlantic <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200811/airport-security" title="theatlantic.com"> published an article about Schneier exploiting airport security</a> [theatlantic.com] by pointing out the fundamental flaw that airport scanners don't actually check the no fly list.  <p>

Bruce points out that the no fly list only gets checked when you purchase the ticket, and your ID isn't checked when you actually use it.  For example, bad guy steals a credit card and buys a ticket under a fake name.  That gets him a valid ticket and avoids the no fly list</p><p>

Next, the bad guy takes a boarding pass and modifies it in photoshop to show his real name, and uses that fake boarding pass along with his real id to get through airport screening.  Security checks if his id matches the name on the boarding pass, but they never check the computer to see if the name is on the no fly list or even if the boarding pass is valid.</p><p>

Finally, the bad guy can rip up the fake boarding pass and use the real boarding pass purchased with the stolen credit card at the gate and gets on the plane.  Notice throughout the whole process, nobody checked if the bad guy's id against the no fly list?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Atlantic published an article about Schneier exploiting airport security [ theatlantic.com ] by pointing out the fundamental flaw that airport scanners do n't actually check the no fly list .
Bruce points out that the no fly list only gets checked when you purchase the ticket , and your ID is n't checked when you actually use it .
For example , bad guy steals a credit card and buys a ticket under a fake name .
That gets him a valid ticket and avoids the no fly list Next , the bad guy takes a boarding pass and modifies it in photoshop to show his real name , and uses that fake boarding pass along with his real id to get through airport screening .
Security checks if his id matches the name on the boarding pass , but they never check the computer to see if the name is on the no fly list or even if the boarding pass is valid .
Finally , the bad guy can rip up the fake boarding pass and use the real boarding pass purchased with the stolen credit card at the gate and gets on the plane .
Notice throughout the whole process , nobody checked if the bad guy 's id against the no fly list ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Atlantic  published an article about Schneier exploiting airport security [theatlantic.com] by pointing out the fundamental flaw that airport scanners don't actually check the no fly list.
Bruce points out that the no fly list only gets checked when you purchase the ticket, and your ID isn't checked when you actually use it.
For example, bad guy steals a credit card and buys a ticket under a fake name.
That gets him a valid ticket and avoids the no fly list

Next, the bad guy takes a boarding pass and modifies it in photoshop to show his real name, and uses that fake boarding pass along with his real id to get through airport screening.
Security checks if his id matches the name on the boarding pass, but they never check the computer to see if the name is on the no fly list or even if the boarding pass is valid.
Finally, the bad guy can rip up the fake boarding pass and use the real boarding pass purchased with the stolen credit card at the gate and gets on the plane.
Notice throughout the whole process, nobody checked if the bad guy's id against the no fly list?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30586584</id>
	<title>Dogs</title>
	<author>lotho brandybuck</author>
	<datestamp>1262081400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Use well trained dogs.

Not only can dogs be trained to smell very minute quanties of just about anything, they also can smell fear and nervousness.  And the presence of a dog is going to make a would be terrorist nervous.


Trouble is, dogs don't make money for defense oriented companies pushing cat scans and fancy sniffer machines which may or may not work.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Use well trained dogs .
Not only can dogs be trained to smell very minute quanties of just about anything , they also can smell fear and nervousness .
And the presence of a dog is going to make a would be terrorist nervous .
Trouble is , dogs do n't make money for defense oriented companies pushing cat scans and fancy sniffer machines which may or may not work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Use well trained dogs.
Not only can dogs be trained to smell very minute quanties of just about anything, they also can smell fear and nervousness.
And the presence of a dog is going to make a would be terrorist nervous.
Trouble is, dogs don't make money for defense oriented companies pushing cat scans and fancy sniffer machines which may or may not work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30588364</id>
	<title>They already do, but they don't give up either</title>
	<author>SuperKendall</author>
	<datestamp>1262089020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Let's say that we make airline flights 100\% terrorist proof. Then what? Simple, the terrorists move on to bombing other things.</i></p><p>They already bomb a lot of other stuff.</p><p>But we can see from repeated examples that while we are probably as close as we ever will be to preventing bombs on airplanes, they keep trying that attack vector despite a single successful attempt (I group all of 9/11 in one attempt for this purposes even though it was multiple planes, because the same technique was used simultaneously and even then passengers on one of the planes were able to catch on and stop one plane before the plan was fully carried out).  They really, really want to blow up a plane, so it makes some sense to try and stop them from doing so as long as they show a keen interest.</p><p>The real question is what measures help and what do not, the mess we have now has many elements that do not help whatsoever - including pretty much all of the new rules just implemented.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's say that we make airline flights 100 \ % terrorist proof .
Then what ?
Simple , the terrorists move on to bombing other things.They already bomb a lot of other stuff.But we can see from repeated examples that while we are probably as close as we ever will be to preventing bombs on airplanes , they keep trying that attack vector despite a single successful attempt ( I group all of 9/11 in one attempt for this purposes even though it was multiple planes , because the same technique was used simultaneously and even then passengers on one of the planes were able to catch on and stop one plane before the plan was fully carried out ) .
They really , really want to blow up a plane , so it makes some sense to try and stop them from doing so as long as they show a keen interest.The real question is what measures help and what do not , the mess we have now has many elements that do not help whatsoever - including pretty much all of the new rules just implemented .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's say that we make airline flights 100\% terrorist proof.
Then what?
Simple, the terrorists move on to bombing other things.They already bomb a lot of other stuff.But we can see from repeated examples that while we are probably as close as we ever will be to preventing bombs on airplanes, they keep trying that attack vector despite a single successful attempt (I group all of 9/11 in one attempt for this purposes even though it was multiple planes, because the same technique was used simultaneously and even then passengers on one of the planes were able to catch on and stop one plane before the plan was fully carried out).
They really, really want to blow up a plane, so it makes some sense to try and stop them from doing so as long as they show a keen interest.The real question is what measures help and what do not, the mess we have now has many elements that do not help whatsoever - including pretty much all of the new rules just implemented.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30586494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30586494</id>
	<title>because planes are the only potential target...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262080920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let's say that we make airline flights 100\% terrorist proof.  Then what?  Simple, the terrorists move on to bombing other things. Can you imaging the panic that would happen if they bombed a large high school graduation? There are a nearly infinite number of potential targets for terrorists and it is impossible to secure them all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's say that we make airline flights 100 \ % terrorist proof .
Then what ?
Simple , the terrorists move on to bombing other things .
Can you imaging the panic that would happen if they bombed a large high school graduation ?
There are a nearly infinite number of potential targets for terrorists and it is impossible to secure them all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's say that we make airline flights 100\% terrorist proof.
Then what?
Simple, the terrorists move on to bombing other things.
Can you imaging the panic that would happen if they bombed a large high school graduation?
There are a nearly infinite number of potential targets for terrorists and it is impossible to secure them all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30587882</id>
	<title>Re:Can we make it somewhat safe? Yes.</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1262086680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of the best response on Slashdot, ever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the best response on Slashdot , ever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the best response on Slashdot, ever.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30589902</id>
	<title>scarcity of terrorism?</title>
	<author>CAIMLAS</author>
	<datestamp>1262100660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apparently Bruce isn't paying attention. That's to be expected, as physical security of the guys-with-guns type really isn't his domain, but... uh, there have been quite a few terrorist attacks against Western countries alone (not even counting the almost-daily attacks in places like India which are closer to the front).</p><p>A <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;source=hp&amp;q=number+of+terrorist+attacks+since+9+11&amp;aq=0&amp;oq=number+of+terrorist+attacks+since+&amp;aqi=g2" title="google.com">cursory search</a> [google.com] will tell you that there have been quite a few - over a dozen "major" attacks (ie, of the type where security personnel from every level of gov't are involved, resulting in societal changes) have occurred since 9/11/2001. Furthermore, there have been 10s of thousands in the West; I've heard numbers as high as 100,000 passed about.</p><p>Shit, there've been 2 'significant' terrorist attacks this year alone. (Ironic, though, that when it's embarrassing, it gets swept under the carpet by the gov't - Ft. Hood - but when there's a chance to increase state power and impose new restrictions on the populace - crotchbomber - it's a fucking circus.)</p><p>So yeah, terrorism is not uncommon. It's something we've simply conditioned ourselves as a society to ignore or overlook.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apparently Bruce is n't paying attention .
That 's to be expected , as physical security of the guys-with-guns type really is n't his domain , but... uh , there have been quite a few terrorist attacks against Western countries alone ( not even counting the almost-daily attacks in places like India which are closer to the front ) .A cursory search [ google.com ] will tell you that there have been quite a few - over a dozen " major " attacks ( ie , of the type where security personnel from every level of gov't are involved , resulting in societal changes ) have occurred since 9/11/2001 .
Furthermore , there have been 10s of thousands in the West ; I 've heard numbers as high as 100,000 passed about.Shit , there 've been 2 'significant ' terrorist attacks this year alone .
( Ironic , though , that when it 's embarrassing , it gets swept under the carpet by the gov't - Ft. Hood - but when there 's a chance to increase state power and impose new restrictions on the populace - crotchbomber - it 's a fucking circus .
) So yeah , terrorism is not uncommon .
It 's something we 've simply conditioned ourselves as a society to ignore or overlook .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apparently Bruce isn't paying attention.
That's to be expected, as physical security of the guys-with-guns type really isn't his domain, but... uh, there have been quite a few terrorist attacks against Western countries alone (not even counting the almost-daily attacks in places like India which are closer to the front).A cursory search [google.com] will tell you that there have been quite a few - over a dozen "major" attacks (ie, of the type where security personnel from every level of gov't are involved, resulting in societal changes) have occurred since 9/11/2001.
Furthermore, there have been 10s of thousands in the West; I've heard numbers as high as 100,000 passed about.Shit, there've been 2 'significant' terrorist attacks this year alone.
(Ironic, though, that when it's embarrassing, it gets swept under the carpet by the gov't - Ft. Hood - but when there's a chance to increase state power and impose new restrictions on the populace - crotchbomber - it's a fucking circus.
)So yeah, terrorism is not uncommon.
It's something we've simply conditioned ourselves as a society to ignore or overlook.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30588616</id>
	<title>Re:Can we make it somewhat safe? Yes.</title>
	<author>wyldeone</author>
	<datestamp>1262090340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You make this claim, that terrorists don't attack because they are deterred by the idea of security, with no evidence. Here's some very good evidence why your theory is bunk: there are literally millions of highly visible targets in this country with no security. Anybody who wanted to could attack them trivially, compared to the relative difficulty of attacking an airplane. And yet, nobody does. There have been a handful of attempts over the past decade (most of them prompted or at least significantly helped by FBI informers), but nothing really successful (unless you consider Fort Hood, which clearly is a separate issue). If there really were all of these potential terrorists in the US, why would they just give up after deciding airlines are too hard? Why aren't they attacking all our undefended targets instead?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You make this claim , that terrorists do n't attack because they are deterred by the idea of security , with no evidence .
Here 's some very good evidence why your theory is bunk : there are literally millions of highly visible targets in this country with no security .
Anybody who wanted to could attack them trivially , compared to the relative difficulty of attacking an airplane .
And yet , nobody does .
There have been a handful of attempts over the past decade ( most of them prompted or at least significantly helped by FBI informers ) , but nothing really successful ( unless you consider Fort Hood , which clearly is a separate issue ) .
If there really were all of these potential terrorists in the US , why would they just give up after deciding airlines are too hard ?
Why are n't they attacking all our undefended targets instead ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You make this claim, that terrorists don't attack because they are deterred by the idea of security, with no evidence.
Here's some very good evidence why your theory is bunk: there are literally millions of highly visible targets in this country with no security.
Anybody who wanted to could attack them trivially, compared to the relative difficulty of attacking an airplane.
And yet, nobody does.
There have been a handful of attempts over the past decade (most of them prompted or at least significantly helped by FBI informers), but nothing really successful (unless you consider Fort Hood, which clearly is a separate issue).
If there really were all of these potential terrorists in the US, why would they just give up after deciding airlines are too hard?
Why aren't they attacking all our undefended targets instead?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30586094</id>
	<title>Want to fix it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262078880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Write to an airline you've used in the past. Include your name and approximate dates of travel.</p><p>Inform them that you will NO LONGER BE TAKING ANY FLIGHTS FROM ANY CARRIER until the security theatre is scaled back.<br>Tell them you are not scared of terrorist attacks.<br>Tell them you are frustrated by security inconvenience; so frustrated you'd rather take a bus/train/bicycle.</p><p>You see, when sales numbers drop off, they automagically assume it's due to threat of terrorism. If they receive letters that indicate exactly the opposite: That "security" measures are driving away business, they'll put pressure on the government to dial it down a notch.</p><p>Sometimes, corporations owning and controlling your government can be a good thing, if you know how to use it properly.<br>The airlines got Reagan to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional\_Air\_Traffic\_Controllers\_Organization\_(1968)#August\_1981\_strike" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">fire the 11,345 striking air traffic controllers and ban them from federal service for life</a> [wikipedia.org], so dialing security down a notch is child's play by comparison.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Write to an airline you 've used in the past .
Include your name and approximate dates of travel.Inform them that you will NO LONGER BE TAKING ANY FLIGHTS FROM ANY CARRIER until the security theatre is scaled back.Tell them you are not scared of terrorist attacks.Tell them you are frustrated by security inconvenience ; so frustrated you 'd rather take a bus/train/bicycle.You see , when sales numbers drop off , they automagically assume it 's due to threat of terrorism .
If they receive letters that indicate exactly the opposite : That " security " measures are driving away business , they 'll put pressure on the government to dial it down a notch.Sometimes , corporations owning and controlling your government can be a good thing , if you know how to use it properly.The airlines got Reagan to fire the 11,345 striking air traffic controllers and ban them from federal service for life [ wikipedia.org ] , so dialing security down a notch is child 's play by comparison .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Write to an airline you've used in the past.
Include your name and approximate dates of travel.Inform them that you will NO LONGER BE TAKING ANY FLIGHTS FROM ANY CARRIER until the security theatre is scaled back.Tell them you are not scared of terrorist attacks.Tell them you are frustrated by security inconvenience; so frustrated you'd rather take a bus/train/bicycle.You see, when sales numbers drop off, they automagically assume it's due to threat of terrorism.
If they receive letters that indicate exactly the opposite: That "security" measures are driving away business, they'll put pressure on the government to dial it down a notch.Sometimes, corporations owning and controlling your government can be a good thing, if you know how to use it properly.The airlines got Reagan to fire the 11,345 striking air traffic controllers and ban them from federal service for life [wikipedia.org], so dialing security down a notch is child's play by comparison.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585046</id>
	<title>Re:What about making other things more secure firs</title>
	<author>petes\_PoV</author>
	<datestamp>1262117640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>And how many were killed by guns in america? At a guess, the same number as road fatalities.
<br>
(if this doesn't get neg'd out of existence I'll be amazed)</htmltext>
<tokenext>And how many were killed by guns in america ?
At a guess , the same number as road fatalities .
( if this does n't get neg 'd out of existence I 'll be amazed )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And how many were killed by guns in america?
At a guess, the same number as road fatalities.
(if this doesn't get neg'd out of existence I'll be amazed)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584608</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584518</id>
	<title>Bruce is only pointing out the obvious. . . .</title>
	<author>Salgak1</author>
	<datestamp>1262115060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>. .<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.simply, that as far as the TSA and similar efforts go, the Emperor not only has no clothes, nobody ever remotely NEAR him has a stitch on.

About the only people doing airline security right are the Israelis, and their model only works because of the relatively limited scope of El Al's operations.

The Christmas Day "panty bombing" showed cascade failures in the intelligence and investigation systems that are the only effective methods of defense against terrorism.

In a RATIONAL world, **one** terrorism flag (i.e. one-way ticket, buying with cash, no luggage, watch list, etc) would yield pulling the passenger aside and "enhanced investigation": two flags, and the person is getting a very thorough body and luggage search, and three or more flags, it's grab the latex gloves, because it's a strip-search and fine-tooth comb search through luggage and posessions.

But, alas, because some people don't bother checking, or reporting (assuming it's their job to do so. .<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.) in a timely matter, really obvious cases are allowed to pass, and the aftermath of Enhanced Security Theater does nothing but inconvenience the public, and potentially cause so much noise as to effectively mask any REAL events or dry-runs in progress. . .</htmltext>
<tokenext>.
. .simply , that as far as the TSA and similar efforts go , the Emperor not only has no clothes , nobody ever remotely NEAR him has a stitch on .
About the only people doing airline security right are the Israelis , and their model only works because of the relatively limited scope of El Al 's operations .
The Christmas Day " panty bombing " showed cascade failures in the intelligence and investigation systems that are the only effective methods of defense against terrorism .
In a RATIONAL world , * * one * * terrorism flag ( i.e .
one-way ticket , buying with cash , no luggage , watch list , etc ) would yield pulling the passenger aside and " enhanced investigation " : two flags , and the person is getting a very thorough body and luggage search , and three or more flags , it 's grab the latex gloves , because it 's a strip-search and fine-tooth comb search through luggage and posessions .
But , alas , because some people do n't bother checking , or reporting ( assuming it 's their job to do so .
. .
) in a timely matter , really obvious cases are allowed to pass , and the aftermath of Enhanced Security Theater does nothing but inconvenience the public , and potentially cause so much noise as to effectively mask any REAL events or dry-runs in progress .
. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.
. .simply, that as far as the TSA and similar efforts go, the Emperor not only has no clothes, nobody ever remotely NEAR him has a stitch on.
About the only people doing airline security right are the Israelis, and their model only works because of the relatively limited scope of El Al's operations.
The Christmas Day "panty bombing" showed cascade failures in the intelligence and investigation systems that are the only effective methods of defense against terrorism.
In a RATIONAL world, **one** terrorism flag (i.e.
one-way ticket, buying with cash, no luggage, watch list, etc) would yield pulling the passenger aside and "enhanced investigation": two flags, and the person is getting a very thorough body and luggage search, and three or more flags, it's grab the latex gloves, because it's a strip-search and fine-tooth comb search through luggage and posessions.
But, alas, because some people don't bother checking, or reporting (assuming it's their job to do so.
. .
) in a timely matter, really obvious cases are allowed to pass, and the aftermath of Enhanced Security Theater does nothing but inconvenience the public, and potentially cause so much noise as to effectively mask any REAL events or dry-runs in progress.
. .</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30586512</id>
	<title>Re:no</title>
	<author>Jeremiah Cornelius</author>
	<datestamp>1262081040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who fucking cares?</p><p>It's safer to fly without screening than to drive across town.</p><p>But, you'll pay for your own handcuffs - and the privilege to wear them.  Now, where's my embedded microchip?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who fucking cares ? It 's safer to fly without screening than to drive across town.But , you 'll pay for your own handcuffs - and the privilege to wear them .
Now , where 's my embedded microchip ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who fucking cares?It's safer to fly without screening than to drive across town.But, you'll pay for your own handcuffs - and the privilege to wear them.
Now, where's my embedded microchip?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584356</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30586194</id>
	<title>Easy Fix: Fire Home;and Security</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262079480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can you believe that the Directory of HS said, "The system worked.' No, it didn't. The system failed, miserably.</p><p>Turn the terror around and point it in the opposite direction. Remove all scanners and 'people checks,' which have never worked. Allow any citizen to carry a firearm on board. Issue free frangible ammo to anyone who asks (so we don't blow a hole in the airplane). Deputize everyone. Dare a terrorist to light a match.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can you believe that the Directory of HS said , " The system worked .
' No , it did n't .
The system failed , miserably.Turn the terror around and point it in the opposite direction .
Remove all scanners and 'people checks, ' which have never worked .
Allow any citizen to carry a firearm on board .
Issue free frangible ammo to anyone who asks ( so we do n't blow a hole in the airplane ) .
Deputize everyone .
Dare a terrorist to light a match .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can you believe that the Directory of HS said, "The system worked.
' No, it didn't.
The system failed, miserably.Turn the terror around and point it in the opposite direction.
Remove all scanners and 'people checks,' which have never worked.
Allow any citizen to carry a firearm on board.
Issue free frangible ammo to anyone who asks (so we don't blow a hole in the airplane).
Deputize everyone.
Dare a terrorist to light a match.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30589762</id>
	<title>Re:Get real; there is an overriding state interest</title>
	<author>colinrichardday</author>
	<datestamp>1262099460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In that case, what is penalty for an incompetent TSA employee? Or is it only mere citizens who should face sanctions?</p><p>More Americans die from firearms (or lack of health insurance) every year than from 9/11. Where's the "overriding state interest"? And to what extent can the government secure your life and property? Can the government save you disease? From RICO (oh wait, that is the government!)?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In that case , what is penalty for an incompetent TSA employee ?
Or is it only mere citizens who should face sanctions ? More Americans die from firearms ( or lack of health insurance ) every year than from 9/11 .
Where 's the " overriding state interest " ?
And to what extent can the government secure your life and property ?
Can the government save you disease ?
From RICO ( oh wait , that is the government !
) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In that case, what is penalty for an incompetent TSA employee?
Or is it only mere citizens who should face sanctions?More Americans die from firearms (or lack of health insurance) every year than from 9/11.
Where's the "overriding state interest"?
And to what extent can the government secure your life and property?
Can the government save you disease?
From RICO (oh wait, that is the government!
)?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585278</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30588294</id>
	<title>Re:Can we make it somewhat safe? Yes.</title>
	<author>dkf</author>
	<datestamp>1262088660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>People are against showing ID to board a plane but it's what it's going to have to come down to in the end, because the reality is this is the most efficient way to actually catch people who are trying to do bad things vs. trying to simply find the tools used to perform an attack carried by any random person.</p></div><p>That's correct, and that's because that's a <i>real</i> security step (along with things like only allowing checked luggage on if it accompanies someone). It's where you can correlate whether the person is someone who is "likely to be of interest" and where you can verify that the airline is only carrying those who it thinks it is. (Even then, that's not a perfect solution, but a perfect solution would be economically crippling and so won't happen.)</p><p>Note that terrorism by suicide bombers is not the only real threat that has to be defended against. Out-and-out crazies are at least as big a problem, and some measures are there to defend against that too. (Note that the "security theater" is much more effective against that threat.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>People are against showing ID to board a plane but it 's what it 's going to have to come down to in the end , because the reality is this is the most efficient way to actually catch people who are trying to do bad things vs. trying to simply find the tools used to perform an attack carried by any random person.That 's correct , and that 's because that 's a real security step ( along with things like only allowing checked luggage on if it accompanies someone ) .
It 's where you can correlate whether the person is someone who is " likely to be of interest " and where you can verify that the airline is only carrying those who it thinks it is .
( Even then , that 's not a perfect solution , but a perfect solution would be economically crippling and so wo n't happen .
) Note that terrorism by suicide bombers is not the only real threat that has to be defended against .
Out-and-out crazies are at least as big a problem , and some measures are there to defend against that too .
( Note that the " security theater " is much more effective against that threat .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People are against showing ID to board a plane but it's what it's going to have to come down to in the end, because the reality is this is the most efficient way to actually catch people who are trying to do bad things vs. trying to simply find the tools used to perform an attack carried by any random person.That's correct, and that's because that's a real security step (along with things like only allowing checked luggage on if it accompanies someone).
It's where you can correlate whether the person is someone who is "likely to be of interest" and where you can verify that the airline is only carrying those who it thinks it is.
(Even then, that's not a perfect solution, but a perfect solution would be economically crippling and so won't happen.
)Note that terrorism by suicide bombers is not the only real threat that has to be defended against.
Out-and-out crazies are at least as big a problem, and some measures are there to defend against that too.
(Note that the "security theater" is much more effective against that threat.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585280</id>
	<title>Re:What about making other things more secure firs</title>
	<author>asdfghjklqwertyuiop</author>
	<datestamp>1262118660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Close to the number people who were killed by people wanting to kill someone that had a gun available as one of their means of doing so?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Close to the number people who were killed by people wanting to kill someone that had a gun available as one of their means of doing so ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Close to the number people who were killed by people wanting to kill someone that had a gun available as one of their means of doing so?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30587946</id>
	<title>Re:no</title>
	<author>AigariusDebian</author>
	<datestamp>1262086980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The funny thing is cost. In human lives.</p><p>One 747 exploding over Boston would take 200+ lives and cost (including compensations to families) around 200-300 million USD.</p><p>The extra security theatre all around the world is costing every single passenger 2 extra hours of their live and all those extra costs for the extra screenings and detections. Only in the USA more than 2.5 million people travel by air every day. There are 650 000 hours in a human life of 75 years. So the security theatre that this terrorist act caused kills 4-5 people every day in the USA alone. Or around 40 people in the world.</p><p>Therefore, if the extra security stays on for a week, it will kill more people and cost more than if this plane would have crashed.</p><p>In fact, if we remove almost all security theatre from all airports and the terrorists start crashing one airplane every month, we all as a society would be winners in that.</p><p>But now - the terrorists have won: the created terror and caused great self-incured expenses on the Western World. That was their exact goal. And they have fully realised their goals with this attack.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The funny thing is cost .
In human lives.One 747 exploding over Boston would take 200 + lives and cost ( including compensations to families ) around 200-300 million USD.The extra security theatre all around the world is costing every single passenger 2 extra hours of their live and all those extra costs for the extra screenings and detections .
Only in the USA more than 2.5 million people travel by air every day .
There are 650 000 hours in a human life of 75 years .
So the security theatre that this terrorist act caused kills 4-5 people every day in the USA alone .
Or around 40 people in the world.Therefore , if the extra security stays on for a week , it will kill more people and cost more than if this plane would have crashed.In fact , if we remove almost all security theatre from all airports and the terrorists start crashing one airplane every month , we all as a society would be winners in that.But now - the terrorists have won : the created terror and caused great self-incured expenses on the Western World .
That was their exact goal .
And they have fully realised their goals with this attack .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The funny thing is cost.
In human lives.One 747 exploding over Boston would take 200+ lives and cost (including compensations to families) around 200-300 million USD.The extra security theatre all around the world is costing every single passenger 2 extra hours of their live and all those extra costs for the extra screenings and detections.
Only in the USA more than 2.5 million people travel by air every day.
There are 650 000 hours in a human life of 75 years.
So the security theatre that this terrorist act caused kills 4-5 people every day in the USA alone.
Or around 40 people in the world.Therefore, if the extra security stays on for a week, it will kill more people and cost more than if this plane would have crashed.In fact, if we remove almost all security theatre from all airports and the terrorists start crashing one airplane every month, we all as a society would be winners in that.But now - the terrorists have won: the created terror and caused great self-incured expenses on the Western World.
That was their exact goal.
And they have fully realised their goals with this attack.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584356</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584448</id>
	<title>Can we make Air Travel Secure?</title>
	<author>Afforess</author>
	<datestamp>1262114760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The answer: No.<br> <br> The sooner most people grow and learn that "Shit Happens (tm)" and that no one can every prepare for every eventuality, the better.  The "Security Theatre" is just a new opening for corrupt politicans and power-hungry individuals to remove more freedom from people. <br> <br> Benjamin Franklin said it best when he said <b> <i> "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."</i></b></htmltext>
<tokenext>The answer : No .
The sooner most people grow and learn that " Shit Happens ( tm ) " and that no one can every prepare for every eventuality , the better .
The " Security Theatre " is just a new opening for corrupt politicans and power-hungry individuals to remove more freedom from people .
Benjamin Franklin said it best when he said " Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The answer: No.
The sooner most people grow and learn that "Shit Happens (tm)" and that no one can every prepare for every eventuality, the better.
The "Security Theatre" is just a new opening for corrupt politicans and power-hungry individuals to remove more freedom from people.
Benjamin Franklin said it best when he said   "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585236</id>
	<title>Bruce Schneier at an airport</title>
	<author>slasho81</author>
	<datestamp>1262118540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I ran into Bruce Schneier at an airport once. While we were waiting for a plane, I asked him if he would show me a "cool computer trick". He popped the RAM out of my laptop and quickly tasted the edge with the gold leads. He then told me that at 11:23pm the previous night I had visited ideepthroat.com with Firefox. Damn he's good.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ran into Bruce Schneier at an airport once .
While we were waiting for a plane , I asked him if he would show me a " cool computer trick " .
He popped the RAM out of my laptop and quickly tasted the edge with the gold leads .
He then told me that at 11 : 23pm the previous night I had visited ideepthroat.com with Firefox .
Damn he 's good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I ran into Bruce Schneier at an airport once.
While we were waiting for a plane, I asked him if he would show me a "cool computer trick".
He popped the RAM out of my laptop and quickly tasted the edge with the gold leads.
He then told me that at 11:23pm the previous night I had visited ideepthroat.com with Firefox.
Damn he's good.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30586610</id>
	<title>Re:Go Back to Allowing Passenger To be Armed</title>
	<author>Zalbik</author>
	<datestamp>1262081520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> I do know that people used to carry guns on planes and that the stupidity with hijacking actually went up when passengers were required to disarm.</p></div></blockquote><p>The stupidity with hijacking also went up since people started carrying iPhones...</p><p>ooo, iPhones for everyone...that'll fix it!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do know that people used to carry guns on planes and that the stupidity with hijacking actually went up when passengers were required to disarm.The stupidity with hijacking also went up since people started carrying iPhones...ooo , iPhones for everyone...that 'll fix it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I do know that people used to carry guns on planes and that the stupidity with hijacking actually went up when passengers were required to disarm.The stupidity with hijacking also went up since people started carrying iPhones...ooo, iPhones for everyone...that'll fix it!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30589206</id>
	<title>Re:Bruce Schneier is blowing smoke</title>
	<author>jonwil</author>
	<datestamp>1262094240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The security measures taken by El Al are genuine security, not security theater. Measures like subjecting all bags to depressurization (to trigger any bombs with altitude sensors) and having armed sky marshals on all flights.</p><p>But the risks for El Al are much greater (and the number of flights they have smaller than many airlines) so they can afford these extra security measures.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The security measures taken by El Al are genuine security , not security theater .
Measures like subjecting all bags to depressurization ( to trigger any bombs with altitude sensors ) and having armed sky marshals on all flights.But the risks for El Al are much greater ( and the number of flights they have smaller than many airlines ) so they can afford these extra security measures .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The security measures taken by El Al are genuine security, not security theater.
Measures like subjecting all bags to depressurization (to trigger any bombs with altitude sensors) and having armed sky marshals on all flights.But the risks for El Al are much greater (and the number of flights they have smaller than many airlines) so they can afford these extra security measures.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30591870</id>
	<title>Re:Can we make it somewhat safe? Yes.</title>
	<author>babybird</author>
	<datestamp>1259841060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>This along with a layer of behavioral analysts who can access the scan history to also flag people (and yes a good analysts can tell a person who is worried about flying over being nervous about something else)</i></p><p>No they can't. What they CAN do is spot someone who doesn't fit an ordinary profile of someone about to board a flight <b>for <i>some</i> reason</b>, i.e. someone who's displaying signs of malicious intent (or who is displaying behavior indicitive of malicious intent but for a perfectly benign reason). There has not been enough scientific research done to date to be able to do what you suggest here with the capability that you're claiming, and certainly not enough to train the massive number of "good" analysts that would be required to use them to screen millions of passengers per day at airports throughout the country.</p><p>The research behind this IS being done today, but there is quite a lot of work yet to do before what you're suggesting could be deployed on a wide scale. And the training for behavioral screeners is being created and tested as we speak. What has been done and has been tested, has had pretty positive results so far; so we are at least headed in the direction you're suggesting.</p><p>I'm sure you're aware that Dr. Paul Ekman (among probably a handful of others equally qualified in these fields) are among the driving forces behind these new security models. But if you read any of what he writes about it, it's very nearly filled with more caveats and cautions than it is with actual applicable knowledge. And there are still that small number of individuals who have a natural ability to walk right by ANY of these people without raising any red flags, and it would necessarily fall upon other technologies such as the body scanners, puffers, and trained dogs to pick up the slack.</p><p>I'm not denying that what you envision as the future of airport security is on the way, and would perhaps even be the ideal scenario, just that this one point really stuck out at me based on all that I've been able to read and learn about it over the past 2 years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This along with a layer of behavioral analysts who can access the scan history to also flag people ( and yes a good analysts can tell a person who is worried about flying over being nervous about something else ) No they ca n't .
What they CAN do is spot someone who does n't fit an ordinary profile of someone about to board a flight for some reason , i.e .
someone who 's displaying signs of malicious intent ( or who is displaying behavior indicitive of malicious intent but for a perfectly benign reason ) .
There has not been enough scientific research done to date to be able to do what you suggest here with the capability that you 're claiming , and certainly not enough to train the massive number of " good " analysts that would be required to use them to screen millions of passengers per day at airports throughout the country.The research behind this IS being done today , but there is quite a lot of work yet to do before what you 're suggesting could be deployed on a wide scale .
And the training for behavioral screeners is being created and tested as we speak .
What has been done and has been tested , has had pretty positive results so far ; so we are at least headed in the direction you 're suggesting.I 'm sure you 're aware that Dr. Paul Ekman ( among probably a handful of others equally qualified in these fields ) are among the driving forces behind these new security models .
But if you read any of what he writes about it , it 's very nearly filled with more caveats and cautions than it is with actual applicable knowledge .
And there are still that small number of individuals who have a natural ability to walk right by ANY of these people without raising any red flags , and it would necessarily fall upon other technologies such as the body scanners , puffers , and trained dogs to pick up the slack.I 'm not denying that what you envision as the future of airport security is on the way , and would perhaps even be the ideal scenario , just that this one point really stuck out at me based on all that I 've been able to read and learn about it over the past 2 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This along with a layer of behavioral analysts who can access the scan history to also flag people (and yes a good analysts can tell a person who is worried about flying over being nervous about something else)No they can't.
What they CAN do is spot someone who doesn't fit an ordinary profile of someone about to board a flight for some reason, i.e.
someone who's displaying signs of malicious intent (or who is displaying behavior indicitive of malicious intent but for a perfectly benign reason).
There has not been enough scientific research done to date to be able to do what you suggest here with the capability that you're claiming, and certainly not enough to train the massive number of "good" analysts that would be required to use them to screen millions of passengers per day at airports throughout the country.The research behind this IS being done today, but there is quite a lot of work yet to do before what you're suggesting could be deployed on a wide scale.
And the training for behavioral screeners is being created and tested as we speak.
What has been done and has been tested, has had pretty positive results so far; so we are at least headed in the direction you're suggesting.I'm sure you're aware that Dr. Paul Ekman (among probably a handful of others equally qualified in these fields) are among the driving forces behind these new security models.
But if you read any of what he writes about it, it's very nearly filled with more caveats and cautions than it is with actual applicable knowledge.
And there are still that small number of individuals who have a natural ability to walk right by ANY of these people without raising any red flags, and it would necessarily fall upon other technologies such as the body scanners, puffers, and trained dogs to pick up the slack.I'm not denying that what you envision as the future of airport security is on the way, and would perhaps even be the ideal scenario, just that this one point really stuck out at me based on all that I've been able to read and learn about it over the past 2 years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584878</id>
	<title>Airport security is stupid.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262116740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Airport security is stupid. I fail to see the logic of having a guard search my rear end in case I am one of the 1 in 10 billion airport travelers that decides to carry a bomb, so that I can get run over by a girl talking on her cell phone on my way home from the airport.</p><p>Americans have no way of measuring or comparing risks, and honestly I think every interest group wants it that way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Airport security is stupid .
I fail to see the logic of having a guard search my rear end in case I am one of the 1 in 10 billion airport travelers that decides to carry a bomb , so that I can get run over by a girl talking on her cell phone on my way home from the airport.Americans have no way of measuring or comparing risks , and honestly I think every interest group wants it that way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Airport security is stupid.
I fail to see the logic of having a guard search my rear end in case I am one of the 1 in 10 billion airport travelers that decides to carry a bomb, so that I can get run over by a girl talking on her cell phone on my way home from the airport.Americans have no way of measuring or comparing risks, and honestly I think every interest group wants it that way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584702</id>
	<title>TSA works for Al Qaeda</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262115900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The flight was never in any danger. The so-called "bomber" had the explosive equivalent of a box of matches, which he used to great effect to castrate himself in the most embarrassing, painful, and self-destructive manner possible. The proper response to seeing someone light his own underwear on fire is to laugh, not panic.</p><p>If there was a overarching strategy, it was to put "Al Qaeda" back on the front page as part of a new recruitment effort and to disrupt American commerce. With only the tiniest of nudges, Americans are once again demanding to have their civil liberties destroyed, freedom of travel curtailed, billions of dollars to be spent in self-defeating and paralytic "security" measures. Air travel in the US is now a self-inflicted nightmare. It does not need to be this way.</p><p>If there really is an "Al Qaeda," its most effective tool is the TSA. The American taxpayer has spent billions of dollars to build "Al Qaeda" from a rag-tag group of forty guys living in caves into a globe-spanning super-spy network more powerful than the CIA. All based on a one-time event that was solved nine years ago by simply locking the cockpit doors.</p><p>I wonder if this is what it was like to live through the McCarthy "Red Scare" era? We are far beyond that now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The flight was never in any danger .
The so-called " bomber " had the explosive equivalent of a box of matches , which he used to great effect to castrate himself in the most embarrassing , painful , and self-destructive manner possible .
The proper response to seeing someone light his own underwear on fire is to laugh , not panic.If there was a overarching strategy , it was to put " Al Qaeda " back on the front page as part of a new recruitment effort and to disrupt American commerce .
With only the tiniest of nudges , Americans are once again demanding to have their civil liberties destroyed , freedom of travel curtailed , billions of dollars to be spent in self-defeating and paralytic " security " measures .
Air travel in the US is now a self-inflicted nightmare .
It does not need to be this way.If there really is an " Al Qaeda , " its most effective tool is the TSA .
The American taxpayer has spent billions of dollars to build " Al Qaeda " from a rag-tag group of forty guys living in caves into a globe-spanning super-spy network more powerful than the CIA .
All based on a one-time event that was solved nine years ago by simply locking the cockpit doors.I wonder if this is what it was like to live through the McCarthy " Red Scare " era ?
We are far beyond that now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The flight was never in any danger.
The so-called "bomber" had the explosive equivalent of a box of matches, which he used to great effect to castrate himself in the most embarrassing, painful, and self-destructive manner possible.
The proper response to seeing someone light his own underwear on fire is to laugh, not panic.If there was a overarching strategy, it was to put "Al Qaeda" back on the front page as part of a new recruitment effort and to disrupt American commerce.
With only the tiniest of nudges, Americans are once again demanding to have their civil liberties destroyed, freedom of travel curtailed, billions of dollars to be spent in self-defeating and paralytic "security" measures.
Air travel in the US is now a self-inflicted nightmare.
It does not need to be this way.If there really is an "Al Qaeda," its most effective tool is the TSA.
The American taxpayer has spent billions of dollars to build "Al Qaeda" from a rag-tag group of forty guys living in caves into a globe-spanning super-spy network more powerful than the CIA.
All based on a one-time event that was solved nine years ago by simply locking the cockpit doors.I wonder if this is what it was like to live through the McCarthy "Red Scare" era?
We are far beyond that now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30588118</id>
	<title>Re:no</title>
	<author>Sets\_Chaos</author>
	<datestamp>1262087760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Security at the expense of liberty is not worth it, in my opinion. I'd rather the be free and risk the chance of being blown up, than be subject to more rules and regulations so that I can live forever.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Security at the expense of liberty is not worth it , in my opinion .
I 'd rather the be free and risk the chance of being blown up , than be subject to more rules and regulations so that I can live forever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Security at the expense of liberty is not worth it, in my opinion.
I'd rather the be free and risk the chance of being blown up, than be subject to more rules and regulations so that I can live forever.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584356</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584996</id>
	<title>Re:What about making other things more secure firs</title>
	<author>harl</author>
	<datestamp>1262117340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The regular, non swine, flu kills 25K-32K a year according to the CDC.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The regular , non swine , flu kills 25K-32K a year according to the CDC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The regular, non swine, flu kills 25K-32K a year according to the CDC.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584608</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30586310</id>
	<title>Re:Can we make Air Travel Secure?</title>
	<author>MaskedSlacker</author>
	<datestamp>1262080140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Benjamin Franklin said it best when he said   "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."</p></div><p>No he didn't, because he didn't say that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Benjamin Franklin said it best when he said " Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both .
" No he did n't , because he did n't say that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Benjamin Franklin said it best when he said   "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
"No he didn't, because he didn't say that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585590</id>
	<title>Can we make it somewhat safe?  Yes.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262119980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>The sooner most people grow and learn that "Shit Happens (tm)" and that no one can every prepare for every eventuality, the better.</i> </p><p>I agree with this statement generally.  However you need to realize that there are a large number of people with buckets of shit who will quite happily rain it upon you when it becomes easy enough to do so.  People like to point out the chance of being killed in a terrorist attack is really low - the solution then is not to raise the odds until it's more likely to be killed by terrorism than even X you are comparing odds with,</p><p>This is where I think Bruce misses the mark, he claims there are very few people willing to blow themselves up.  Iraq/Afghanistan shows us plainly this is not true.  What people are not willing to do, is to enter in a plan they think has little chance of success.  You can find a lot of martyrs but not a lot of patsies.</p><p>So the real problem is, what security measures actually have some, vs. no, effect.  I would argue a lot of the things prohibited or new rules being put in place (like not being able to tell passengers the name of landmarks out the window!) have as close to zero percent chance of preventing any attack as to make no difference.  These rules, should all be abolished or re-thought.  All rules need careful risk assessment applied to say, is this really helping or is it just there because one guy did one thing and it was the first thing we thought of to stop that?</p><p> <i>The "Security Theatre" is just a new opening for corrupt politicans and power-hungry individuals to remove more freedom from people. </i> </p><p>Now this I think is unfair, the rules are put in place by committees of people that really are looking to make people safer but with little understanding or concern for the well-being of all the people who are not terrorists, or at least that aspect gets lost in the process.  They also show no understanding of how they can leverage or rely on fellow air travelers who are indeed more than happy to help with air security by detaining people as they act.</p><p>"Security Theater" is a term Bruce and others like to throw around a lot to dismiss the efforts to improve security.  And yet they ignore the very real value of illusion in warfare throughout the years.  As I noted there are a lot of people perfectly willing to blow themselves up, but they are not throwing themselves at plane travel because they THINK they will get caught and not be able to carry out the plan.  As we can see from the attack that's not really as true as they think, but large number of people still think it's really hard to work around the system and so they do not try.</p><p> <i>Benjamin Franklin said it best when he said "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."</i> </p><p>And here's the term that is most overused of all, and the least well understood.  Yes if you give up a little liberty for the gain of a little security you deserve neither.  But what about the gain of a LOT of security for a little liberty?  When the equation is far more asymmetric is it not also more compelling?</p><p>This is why my thinking that the end game of airport security is this - full body scans, mandatory ID to board planes.  But not like todays world of scans - you stand on a platform for 10 seconds with your carryon in hand, and the device scans all of you along with your boarding pass.  No human looks at the scan, no human asks you what you have - you just go on your way.  Computers (not humans) analyze the image for potential issues, and flag people for more complete screening before you actually board.  Then you as a traveler have no delay, but you still basically catch most people trying to bring a bomb of any size aboard a plane, and you still have the current aspect of not as many people willing to even try an attack because they think the magic box will get them.  People are against showing ID to board a plane but it's what it's going to have to come down to in the end, because the reality is this</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The sooner most people grow and learn that " Shit Happens ( tm ) " and that no one can every prepare for every eventuality , the better .
I agree with this statement generally .
However you need to realize that there are a large number of people with buckets of shit who will quite happily rain it upon you when it becomes easy enough to do so .
People like to point out the chance of being killed in a terrorist attack is really low - the solution then is not to raise the odds until it 's more likely to be killed by terrorism than even X you are comparing odds with,This is where I think Bruce misses the mark , he claims there are very few people willing to blow themselves up .
Iraq/Afghanistan shows us plainly this is not true .
What people are not willing to do , is to enter in a plan they think has little chance of success .
You can find a lot of martyrs but not a lot of patsies.So the real problem is , what security measures actually have some , vs. no , effect .
I would argue a lot of the things prohibited or new rules being put in place ( like not being able to tell passengers the name of landmarks out the window !
) have as close to zero percent chance of preventing any attack as to make no difference .
These rules , should all be abolished or re-thought .
All rules need careful risk assessment applied to say , is this really helping or is it just there because one guy did one thing and it was the first thing we thought of to stop that ?
The " Security Theatre " is just a new opening for corrupt politicans and power-hungry individuals to remove more freedom from people .
Now this I think is unfair , the rules are put in place by committees of people that really are looking to make people safer but with little understanding or concern for the well-being of all the people who are not terrorists , or at least that aspect gets lost in the process .
They also show no understanding of how they can leverage or rely on fellow air travelers who are indeed more than happy to help with air security by detaining people as they act .
" Security Theater " is a term Bruce and others like to throw around a lot to dismiss the efforts to improve security .
And yet they ignore the very real value of illusion in warfare throughout the years .
As I noted there are a lot of people perfectly willing to blow themselves up , but they are not throwing themselves at plane travel because they THINK they will get caught and not be able to carry out the plan .
As we can see from the attack that 's not really as true as they think , but large number of people still think it 's really hard to work around the system and so they do not try .
Benjamin Franklin said it best when he said " Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both .
" And here 's the term that is most overused of all , and the least well understood .
Yes if you give up a little liberty for the gain of a little security you deserve neither .
But what about the gain of a LOT of security for a little liberty ?
When the equation is far more asymmetric is it not also more compelling ? This is why my thinking that the end game of airport security is this - full body scans , mandatory ID to board planes .
But not like todays world of scans - you stand on a platform for 10 seconds with your carryon in hand , and the device scans all of you along with your boarding pass .
No human looks at the scan , no human asks you what you have - you just go on your way .
Computers ( not humans ) analyze the image for potential issues , and flag people for more complete screening before you actually board .
Then you as a traveler have no delay , but you still basically catch most people trying to bring a bomb of any size aboard a plane , and you still have the current aspect of not as many people willing to even try an attack because they think the magic box will get them .
People are against showing ID to board a plane but it 's what it 's going to have to come down to in the end , because the reality is this</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The sooner most people grow and learn that "Shit Happens (tm)" and that no one can every prepare for every eventuality, the better.
I agree with this statement generally.
However you need to realize that there are a large number of people with buckets of shit who will quite happily rain it upon you when it becomes easy enough to do so.
People like to point out the chance of being killed in a terrorist attack is really low - the solution then is not to raise the odds until it's more likely to be killed by terrorism than even X you are comparing odds with,This is where I think Bruce misses the mark, he claims there are very few people willing to blow themselves up.
Iraq/Afghanistan shows us plainly this is not true.
What people are not willing to do, is to enter in a plan they think has little chance of success.
You can find a lot of martyrs but not a lot of patsies.So the real problem is, what security measures actually have some, vs. no, effect.
I would argue a lot of the things prohibited or new rules being put in place (like not being able to tell passengers the name of landmarks out the window!
) have as close to zero percent chance of preventing any attack as to make no difference.
These rules, should all be abolished or re-thought.
All rules need careful risk assessment applied to say, is this really helping or is it just there because one guy did one thing and it was the first thing we thought of to stop that?
The "Security Theatre" is just a new opening for corrupt politicans and power-hungry individuals to remove more freedom from people.
Now this I think is unfair, the rules are put in place by committees of people that really are looking to make people safer but with little understanding or concern for the well-being of all the people who are not terrorists, or at least that aspect gets lost in the process.
They also show no understanding of how they can leverage or rely on fellow air travelers who are indeed more than happy to help with air security by detaining people as they act.
"Security Theater" is a term Bruce and others like to throw around a lot to dismiss the efforts to improve security.
And yet they ignore the very real value of illusion in warfare throughout the years.
As I noted there are a lot of people perfectly willing to blow themselves up, but they are not throwing themselves at plane travel because they THINK they will get caught and not be able to carry out the plan.
As we can see from the attack that's not really as true as they think, but large number of people still think it's really hard to work around the system and so they do not try.
Benjamin Franklin said it best when he said "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
" And here's the term that is most overused of all, and the least well understood.
Yes if you give up a little liberty for the gain of a little security you deserve neither.
But what about the gain of a LOT of security for a little liberty?
When the equation is far more asymmetric is it not also more compelling?This is why my thinking that the end game of airport security is this - full body scans, mandatory ID to board planes.
But not like todays world of scans - you stand on a platform for 10 seconds with your carryon in hand, and the device scans all of you along with your boarding pass.
No human looks at the scan, no human asks you what you have - you just go on your way.
Computers (not humans) analyze the image for potential issues, and flag people for more complete screening before you actually board.
Then you as a traveler have no delay, but you still basically catch most people trying to bring a bomb of any size aboard a plane, and you still have the current aspect of not as many people willing to even try an attack because they think the magic box will get them.
People are against showing ID to board a plane but it's what it's going to have to come down to in the end, because the reality is this</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30586720</id>
	<title>Re:Can we make Air Travel Secure?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262082120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Really, now -- if you had the knife in your hand, which option would you pick? Wait for death, or meet it head on?</p></div><p>Before 9/11, the standard script for hijackings was option C: take the hijackers to Elbonia, give them the money they want, Elbonian police arrest them (if not a state-sanctioned hijacking), and while you may be delayed a few days no one is actually seriously hurt.</p><p>The options "attack" or "be killed" tend to show a lack of creative thinking and misplaced priorities. Discretion is the better part of valor for a reason. For instance, if someone puts a gun to your head and says "gimme your wallet", the smartest thing to do is almost definitely to give 'em your wallet, because your life isn't worth whatever's in the wallet. Even if you've mastered the martial arts techniques designed to help you deal with a gun against your head, that's still almost definitely your best option. Does that mean the bad guy will get away? Yes. But so will you, and since the bad guy has the upper hand (surprise, superior firepower, and superior positioning) that's not a fight you want to get into.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Really , now -- if you had the knife in your hand , which option would you pick ?
Wait for death , or meet it head on ? Before 9/11 , the standard script for hijackings was option C : take the hijackers to Elbonia , give them the money they want , Elbonian police arrest them ( if not a state-sanctioned hijacking ) , and while you may be delayed a few days no one is actually seriously hurt.The options " attack " or " be killed " tend to show a lack of creative thinking and misplaced priorities .
Discretion is the better part of valor for a reason .
For instance , if someone puts a gun to your head and says " gim me your wallet " , the smartest thing to do is almost definitely to give 'em your wallet , because your life is n't worth whatever 's in the wallet .
Even if you 've mastered the martial arts techniques designed to help you deal with a gun against your head , that 's still almost definitely your best option .
Does that mean the bad guy will get away ?
Yes. But so will you , and since the bad guy has the upper hand ( surprise , superior firepower , and superior positioning ) that 's not a fight you want to get into .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really, now -- if you had the knife in your hand, which option would you pick?
Wait for death, or meet it head on?Before 9/11, the standard script for hijackings was option C: take the hijackers to Elbonia, give them the money they want, Elbonian police arrest them (if not a state-sanctioned hijacking), and while you may be delayed a few days no one is actually seriously hurt.The options "attack" or "be killed" tend to show a lack of creative thinking and misplaced priorities.
Discretion is the better part of valor for a reason.
For instance, if someone puts a gun to your head and says "gimme your wallet", the smartest thing to do is almost definitely to give 'em your wallet, because your life isn't worth whatever's in the wallet.
Even if you've mastered the martial arts techniques designed to help you deal with a gun against your head, that's still almost definitely your best option.
Does that mean the bad guy will get away?
Yes. But so will you, and since the bad guy has the upper hand (surprise, superior firepower, and superior positioning) that's not a fight you want to get into.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30589884</id>
	<title>Already solved.</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1262100420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>This is why my thinking that the end game of airport security is this - full body scans, mandatory ID to board planes. </i></p><p>Scans will always be defeatable and every terrorist so far has used his real name when boarding - ID wouldn't help at all.</p><p>What has worked in every case since 1 hour past when the World Trade Center was hit, are passengers beating the living hell out of somebody who tries to harm the aircraft.</p><p>Hardened cockpit doors were a good idea, but separate pilot entrances are still needed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why my thinking that the end game of airport security is this - full body scans , mandatory ID to board planes .
Scans will always be defeatable and every terrorist so far has used his real name when boarding - ID would n't help at all.What has worked in every case since 1 hour past when the World Trade Center was hit , are passengers beating the living hell out of somebody who tries to harm the aircraft.Hardened cockpit doors were a good idea , but separate pilot entrances are still needed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why my thinking that the end game of airport security is this - full body scans, mandatory ID to board planes.
Scans will always be defeatable and every terrorist so far has used his real name when boarding - ID wouldn't help at all.What has worked in every case since 1 hour past when the World Trade Center was hit, are passengers beating the living hell out of somebody who tries to harm the aircraft.Hardened cockpit doors were a good idea, but separate pilot entrances are still needed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585534</id>
	<title>Re:Bruce is only pointing out the obvious. . . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262119800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're joking right?  Your first three flags "one-way ticket, buying with cash, no luggage" are completely pointless.  Nobody is going to commit a planned terrorist attack and do any of the three.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're joking right ?
Your first three flags " one-way ticket , buying with cash , no luggage " are completely pointless .
Nobody is going to commit a planned terrorist attack and do any of the three .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're joking right?
Your first three flags "one-way ticket, buying with cash, no luggage" are completely pointless.
Nobody is going to commit a planned terrorist attack and do any of the three.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585276</id>
	<title>Some other things you might not know about Bruce</title>
	<author>AP31R0N</author>
	<datestamp>1262118660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bruce Schneier knows Alice and Bob's shared secret.</p><p>Most people use passwords. Some people use passphrases. Bruce Schneier uses an epic passpoem, detailing the life and works of seven mythical Norse heroes.</p><p>Bruce Schneier's secure handshake is so strong, you won't be able to exchange keys with anyone else for days.</p><p>Bruce Schneier once decrypted a box of AlphaBits.</p><p>Vs lbh nfxrq Oehpr Fpuarvre gb qrpelcg guvf, ur'q pehfu lbhe fxhyy jvgu uvf ynhtu.</p><p>Bruce Schneier writes his books and essays by generating random alphanumeric text of an appropriate length and then decrypting it.</p><p>Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat</p><p>If we built a Dyson sphere around Bruce Schneier and captured all of his energy for 2 months, without any loss, we could power an ideal computer running at 3.2 degrees K to count up to 2^256. This strongly implies that not only can Bruce Schneier brute-force attack 256-bit keys, but that he is built of something other than matter and occupies something other than space.</p><p>When Bruce Schneier observes a quantum particle, it remains in the same state until he has finished observing it.</p><p>Though a superhero, Bruce Schneier disdanes the use of a mask or secret identity as 'security through obscurity'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bruce Schneier knows Alice and Bob 's shared secret.Most people use passwords .
Some people use passphrases .
Bruce Schneier uses an epic passpoem , detailing the life and works of seven mythical Norse heroes.Bruce Schneier 's secure handshake is so strong , you wo n't be able to exchange keys with anyone else for days.Bruce Schneier once decrypted a box of AlphaBits.Vs lbh nfxrq Oehpr Fpuarvre gb qrpelcg guvf , ur'q pehfu lbhe fxhyy jvgu uvf ynhtu.Bruce Schneier writes his books and essays by generating random alphanumeric text of an appropriate length and then decrypting it.Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger 's catIf we built a Dyson sphere around Bruce Schneier and captured all of his energy for 2 months , without any loss , we could power an ideal computer running at 3.2 degrees K to count up to 2 ^ 256 .
This strongly implies that not only can Bruce Schneier brute-force attack 256-bit keys , but that he is built of something other than matter and occupies something other than space.When Bruce Schneier observes a quantum particle , it remains in the same state until he has finished observing it.Though a superhero , Bruce Schneier disdanes the use of a mask or secret identity as 'security through obscurity' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bruce Schneier knows Alice and Bob's shared secret.Most people use passwords.
Some people use passphrases.
Bruce Schneier uses an epic passpoem, detailing the life and works of seven mythical Norse heroes.Bruce Schneier's secure handshake is so strong, you won't be able to exchange keys with anyone else for days.Bruce Schneier once decrypted a box of AlphaBits.Vs lbh nfxrq Oehpr Fpuarvre gb qrpelcg guvf, ur'q pehfu lbhe fxhyy jvgu uvf ynhtu.Bruce Schneier writes his books and essays by generating random alphanumeric text of an appropriate length and then decrypting it.Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's catIf we built a Dyson sphere around Bruce Schneier and captured all of his energy for 2 months, without any loss, we could power an ideal computer running at 3.2 degrees K to count up to 2^256.
This strongly implies that not only can Bruce Schneier brute-force attack 256-bit keys, but that he is built of something other than matter and occupies something other than space.When Bruce Schneier observes a quantum particle, it remains in the same state until he has finished observing it.Though a superhero, Bruce Schneier disdanes the use of a mask or secret identity as 'security through obscurity'.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585262</id>
	<title>Re:Airport security is stupid.</title>
	<author>interval1066</author>
	<datestamp>1262118600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>AMERICAN airport security is stupid, I'll agree to that. Having every single little old lady from Peoria, Il. take off her slippers before boarding a plane is asinine. The Fed. needs to do only two things; sky marshals, and send the idiots who head the TSA (perhaps after firing the lot of them currently in place and replacing 'em with a fresh pack of idiots) to training in Israel for a few months. That's it. All the scanner machines and removed shoes can't match one man who is allowed to board with a gun and some proper anti-terrorist training org-wide. That's security, and it won't cost billions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>AMERICAN airport security is stupid , I 'll agree to that .
Having every single little old lady from Peoria , Il .
take off her slippers before boarding a plane is asinine .
The Fed .
needs to do only two things ; sky marshals , and send the idiots who head the TSA ( perhaps after firing the lot of them currently in place and replacing 'em with a fresh pack of idiots ) to training in Israel for a few months .
That 's it .
All the scanner machines and removed shoes ca n't match one man who is allowed to board with a gun and some proper anti-terrorist training org-wide .
That 's security , and it wo n't cost billions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AMERICAN airport security is stupid, I'll agree to that.
Having every single little old lady from Peoria, Il.
take off her slippers before boarding a plane is asinine.
The Fed.
needs to do only two things; sky marshals, and send the idiots who head the TSA (perhaps after firing the lot of them currently in place and replacing 'em with a fresh pack of idiots) to training in Israel for a few months.
That's it.
All the scanner machines and removed shoes can't match one man who is allowed to board with a gun and some proper anti-terrorist training org-wide.
That's security, and it won't cost billions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584758</id>
	<title>Change our clothes</title>
	<author>supradave</author>
	<datestamp>1262116080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A simple way to accomplish the clothing aspect is to disallow us to wear clothes on an airplane.  Of course, the flying naked idea wouldn't fly.  So why not provide us with a flight uniform that is made from some easily scanned material so if you're wearing clothes, it would be easy to tell.  That way, no naked scanners.  No puff tests.  No shoes.  Then when we're off the flight, collect our luggage, change our clothes and get on our way.  Not allowing bags or clothes and such on the plane would be best.</p><p>Just removing the ridiculous security checks and allowing us to continue living a life of liberty would be best, even if some people die.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A simple way to accomplish the clothing aspect is to disallow us to wear clothes on an airplane .
Of course , the flying naked idea would n't fly .
So why not provide us with a flight uniform that is made from some easily scanned material so if you 're wearing clothes , it would be easy to tell .
That way , no naked scanners .
No puff tests .
No shoes .
Then when we 're off the flight , collect our luggage , change our clothes and get on our way .
Not allowing bags or clothes and such on the plane would be best.Just removing the ridiculous security checks and allowing us to continue living a life of liberty would be best , even if some people die .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A simple way to accomplish the clothing aspect is to disallow us to wear clothes on an airplane.
Of course, the flying naked idea wouldn't fly.
So why not provide us with a flight uniform that is made from some easily scanned material so if you're wearing clothes, it would be easy to tell.
That way, no naked scanners.
No puff tests.
No shoes.
Then when we're off the flight, collect our luggage, change our clothes and get on our way.
Not allowing bags or clothes and such on the plane would be best.Just removing the ridiculous security checks and allowing us to continue living a life of liberty would be best, even if some people die.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30588760</id>
	<title>Re:Can we make it somewhat safe? Yes.</title>
	<author>DiegoBravo</author>
	<datestamp>1262091060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; This is where I think Bruce misses the mark, he claims there are very few people willing to blow themselves up. Iraq/Afghanistan shows us plainly this is not true.</p><p>I agree with you, but note that Bruce is also suggesting a real change in relationships with middle east so that number eventually could be insignificant. But I suspect that will not be the case in the near time (even with the Obama's Nobel price:)</p><p>&gt; Now this I think is unfair, the rules are put in place by committees of people that really are looking to make people safer but with little understanding or concern</p><p>Well, one of the politicians' jobs is to lead the people (including whatever committees.) By that way, the financial crisis would have been repelled by the government by printing and throwing a lot of money to every citizen...</p><p>&gt; you stand on a platform for 10 seconds with your carryon in hand, and the device scans all of you along with your boarding pass.</p><p>I don't know about such technology, but I found that:</p><p>"Experts say the technology would almost certainly find a gun or knife but not necessarily something carried the way the Nigerian carried his explosives."</p><p><a href="http://blogs.abcnews.com/theworldnewser/2009/12/whole-body-scan-vs-your-privacy-how-far-is-too-far.html" title="abcnews.com">http://blogs.abcnews.com/theworldnewser/2009/12/whole-body-scan-vs-your-privacy-how-far-is-too-far.html</a> [abcnews.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; This is where I think Bruce misses the mark , he claims there are very few people willing to blow themselves up .
Iraq/Afghanistan shows us plainly this is not true.I agree with you , but note that Bruce is also suggesting a real change in relationships with middle east so that number eventually could be insignificant .
But I suspect that will not be the case in the near time ( even with the Obama 's Nobel price : ) &gt; Now this I think is unfair , the rules are put in place by committees of people that really are looking to make people safer but with little understanding or concernWell , one of the politicians ' jobs is to lead the people ( including whatever committees .
) By that way , the financial crisis would have been repelled by the government by printing and throwing a lot of money to every citizen... &gt; you stand on a platform for 10 seconds with your carryon in hand , and the device scans all of you along with your boarding pass.I do n't know about such technology , but I found that : " Experts say the technology would almost certainly find a gun or knife but not necessarily something carried the way the Nigerian carried his explosives .
" http : //blogs.abcnews.com/theworldnewser/2009/12/whole-body-scan-vs-your-privacy-how-far-is-too-far.html [ abcnews.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; This is where I think Bruce misses the mark, he claims there are very few people willing to blow themselves up.
Iraq/Afghanistan shows us plainly this is not true.I agree with you, but note that Bruce is also suggesting a real change in relationships with middle east so that number eventually could be insignificant.
But I suspect that will not be the case in the near time (even with the Obama's Nobel price:)&gt; Now this I think is unfair, the rules are put in place by committees of people that really are looking to make people safer but with little understanding or concernWell, one of the politicians' jobs is to lead the people (including whatever committees.
) By that way, the financial crisis would have been repelled by the government by printing and throwing a lot of money to every citizen...&gt; you stand on a platform for 10 seconds with your carryon in hand, and the device scans all of you along with your boarding pass.I don't know about such technology, but I found that:"Experts say the technology would almost certainly find a gun or knife but not necessarily something carried the way the Nigerian carried his explosives.
"http://blogs.abcnews.com/theworldnewser/2009/12/whole-body-scan-vs-your-privacy-how-far-is-too-far.html [abcnews.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585194</id>
	<title>Simple Solution....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262118300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We try to fight terrorism with all of these complex scanners, policies, laws, procedures just like the war on terror.. Meanwhile they use very simplistic means to thwart our security, blow up our stuff and even eavesdrop into our predator drones with simple approaches and little investment. We're not dealing with idiots as much as our egos in this country would have us believe and thats where the problem begins. There is such a thing as being overconfident.</p><p>There are many points of failure in all of our current security in this country, at the borders, in the airports, by sea, by land, by air there are many ways for someone to get into this country. Our own watch lists fail at preventing people from getting in. The only way to effectively reduce terrorism is not to provide opportunities where there is a gap or lack of security. Apparently the TSA and other agencies don't test there own policies. If they hired actual people that could think of every way possible to thwart dogs, scanners, bomb sniffers, security pat downs etc. We might actually have some "real" security. Politicians and other pencil pushers can think all they want about laws and adding layers of security but until you take a group of thinking people with a reward attached to it and say thwart our security (much like the hacker contests) your not going to have a true test until someone actually commits an act of terrorism.</p><p>Just off the top of my head some simple examples of where security could be thwarted...(and I'm just an average civilian)</p><p>What is to stop someone from swallowing bomb making materials and then taking laxatives just before boarding a 8 hour or more flight (much the same as cocaine smugglers)?</p><p>What procedurs are in place to check prosthetic limbs such as legs or arms for containing bomb making materials or weapons ?</p><p>The easy solution is to seperate the passengers from the cargo. </p><p>Make everyone go into a room with security guards present when they arrive at the airport where they remove all clothing and then put on a airport supplied white robe (or whatever color) there clothes are put in a bag which is then run through the xray machine and those clothes are put with the rest of there baggage on a seperate plane designated as a cargo only plane. People are not allowed any of their baggage until after they arrive at there destination.</p><p>Yes it would be two planes but they could be smaller more efficient ones as they are carrying half as much weight as they normally do. Heck they could eveb fly faster or longer without refuel since they are lighter. For all the captialists out there this could be coordinated with UPS, USPS, FEDEX or DHL to transport baggage.</p><p>No one is going to bother blowing up a cargo plane. The only things left that someone could do using this method would be swallowing something or sticking it someplace or using a prosthetic limb or spraying something on themselves that reacts chemically with something else however dogs or sensors should pick this up as residue of some sort would exist.</p><p>However IMHO I think we should concentrate on making food or the environment safer since more an more people seem to be dying of heart issues now more then ever or making vehicles and roads more safe as many more individuals die from car crashes each year then what a single act of terrorism can accomplish. But we will keep pumping billions into the war machine (Security Theater) to save a flight of several hundred passengers. I personally value life in general but everything these days is in terms of cost vs benefit perspective. We're not getting our monies worth on many things including health care but no fear our saviours (politicians) will keep spending our money for us on these things as they always find the greatest deals to spend tax dollars on putting the country further in debt, all in our best interest of course (sarcasm).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We try to fight terrorism with all of these complex scanners , policies , laws , procedures just like the war on terror.. Meanwhile they use very simplistic means to thwart our security , blow up our stuff and even eavesdrop into our predator drones with simple approaches and little investment .
We 're not dealing with idiots as much as our egos in this country would have us believe and thats where the problem begins .
There is such a thing as being overconfident.There are many points of failure in all of our current security in this country , at the borders , in the airports , by sea , by land , by air there are many ways for someone to get into this country .
Our own watch lists fail at preventing people from getting in .
The only way to effectively reduce terrorism is not to provide opportunities where there is a gap or lack of security .
Apparently the TSA and other agencies do n't test there own policies .
If they hired actual people that could think of every way possible to thwart dogs , scanners , bomb sniffers , security pat downs etc .
We might actually have some " real " security .
Politicians and other pencil pushers can think all they want about laws and adding layers of security but until you take a group of thinking people with a reward attached to it and say thwart our security ( much like the hacker contests ) your not going to have a true test until someone actually commits an act of terrorism.Just off the top of my head some simple examples of where security could be thwarted... ( and I 'm just an average civilian ) What is to stop someone from swallowing bomb making materials and then taking laxatives just before boarding a 8 hour or more flight ( much the same as cocaine smugglers ) ? What procedurs are in place to check prosthetic limbs such as legs or arms for containing bomb making materials or weapons ? The easy solution is to seperate the passengers from the cargo .
Make everyone go into a room with security guards present when they arrive at the airport where they remove all clothing and then put on a airport supplied white robe ( or whatever color ) there clothes are put in a bag which is then run through the xray machine and those clothes are put with the rest of there baggage on a seperate plane designated as a cargo only plane .
People are not allowed any of their baggage until after they arrive at there destination.Yes it would be two planes but they could be smaller more efficient ones as they are carrying half as much weight as they normally do .
Heck they could eveb fly faster or longer without refuel since they are lighter .
For all the captialists out there this could be coordinated with UPS , USPS , FEDEX or DHL to transport baggage.No one is going to bother blowing up a cargo plane .
The only things left that someone could do using this method would be swallowing something or sticking it someplace or using a prosthetic limb or spraying something on themselves that reacts chemically with something else however dogs or sensors should pick this up as residue of some sort would exist.However IMHO I think we should concentrate on making food or the environment safer since more an more people seem to be dying of heart issues now more then ever or making vehicles and roads more safe as many more individuals die from car crashes each year then what a single act of terrorism can accomplish .
But we will keep pumping billions into the war machine ( Security Theater ) to save a flight of several hundred passengers .
I personally value life in general but everything these days is in terms of cost vs benefit perspective .
We 're not getting our monies worth on many things including health care but no fear our saviours ( politicians ) will keep spending our money for us on these things as they always find the greatest deals to spend tax dollars on putting the country further in debt , all in our best interest of course ( sarcasm ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We try to fight terrorism with all of these complex scanners, policies, laws, procedures just like the war on terror.. Meanwhile they use very simplistic means to thwart our security, blow up our stuff and even eavesdrop into our predator drones with simple approaches and little investment.
We're not dealing with idiots as much as our egos in this country would have us believe and thats where the problem begins.
There is such a thing as being overconfident.There are many points of failure in all of our current security in this country, at the borders, in the airports, by sea, by land, by air there are many ways for someone to get into this country.
Our own watch lists fail at preventing people from getting in.
The only way to effectively reduce terrorism is not to provide opportunities where there is a gap or lack of security.
Apparently the TSA and other agencies don't test there own policies.
If they hired actual people that could think of every way possible to thwart dogs, scanners, bomb sniffers, security pat downs etc.
We might actually have some "real" security.
Politicians and other pencil pushers can think all they want about laws and adding layers of security but until you take a group of thinking people with a reward attached to it and say thwart our security (much like the hacker contests) your not going to have a true test until someone actually commits an act of terrorism.Just off the top of my head some simple examples of where security could be thwarted...(and I'm just an average civilian)What is to stop someone from swallowing bomb making materials and then taking laxatives just before boarding a 8 hour or more flight (much the same as cocaine smugglers)?What procedurs are in place to check prosthetic limbs such as legs or arms for containing bomb making materials or weapons ?The easy solution is to seperate the passengers from the cargo.
Make everyone go into a room with security guards present when they arrive at the airport where they remove all clothing and then put on a airport supplied white robe (or whatever color) there clothes are put in a bag which is then run through the xray machine and those clothes are put with the rest of there baggage on a seperate plane designated as a cargo only plane.
People are not allowed any of their baggage until after they arrive at there destination.Yes it would be two planes but they could be smaller more efficient ones as they are carrying half as much weight as they normally do.
Heck they could eveb fly faster or longer without refuel since they are lighter.
For all the captialists out there this could be coordinated with UPS, USPS, FEDEX or DHL to transport baggage.No one is going to bother blowing up a cargo plane.
The only things left that someone could do using this method would be swallowing something or sticking it someplace or using a prosthetic limb or spraying something on themselves that reacts chemically with something else however dogs or sensors should pick this up as residue of some sort would exist.However IMHO I think we should concentrate on making food or the environment safer since more an more people seem to be dying of heart issues now more then ever or making vehicles and roads more safe as many more individuals die from car crashes each year then what a single act of terrorism can accomplish.
But we will keep pumping billions into the war machine (Security Theater) to save a flight of several hundred passengers.
I personally value life in general but everything these days is in terms of cost vs benefit perspective.
We're not getting our monies worth on many things including health care but no fear our saviours (politicians) will keep spending our money for us on these things as they always find the greatest deals to spend tax dollars on putting the country further in debt, all in our best interest of course (sarcasm).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30587400</id>
	<title>Re:Bruce is only pointing out the obvious. . . .</title>
	<author>Eil</author>
	<datestamp>1262085000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>In a RATIONAL world, **one** terrorism flag (i.e. one-way ticket, buying with cash, no luggage, watch list, etc) would yield pulling the passenger aside and "enhanced investigation"</p></div></blockquote><p>Bruce is right that better intelligence and investigative work is needed for <i>real</i> security against terrorist threats. However, there should never be a case where one action or trait marks you suspicious. For example:</p><p>1. A one-way ticket has no bearing on whether or not a person is a threat. If it was, a terrorist would simply buy a two-way ticket.</p><p>2. I never want to live in a world where paying with cash is considered suspicious. And in any case, a real terrorist would simply use his credit card. If he plans to blow up a plane while on it, he has little fear of leaving a paper trail.</p><p>3. I know people who travel without luggage all the time. They do so because it's expensive and a huge hassle to deal with luggage on airplanes these days. Thanks in part to the security theatre that previous terrorist attacks have inspired.</p><p>4. If someone is on a watch list, they're already to be considered suspicious and should warrant investigation regardless of any other "flags," so this really doesn't fit in with the rest of the properties you've listed here.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In a RATIONAL world , * * one * * terrorism flag ( i.e .
one-way ticket , buying with cash , no luggage , watch list , etc ) would yield pulling the passenger aside and " enhanced investigation " Bruce is right that better intelligence and investigative work is needed for real security against terrorist threats .
However , there should never be a case where one action or trait marks you suspicious .
For example : 1 .
A one-way ticket has no bearing on whether or not a person is a threat .
If it was , a terrorist would simply buy a two-way ticket.2 .
I never want to live in a world where paying with cash is considered suspicious .
And in any case , a real terrorist would simply use his credit card .
If he plans to blow up a plane while on it , he has little fear of leaving a paper trail.3 .
I know people who travel without luggage all the time .
They do so because it 's expensive and a huge hassle to deal with luggage on airplanes these days .
Thanks in part to the security theatre that previous terrorist attacks have inspired.4 .
If someone is on a watch list , they 're already to be considered suspicious and should warrant investigation regardless of any other " flags , " so this really does n't fit in with the rest of the properties you 've listed here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In a RATIONAL world, **one** terrorism flag (i.e.
one-way ticket, buying with cash, no luggage, watch list, etc) would yield pulling the passenger aside and "enhanced investigation"Bruce is right that better intelligence and investigative work is needed for real security against terrorist threats.
However, there should never be a case where one action or trait marks you suspicious.
For example:1.
A one-way ticket has no bearing on whether or not a person is a threat.
If it was, a terrorist would simply buy a two-way ticket.2.
I never want to live in a world where paying with cash is considered suspicious.
And in any case, a real terrorist would simply use his credit card.
If he plans to blow up a plane while on it, he has little fear of leaving a paper trail.3.
I know people who travel without luggage all the time.
They do so because it's expensive and a huge hassle to deal with luggage on airplanes these days.
Thanks in part to the security theatre that previous terrorist attacks have inspired.4.
If someone is on a watch list, they're already to be considered suspicious and should warrant investigation regardless of any other "flags," so this really doesn't fit in with the rest of the properties you've listed here.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30590820</id>
	<title>Re:USA terrified: ergo, USA has lost War on Terror</title>
	<author>Donkey\_Hotey</author>
	<datestamp>1262111040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, it's because the spell-checkers on government computers keep replacing "the People" with "Terrorism."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , it 's because the spell-checkers on government computers keep replacing " the People " with " Terrorism .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, it's because the spell-checkers on government computers keep replacing "the People" with "Terrorism.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585802</id>
	<title>Could someone get a clue?</title>
	<author>MikeTheBike</author>
	<datestamp>1262077680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Could we all get a reality check here, please!</p><p>The idea behind terrorism is not the attack itself but the assumed possibility that an attack will happen somewhere sometime.</p><p>The western worlds governments are doing the dirty work for the terrorists by imposing ridiculous rules on us instead of trying to solve the problems in the world and by that taking away the fertile ground in which radical extremism keeps growing.</p><p>We should not forget medias role in this as they are trying to cut through the noise and competitive landscape by trying to scare the living crap out us... and the way that news has been transformed to entertainment it won't be better.</p><p>It has gone far when Al Jazeera actually have a more balanced coverage on things happening INSIDE the US than US media itself...</p><p>It is a sad, sad day for humanity that the terrorists win this on walk over by our lack of understanding and commitment!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could we all get a reality check here , please ! The idea behind terrorism is not the attack itself but the assumed possibility that an attack will happen somewhere sometime.The western worlds governments are doing the dirty work for the terrorists by imposing ridiculous rules on us instead of trying to solve the problems in the world and by that taking away the fertile ground in which radical extremism keeps growing.We should not forget medias role in this as they are trying to cut through the noise and competitive landscape by trying to scare the living crap out us... and the way that news has been transformed to entertainment it wo n't be better.It has gone far when Al Jazeera actually have a more balanced coverage on things happening INSIDE the US than US media itself...It is a sad , sad day for humanity that the terrorists win this on walk over by our lack of understanding and commitment !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could we all get a reality check here, please!The idea behind terrorism is not the attack itself but the assumed possibility that an attack will happen somewhere sometime.The western worlds governments are doing the dirty work for the terrorists by imposing ridiculous rules on us instead of trying to solve the problems in the world and by that taking away the fertile ground in which radical extremism keeps growing.We should not forget medias role in this as they are trying to cut through the noise and competitive landscape by trying to scare the living crap out us... and the way that news has been transformed to entertainment it won't be better.It has gone far when Al Jazeera actually have a more balanced coverage on things happening INSIDE the US than US media itself...It is a sad, sad day for humanity that the terrorists win this on walk over by our lack of understanding and commitment!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584892</id>
	<title>About as much chance as...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262116800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Secure travel is about as likely as secure software.<br>Some idiot savant will poke a hole in whatever protection you put in place.<br>T</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Secure travel is about as likely as secure software.Some idiot savant will poke a hole in whatever protection you put in place.T</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Secure travel is about as likely as secure software.Some idiot savant will poke a hole in whatever protection you put in place.T</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30588548</id>
	<title>Re:Can we make it somewhat safe? Yes.</title>
	<author>paulsnx2</author>
	<datestamp>1262089980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We don't have enough terrorist numbers to say that the "Security Theater" is effective or isn't effective.  Terrorists have targeted planes for almost 50 years, and the latest security was put in place mostly after 2001.  The numbers prior and afterwards aren't much different.</p><p>Personally, I think the term "Security Theater" is perfect.  I think effective security (body scans and computer image recognition) fall outside that term, as they might actually be effective.</p><p>I would go further on the ID issue.  IDs should be provided via secure sources.  Why trust IDs provided by a passenger?  A person could be vetted for travel in detail at some security office, and issued a user name or ID number.  Providing THAT to security would allow their picture to be viewed and compared to the individual.  Doing an ID check once, in detail, by people trained to do so is going to be far more effective then expecting lightly trained individuals to usefully evaluate ID documents over and over every time a person flies.</p><p>This is, if tracking the IDs of individuals is really what we want to do.</p><p>But these kinds of changes are not "Security Theater."  These are changes that make a difference in our security.</p><p>Like enabling cell phones on planes.  This has been proven to INCREASE security and does not pose any risk to navigation equipment.  Yet still, cell phones are not allowed, and planes do not have the technology to enable cell phones in flight.</p><p>Personally, I am tired of not being able to take a jar of homemade Jelly on a plane.  Tired of leaving my knife at home.  Tired of the waits as thousands if not millions of mistakes are made daily by security staff to no ill effect on our security.  (My son has flown with a full sized tube of toothpaste, and my wife with a swiss army knife in their carry on bags, which slipped easily through security.  All by accident, but stll).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We do n't have enough terrorist numbers to say that the " Security Theater " is effective or is n't effective .
Terrorists have targeted planes for almost 50 years , and the latest security was put in place mostly after 2001 .
The numbers prior and afterwards are n't much different.Personally , I think the term " Security Theater " is perfect .
I think effective security ( body scans and computer image recognition ) fall outside that term , as they might actually be effective.I would go further on the ID issue .
IDs should be provided via secure sources .
Why trust IDs provided by a passenger ?
A person could be vetted for travel in detail at some security office , and issued a user name or ID number .
Providing THAT to security would allow their picture to be viewed and compared to the individual .
Doing an ID check once , in detail , by people trained to do so is going to be far more effective then expecting lightly trained individuals to usefully evaluate ID documents over and over every time a person flies.This is , if tracking the IDs of individuals is really what we want to do.But these kinds of changes are not " Security Theater .
" These are changes that make a difference in our security.Like enabling cell phones on planes .
This has been proven to INCREASE security and does not pose any risk to navigation equipment .
Yet still , cell phones are not allowed , and planes do not have the technology to enable cell phones in flight.Personally , I am tired of not being able to take a jar of homemade Jelly on a plane .
Tired of leaving my knife at home .
Tired of the waits as thousands if not millions of mistakes are made daily by security staff to no ill effect on our security .
( My son has flown with a full sized tube of toothpaste , and my wife with a swiss army knife in their carry on bags , which slipped easily through security .
All by accident , but stll ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We don't have enough terrorist numbers to say that the "Security Theater" is effective or isn't effective.
Terrorists have targeted planes for almost 50 years, and the latest security was put in place mostly after 2001.
The numbers prior and afterwards aren't much different.Personally, I think the term "Security Theater" is perfect.
I think effective security (body scans and computer image recognition) fall outside that term, as they might actually be effective.I would go further on the ID issue.
IDs should be provided via secure sources.
Why trust IDs provided by a passenger?
A person could be vetted for travel in detail at some security office, and issued a user name or ID number.
Providing THAT to security would allow their picture to be viewed and compared to the individual.
Doing an ID check once, in detail, by people trained to do so is going to be far more effective then expecting lightly trained individuals to usefully evaluate ID documents over and over every time a person flies.This is, if tracking the IDs of individuals is really what we want to do.But these kinds of changes are not "Security Theater.
"  These are changes that make a difference in our security.Like enabling cell phones on planes.
This has been proven to INCREASE security and does not pose any risk to navigation equipment.
Yet still, cell phones are not allowed, and planes do not have the technology to enable cell phones in flight.Personally, I am tired of not being able to take a jar of homemade Jelly on a plane.
Tired of leaving my knife at home.
Tired of the waits as thousands if not millions of mistakes are made daily by security staff to no ill effect on our security.
(My son has flown with a full sized tube of toothpaste, and my wife with a swiss army knife in their carry on bags, which slipped easily through security.
All by accident, but stll).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585566</id>
	<title>Re:What about making other things more secure firs</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1262119920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good point.  Wikipedia says 40k people per year die in car accidents.  Every year.  I'm finding conflicting stats for heart disease, but everyone seems to have it up over 400k per year.  Some of that probably isn't preventable, but some of it probably is.  I think there's something like 60k deaths per year from flu.  That's just the normal flu.  Another couple-hundred thousand deaths from tobacco (though that probably overlaps with heart disease, but still...).
</p><p>While we worry about terrorists and heroin and AIDS and swine flu, we're being killed in much greater numbers by other things.  Not that we shouldn't worry about AIDS and the swine flu, but *some* perspective is warranted.  It reminds me of the Joker's speech in the hospital in "The Dark Knight":</p><p><div class="quote"><p>You know what I noticed? Nobody panics when things go "according to plan," even if the plan is horrifying.  If tomorrow I tell the press that, like, a gang-banger will get shot or a truckload of soldiers will be blown up, nobody panics because it's all "part of the plan."  But when I say that one little old mayor will die, well then everyone loses their minds!</p></div><p>Not quite the same thing, but nobody gets freaked out about 40k people dying every single year in car accidents because we think it's just supposed to work that way.  People still drive around recklessly as though they're playing Need for Speed.  Hundreds of thousands can die from preventable diseases every year and we see no problem with it.  Calls to regulate the food industry <i>at all</i> are seen as horrible infringements on our freedom.  But have a couple thousand people die one year in a freak accident or a terrorist attack, and suddenly everyone loses their minds.  Suddenly we should all give up our privacy and our freedoms for counter-terrorist measures.  Suddenly we should accept suspensions of habeas corpus.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Good point .
Wikipedia says 40k people per year die in car accidents .
Every year .
I 'm finding conflicting stats for heart disease , but everyone seems to have it up over 400k per year .
Some of that probably is n't preventable , but some of it probably is .
I think there 's something like 60k deaths per year from flu .
That 's just the normal flu .
Another couple-hundred thousand deaths from tobacco ( though that probably overlaps with heart disease , but still... ) .
While we worry about terrorists and heroin and AIDS and swine flu , we 're being killed in much greater numbers by other things .
Not that we should n't worry about AIDS and the swine flu , but * some * perspective is warranted .
It reminds me of the Joker 's speech in the hospital in " The Dark Knight " : You know what I noticed ?
Nobody panics when things go " according to plan , " even if the plan is horrifying .
If tomorrow I tell the press that , like , a gang-banger will get shot or a truckload of soldiers will be blown up , nobody panics because it 's all " part of the plan .
" But when I say that one little old mayor will die , well then everyone loses their minds ! Not quite the same thing , but nobody gets freaked out about 40k people dying every single year in car accidents because we think it 's just supposed to work that way .
People still drive around recklessly as though they 're playing Need for Speed .
Hundreds of thousands can die from preventable diseases every year and we see no problem with it .
Calls to regulate the food industry at all are seen as horrible infringements on our freedom .
But have a couple thousand people die one year in a freak accident or a terrorist attack , and suddenly everyone loses their minds .
Suddenly we should all give up our privacy and our freedoms for counter-terrorist measures .
Suddenly we should accept suspensions of habeas corpus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good point.
Wikipedia says 40k people per year die in car accidents.
Every year.
I'm finding conflicting stats for heart disease, but everyone seems to have it up over 400k per year.
Some of that probably isn't preventable, but some of it probably is.
I think there's something like 60k deaths per year from flu.
That's just the normal flu.
Another couple-hundred thousand deaths from tobacco (though that probably overlaps with heart disease, but still...).
While we worry about terrorists and heroin and AIDS and swine flu, we're being killed in much greater numbers by other things.
Not that we shouldn't worry about AIDS and the swine flu, but *some* perspective is warranted.
It reminds me of the Joker's speech in the hospital in "The Dark Knight":You know what I noticed?
Nobody panics when things go "according to plan," even if the plan is horrifying.
If tomorrow I tell the press that, like, a gang-banger will get shot or a truckload of soldiers will be blown up, nobody panics because it's all "part of the plan.
"  But when I say that one little old mayor will die, well then everyone loses their minds!Not quite the same thing, but nobody gets freaked out about 40k people dying every single year in car accidents because we think it's just supposed to work that way.
People still drive around recklessly as though they're playing Need for Speed.
Hundreds of thousands can die from preventable diseases every year and we see no problem with it.
Calls to regulate the food industry at all are seen as horrible infringements on our freedom.
But have a couple thousand people die one year in a freak accident or a terrorist attack, and suddenly everyone loses their minds.
Suddenly we should all give up our privacy and our freedoms for counter-terrorist measures.
Suddenly we should accept suspensions of habeas corpus.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584608</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584356</id>
	<title>no</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262114400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>no</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>no</tokentext>
<sentencetext>no</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30588612</id>
	<title>Re:because planes are the only potential target...</title>
	<author>master\_p</author>
	<datestamp>1262090340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Indeed. Why not solve the problem at its roots, i.e. start a sort of propaganda in muslim countries that shows America and the west in a good light instead of an evil one. And also stop being so one sided with a certain nation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed .
Why not solve the problem at its roots , i.e .
start a sort of propaganda in muslim countries that shows America and the west in a good light instead of an evil one .
And also stop being so one sided with a certain nation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed.
Why not solve the problem at its roots, i.e.
start a sort of propaganda in muslim countries that shows America and the west in a good light instead of an evil one.
And also stop being so one sided with a certain nation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30586494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30589538</id>
	<title>Try to sneak in another bomb into the plane..</title>
	<author>lazy\_nihilist</author>
	<datestamp>1262097300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The chances of there being a bomb is slim but the chances of there being 2 bombs on a plane is very very low. You can always feel more secure when you try to sneak in a bomb into the plane<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>The chances of there being a bomb is slim but the chances of there being 2 bombs on a plane is very very low .
You can always feel more secure when you try to sneak in a bomb into the plane : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The chances of there being a bomb is slim but the chances of there being 2 bombs on a plane is very very low.
You can always feel more secure when you try to sneak in a bomb into the plane :-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30587142</id>
	<title>The Real Point</title>
	<author>anorlunda</author>
	<datestamp>1262084220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're all missing the real point.  Airport security has nothing to do with actual security. It is the government's way of responding to criticism that they're doing nothing.</p><p>After past incidents (especially 911) criticism of the government was severe.  Their reaction is to do something, anything.  In fact the more inconvenient and the more in your face it is, the better the evidence that they're doing "everything possible."</p><p>When the next attacks occur, government can duck the blame by saying, "look how many dollars and how many man hours we threw at the problem. What more do you want?"</p><p>I just listened to Obama's statement this afternoon on the Christmas attack.  What a bunch of bureaucratic double talk and utter crap.  Don't believe me?  Look at the transcript of his statement when it appears.  Then imagine it being delivered by a mid level manager.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're all missing the real point .
Airport security has nothing to do with actual security .
It is the government 's way of responding to criticism that they 're doing nothing.After past incidents ( especially 911 ) criticism of the government was severe .
Their reaction is to do something , anything .
In fact the more inconvenient and the more in your face it is , the better the evidence that they 're doing " everything possible .
" When the next attacks occur , government can duck the blame by saying , " look how many dollars and how many man hours we threw at the problem .
What more do you want ?
" I just listened to Obama 's statement this afternoon on the Christmas attack .
What a bunch of bureaucratic double talk and utter crap .
Do n't believe me ?
Look at the transcript of his statement when it appears .
Then imagine it being delivered by a mid level manager .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're all missing the real point.
Airport security has nothing to do with actual security.
It is the government's way of responding to criticism that they're doing nothing.After past incidents (especially 911) criticism of the government was severe.
Their reaction is to do something, anything.
In fact the more inconvenient and the more in your face it is, the better the evidence that they're doing "everything possible.
"When the next attacks occur, government can duck the blame by saying, "look how many dollars and how many man hours we threw at the problem.
What more do you want?
"I just listened to Obama's statement this afternoon on the Christmas attack.
What a bunch of bureaucratic double talk and utter crap.
Don't believe me?
Look at the transcript of his statement when it appears.
Then imagine it being delivered by a mid level manager.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585042</id>
	<title>Re:Go Back to Allowing Passenger To be Armed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262117580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'd like to see terrorists run the risk of being shot dead in order to carry out their idiocy.</p></div><p>Yes.  Because if it's one thing terrorists (the ones we seem to deal with, anyway) fear, it's death.</p><p>By the way, how did you find out what terrorists prefer?  Know many, do you?  Been polling them?</p><p>(Sorry for that, I prefer not to use sarcasm.  But sometimes, the statement is just so amazingly out of touch and stupid, it's the only way to stay sane.)</p><p>For the record, the same argument is used for carrying weapons in public in general.  But the fact it, it seems to have no effect at all on violent crime rates.  (Much to the consternation of both sides of the gun debate.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd like to see terrorists run the risk of being shot dead in order to carry out their idiocy.Yes .
Because if it 's one thing terrorists ( the ones we seem to deal with , anyway ) fear , it 's death.By the way , how did you find out what terrorists prefer ?
Know many , do you ?
Been polling them ?
( Sorry for that , I prefer not to use sarcasm .
But sometimes , the statement is just so amazingly out of touch and stupid , it 's the only way to stay sane .
) For the record , the same argument is used for carrying weapons in public in general .
But the fact it , it seems to have no effect at all on violent crime rates .
( Much to the consternation of both sides of the gun debate .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd like to see terrorists run the risk of being shot dead in order to carry out their idiocy.Yes.
Because if it's one thing terrorists (the ones we seem to deal with, anyway) fear, it's death.By the way, how did you find out what terrorists prefer?
Know many, do you?
Been polling them?
(Sorry for that, I prefer not to use sarcasm.
But sometimes, the statement is just so amazingly out of touch and stupid, it's the only way to stay sane.
)For the record, the same argument is used for carrying weapons in public in general.
But the fact it, it seems to have no effect at all on violent crime rates.
(Much to the consternation of both sides of the gun debate.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584688</id>
	<title>Security is harder than safety</title>
	<author>drdrgivemethenews</author>
	<datestamp>1262115840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The FAA has a pretty good record of making travel via commercial aircraft truly safe. But their adversaries are aircraft and flight control systems, and all the various ways those can malfunction.<br> <br>

The TSA has an equivalent job, but terrorists, as stupid as some of them are, are a good bit brighter than airplanes, and they're self-destructive to boot. So perfect security is unlikely to happen until terrorists go away.<br> <br>

We need to learn *as a country* what cost/benefit analysis means, and how to use it on the terrorism problem.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The FAA has a pretty good record of making travel via commercial aircraft truly safe .
But their adversaries are aircraft and flight control systems , and all the various ways those can malfunction .
The TSA has an equivalent job , but terrorists , as stupid as some of them are , are a good bit brighter than airplanes , and they 're self-destructive to boot .
So perfect security is unlikely to happen until terrorists go away .
We need to learn * as a country * what cost/benefit analysis means , and how to use it on the terrorism problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The FAA has a pretty good record of making travel via commercial aircraft truly safe.
But their adversaries are aircraft and flight control systems, and all the various ways those can malfunction.
The TSA has an equivalent job, but terrorists, as stupid as some of them are, are a good bit brighter than airplanes, and they're self-destructive to boot.
So perfect security is unlikely to happen until terrorists go away.
We need to learn *as a country* what cost/benefit analysis means, and how to use it on the terrorism problem.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585998</id>
	<title>Re:A better article about Schneier exploits</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262078460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There has been a change in regard to this at some airports. I have had the screener at SeaTac scan the barcode on my boarding pass with a handheld device and then compare its result with my drivers license and what was printed on the boarding pass.<br>Unfortunately on the return flight (Austin) no such checks were performed.<br>Obviously the TSA listened to something Bruce had to say.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There has been a change in regard to this at some airports .
I have had the screener at SeaTac scan the barcode on my boarding pass with a handheld device and then compare its result with my drivers license and what was printed on the boarding pass.Unfortunately on the return flight ( Austin ) no such checks were performed.Obviously the TSA listened to something Bruce had to say .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There has been a change in regard to this at some airports.
I have had the screener at SeaTac scan the barcode on my boarding pass with a handheld device and then compare its result with my drivers license and what was printed on the boarding pass.Unfortunately on the return flight (Austin) no such checks were performed.Obviously the TSA listened to something Bruce had to say.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585516</id>
	<title>I hate it when people get that quote wrong.</title>
	<author>jra</author>
	<datestamp>1262119740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The best sourced version I've been able to find, which makes important points that version does not, is</p><p>"They that would sacrifice essential liberty for a little temporary security deserve neither."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The best sourced version I 've been able to find , which makes important points that version does not , is " They that would sacrifice essential liberty for a little temporary security deserve neither .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The best sourced version I've been able to find, which makes important points that version does not, is"They that would sacrifice essential liberty for a little temporary security deserve neither.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30590126</id>
	<title>not how it works here...</title>
	<author>Chirs</author>
	<datestamp>1262102880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The last time I flew, at the gate they took my boarding pass and photo ID, scanned the bar code on it, and checked the result in the computer against the pass and against my ID.</p><p>I'm in Canada though...maybe they do things better here?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The last time I flew , at the gate they took my boarding pass and photo ID , scanned the bar code on it , and checked the result in the computer against the pass and against my ID.I 'm in Canada though...maybe they do things better here ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The last time I flew, at the gate they took my boarding pass and photo ID, scanned the bar code on it, and checked the result in the computer against the pass and against my ID.I'm in Canada though...maybe they do things better here?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584988</id>
	<title>Video interview</title>
	<author>hey</author>
	<datestamp>1262117340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since the plane in this latest attack flew from outside the US I expect the next measure will be video interviews by US-based security personal before you are allowed into a plane heading to the US.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since the plane in this latest attack flew from outside the US I expect the next measure will be video interviews by US-based security personal before you are allowed into a plane heading to the US .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since the plane in this latest attack flew from outside the US I expect the next measure will be video interviews by US-based security personal before you are allowed into a plane heading to the US.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30590020</id>
	<title>Re:Go Back to Allowing Passenger To be Armed</title>
	<author>CAIMLAS</author>
	<datestamp>1262101920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yep. Just like trains in the Old West: no gang was foolish enough to rob a train with Marshalls on it unless they:</p><p>a) somehow killed/injured/confined the Marshalls<br>b) crashed the train remotely/from the exterior<br>c) attacked the train outright, with vastly superior numbers, after it was stopped.</p><p>No, I didn't look at a history book to write that, but it's in the movies. Older movies are a good measuring rod for what's plausible. The only way someone might take a train - even 12 people - with knives is if the train were full of women and children. They'd be fucked if they attacked (with knives) a train of men. And even if they used guns, they'd need multiple gunmen to deal with a train full of mixed company.</p><p>Arming people is important, but it's a useless gesture if the mindset of the people is that of sheep. And yes, I think that still applies to a large degree - even now after 9/11, on airplanes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep .
Just like trains in the Old West : no gang was foolish enough to rob a train with Marshalls on it unless they : a ) somehow killed/injured/confined the Marshallsb ) crashed the train remotely/from the exteriorc ) attacked the train outright , with vastly superior numbers , after it was stopped.No , I did n't look at a history book to write that , but it 's in the movies .
Older movies are a good measuring rod for what 's plausible .
The only way someone might take a train - even 12 people - with knives is if the train were full of women and children .
They 'd be fucked if they attacked ( with knives ) a train of men .
And even if they used guns , they 'd need multiple gunmen to deal with a train full of mixed company.Arming people is important , but it 's a useless gesture if the mindset of the people is that of sheep .
And yes , I think that still applies to a large degree - even now after 9/11 , on airplanes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep.
Just like trains in the Old West: no gang was foolish enough to rob a train with Marshalls on it unless they:a) somehow killed/injured/confined the Marshallsb) crashed the train remotely/from the exteriorc) attacked the train outright, with vastly superior numbers, after it was stopped.No, I didn't look at a history book to write that, but it's in the movies.
Older movies are a good measuring rod for what's plausible.
The only way someone might take a train - even 12 people - with knives is if the train were full of women and children.
They'd be fucked if they attacked (with knives) a train of men.
And even if they used guns, they'd need multiple gunmen to deal with a train full of mixed company.Arming people is important, but it's a useless gesture if the mindset of the people is that of sheep.
And yes, I think that still applies to a large degree - even now after 9/11, on airplanes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30586556</id>
	<title>Re:Bruce's fallicy</title>
	<author>infalliable</author>
	<datestamp>1262081220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The point isn't that you should do nothing, it is that security screening is not the answer.  It's a waste of time as it is always back-looking and can't cover all possible attack possibilities.  All the TSA security measures have been put in place to combat the last attack.</p><p>Even the attack methods they do cover, they don't do it all that well.  Look at liquids for example, I can only carry a 3 oz bottle.  But I can take a quart bag of them, and so can Bob, Jim, John, Luke, and Marty.   It doesn't stop a large amount of hazardous liquids from being brought onto a plane.  It just gives the impression it does.</p><p>The only way to effectively combat any terrorist activity is through old-fashioned police and intelligence work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The point is n't that you should do nothing , it is that security screening is not the answer .
It 's a waste of time as it is always back-looking and ca n't cover all possible attack possibilities .
All the TSA security measures have been put in place to combat the last attack.Even the attack methods they do cover , they do n't do it all that well .
Look at liquids for example , I can only carry a 3 oz bottle .
But I can take a quart bag of them , and so can Bob , Jim , John , Luke , and Marty .
It does n't stop a large amount of hazardous liquids from being brought onto a plane .
It just gives the impression it does.The only way to effectively combat any terrorist activity is through old-fashioned police and intelligence work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The point isn't that you should do nothing, it is that security screening is not the answer.
It's a waste of time as it is always back-looking and can't cover all possible attack possibilities.
All the TSA security measures have been put in place to combat the last attack.Even the attack methods they do cover, they don't do it all that well.
Look at liquids for example, I can only carry a 3 oz bottle.
But I can take a quart bag of them, and so can Bob, Jim, John, Luke, and Marty.
It doesn't stop a large amount of hazardous liquids from being brought onto a plane.
It just gives the impression it does.The only way to effectively combat any terrorist activity is through old-fashioned police and intelligence work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585176</id>
	<title>Re:Can we make Air Travel Secure?</title>
	<author>Kozz</author>
	<datestamp>1262118180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The future of flying is a small plane at a small regional airport.</p><p>Why?  Is it because the terrorists will have destroyed the industry?  No, it's more likely that the TSA has helped the industry destroy itself.</p><p>Richard Reid (aka the Shoe Bomber) is the reason we all have to take off our bloody shoes when we go through the screening process.  I'd love to string up that fucker personally.  Of course, his partner was the TSA -- taking off the shoes is just another measure in security theater.</p><p>Now a Nigerian national (by way of Yemen) has likely blown his nuts off in an attempt to take down an airliner.  And what is the response?  Well, at least they're not taking away your shampoo and nailclippers...</p><p>But there's talk of turning off seatback entertainment systems sporting GPS tracking for international flights.  If you're in the final descent, you'll know it (if you've flown a few times).  How much does it matter whether a terrorist knows precisely where they are in the flight?</p><p>You can't visit the bathroom, access overhead bins, have a blanket or pillow during the last hour of the flight?  Well, apparently some of these restrictions are being eased, giving discretion to the flight crew (as of 12/28) but they're simply more DUMB ideas from the TSA.  If one is determined to do something nefarious, do these restrictions really provide any obstacles whatsoever?</p><p>Perhaps in the future, the TSA will require that all passengers wear TSA-approved flight garments (with diapers) and shackled securely to their seats?  Sedation at your request?  Maybe if you agree to sedation, they'll even drop the price of your ticket.</p><p>If the foolish restrictions remain in place, the sensible citizens will seek travel options which do NOT treat them like criminals (or fools).  They will use cars, buses, trains and ships whenever possible.  Flight will be best accomplished by purchasing a seat aboard a chartered aircraft where you can become approved for travel with a background screening process, and the pilot/co-pilot have ultimate discretion as to whether they want you to board their flight.  You won't have to submit to humiliating searches of person and property -- dignity restored!</p><p>It may be an expensive venture, but it will very likely be worth it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The future of flying is a small plane at a small regional airport.Why ?
Is it because the terrorists will have destroyed the industry ?
No , it 's more likely that the TSA has helped the industry destroy itself.Richard Reid ( aka the Shoe Bomber ) is the reason we all have to take off our bloody shoes when we go through the screening process .
I 'd love to string up that fucker personally .
Of course , his partner was the TSA -- taking off the shoes is just another measure in security theater.Now a Nigerian national ( by way of Yemen ) has likely blown his nuts off in an attempt to take down an airliner .
And what is the response ?
Well , at least they 're not taking away your shampoo and nailclippers...But there 's talk of turning off seatback entertainment systems sporting GPS tracking for international flights .
If you 're in the final descent , you 'll know it ( if you 've flown a few times ) .
How much does it matter whether a terrorist knows precisely where they are in the flight ? You ca n't visit the bathroom , access overhead bins , have a blanket or pillow during the last hour of the flight ?
Well , apparently some of these restrictions are being eased , giving discretion to the flight crew ( as of 12/28 ) but they 're simply more DUMB ideas from the TSA .
If one is determined to do something nefarious , do these restrictions really provide any obstacles whatsoever ? Perhaps in the future , the TSA will require that all passengers wear TSA-approved flight garments ( with diapers ) and shackled securely to their seats ?
Sedation at your request ?
Maybe if you agree to sedation , they 'll even drop the price of your ticket.If the foolish restrictions remain in place , the sensible citizens will seek travel options which do NOT treat them like criminals ( or fools ) .
They will use cars , buses , trains and ships whenever possible .
Flight will be best accomplished by purchasing a seat aboard a chartered aircraft where you can become approved for travel with a background screening process , and the pilot/co-pilot have ultimate discretion as to whether they want you to board their flight .
You wo n't have to submit to humiliating searches of person and property -- dignity restored ! It may be an expensive venture , but it will very likely be worth it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The future of flying is a small plane at a small regional airport.Why?
Is it because the terrorists will have destroyed the industry?
No, it's more likely that the TSA has helped the industry destroy itself.Richard Reid (aka the Shoe Bomber) is the reason we all have to take off our bloody shoes when we go through the screening process.
I'd love to string up that fucker personally.
Of course, his partner was the TSA -- taking off the shoes is just another measure in security theater.Now a Nigerian national (by way of Yemen) has likely blown his nuts off in an attempt to take down an airliner.
And what is the response?
Well, at least they're not taking away your shampoo and nailclippers...But there's talk of turning off seatback entertainment systems sporting GPS tracking for international flights.
If you're in the final descent, you'll know it (if you've flown a few times).
How much does it matter whether a terrorist knows precisely where they are in the flight?You can't visit the bathroom, access overhead bins, have a blanket or pillow during the last hour of the flight?
Well, apparently some of these restrictions are being eased, giving discretion to the flight crew (as of 12/28) but they're simply more DUMB ideas from the TSA.
If one is determined to do something nefarious, do these restrictions really provide any obstacles whatsoever?Perhaps in the future, the TSA will require that all passengers wear TSA-approved flight garments (with diapers) and shackled securely to their seats?
Sedation at your request?
Maybe if you agree to sedation, they'll even drop the price of your ticket.If the foolish restrictions remain in place, the sensible citizens will seek travel options which do NOT treat them like criminals (or fools).
They will use cars, buses, trains and ships whenever possible.
Flight will be best accomplished by purchasing a seat aboard a chartered aircraft where you can become approved for travel with a background screening process, and the pilot/co-pilot have ultimate discretion as to whether they want you to board their flight.
You won't have to submit to humiliating searches of person and property -- dignity restored!It may be an expensive venture, but it will very likely be worth it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30588014</id>
	<title>Re:Can we make it somewhat safe? Yes.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262087280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Security Theater" is not 'just a term' that *anybody* likes to throw around.  It's a military-based term which refers to ineffective security practices designed to make it *look* like you're doing something.  The key word in the term is *theater*.  You know, the place you go to watch people act out make believe bits of fiction?  That's what it means.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Security Theater " is not 'just a term ' that * anybody * likes to throw around .
It 's a military-based term which refers to ineffective security practices designed to make it * look * like you 're doing something .
The key word in the term is * theater * .
You know , the place you go to watch people act out make believe bits of fiction ?
That 's what it means .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Security Theater" is not 'just a term' that *anybody* likes to throw around.
It's a military-based term which refers to ineffective security practices designed to make it *look* like you're doing something.
The key word in the term is *theater*.
You know, the place you go to watch people act out make believe bits of fiction?
That's what it means.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584468</id>
	<title>What a strange metric!</title>
	<author>ifwm</author>
	<datestamp>1262114820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Given that he has several books on security, his opinion carries some weight"</p><p>I find that his credibility stems form something other than "volumes in his bibliography".</p><p>Is that anything like "Libraries of Congress"?</p><p>"That guy is really credible, look at that VIB number!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Given that he has several books on security , his opinion carries some weight " I find that his credibility stems form something other than " volumes in his bibliography " .Is that anything like " Libraries of Congress " ?
" That guy is really credible , look at that VIB number !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Given that he has several books on security, his opinion carries some weight"I find that his credibility stems form something other than "volumes in his bibliography".Is that anything like "Libraries of Congress"?
"That guy is really credible, look at that VIB number!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30589952</id>
	<title>Re:Bruce Schneier is blowing smoke</title>
	<author>swillden</author>
	<datestamp>1262101080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We also know that the most secured airline in the world (El Al) hasn't had any successful attacks.</p></div><p>Have you ever flown El Al?  I have, and I can tell you that, unlike the TSA, El Al does *not* engage in security theatre.  Israeli airport security doesn't ban nail clippers or pocket knives or liquids.  They don't bother with pat downs, either, nor do they x-ray your baggage, and Schneier knows all of this.  In fact, he's written essays in which he pointed to El Al's approach as the right way to do airline security and contrasted it with what we do.

</p><p>Israeli airport security is focused on identifying and removing terrorists, not their weapons.  That's because it's fundamentally impossible to deny them weapons, and the Israelis understand that.  They do search your belongings.  By hand.  Thoroughly.  But they do it less to see what you have than to watch your reaction while they do it.  While one agent is searching your stuff, two more are watching you.  And they also ask a lot of questions about who you are, why you're traveling, where you've been, where you're going, etc., and they demand proof of your statements.  They quizzed me in detail about every person I'd met with while in Israel, and then they actually <i>called some of them</i> on the phone to verify my statements.  They also separated me from the people I was traveling with, asked us all questions individually, and then conferred with one another to compare the answers.

</p><p>That's what real, serious airport security looks like.  And it does work.  The security theatre we have doesn't, not against anyone with a clue.  It's trivial to smuggle a weapon onto a plane; I've done it accidentally!  Really smart terrorists won't bother bringing anything through the front door, either.  Have maintenance, cleaning crews, etc. bring the weapons in.  US airport security in those areas is laughable.  Not so on El Al flights.

</p><p>You're right that security can be effective.  Schneier is right that what we do is not security.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We also know that the most secured airline in the world ( El Al ) has n't had any successful attacks.Have you ever flown El Al ?
I have , and I can tell you that , unlike the TSA , El Al does * not * engage in security theatre .
Israeli airport security does n't ban nail clippers or pocket knives or liquids .
They do n't bother with pat downs , either , nor do they x-ray your baggage , and Schneier knows all of this .
In fact , he 's written essays in which he pointed to El Al 's approach as the right way to do airline security and contrasted it with what we do .
Israeli airport security is focused on identifying and removing terrorists , not their weapons .
That 's because it 's fundamentally impossible to deny them weapons , and the Israelis understand that .
They do search your belongings .
By hand .
Thoroughly. But they do it less to see what you have than to watch your reaction while they do it .
While one agent is searching your stuff , two more are watching you .
And they also ask a lot of questions about who you are , why you 're traveling , where you 've been , where you 're going , etc. , and they demand proof of your statements .
They quizzed me in detail about every person I 'd met with while in Israel , and then they actually called some of them on the phone to verify my statements .
They also separated me from the people I was traveling with , asked us all questions individually , and then conferred with one another to compare the answers .
That 's what real , serious airport security looks like .
And it does work .
The security theatre we have does n't , not against anyone with a clue .
It 's trivial to smuggle a weapon onto a plane ; I 've done it accidentally !
Really smart terrorists wo n't bother bringing anything through the front door , either .
Have maintenance , cleaning crews , etc .
bring the weapons in .
US airport security in those areas is laughable .
Not so on El Al flights .
You 're right that security can be effective .
Schneier is right that what we do is not security .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We also know that the most secured airline in the world (El Al) hasn't had any successful attacks.Have you ever flown El Al?
I have, and I can tell you that, unlike the TSA, El Al does *not* engage in security theatre.
Israeli airport security doesn't ban nail clippers or pocket knives or liquids.
They don't bother with pat downs, either, nor do they x-ray your baggage, and Schneier knows all of this.
In fact, he's written essays in which he pointed to El Al's approach as the right way to do airline security and contrasted it with what we do.
Israeli airport security is focused on identifying and removing terrorists, not their weapons.
That's because it's fundamentally impossible to deny them weapons, and the Israelis understand that.
They do search your belongings.
By hand.
Thoroughly.  But they do it less to see what you have than to watch your reaction while they do it.
While one agent is searching your stuff, two more are watching you.
And they also ask a lot of questions about who you are, why you're traveling, where you've been, where you're going, etc., and they demand proof of your statements.
They quizzed me in detail about every person I'd met with while in Israel, and then they actually called some of them on the phone to verify my statements.
They also separated me from the people I was traveling with, asked us all questions individually, and then conferred with one another to compare the answers.
That's what real, serious airport security looks like.
And it does work.
The security theatre we have doesn't, not against anyone with a clue.
It's trivial to smuggle a weapon onto a plane; I've done it accidentally!
Really smart terrorists won't bother bringing anything through the front door, either.
Have maintenance, cleaning crews, etc.
bring the weapons in.
US airport security in those areas is laughable.
Not so on El Al flights.
You're right that security can be effective.
Schneier is right that what we do is not security.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584454</id>
	<title>9/11 changed peoples' minds</title>
	<author>wizardforce</author>
	<datestamp>1262114760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>What are your thoughts? Do you think that we can actually make air travel (and any other kind of travel, for that matter) truly secure?"</p></div></blockquote><p> No.  There will never be a time when anything is "truly secure" only more secure.  We can make air travel safer and indeed most people have already taken a few of the steps necessary by instinct.  9/11 changed peoples' mindset about hijackings in general and now it is far more dangerous for people who hijack a plane.  If the passengers have even a suspicion that anything like what happened on 9/11 is taking place, they will act accordingly.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What are your thoughts ?
Do you think that we can actually make air travel ( and any other kind of travel , for that matter ) truly secure ?
" No .
There will never be a time when anything is " truly secure " only more secure .
We can make air travel safer and indeed most people have already taken a few of the steps necessary by instinct .
9/11 changed peoples ' mindset about hijackings in general and now it is far more dangerous for people who hijack a plane .
If the passengers have even a suspicion that anything like what happened on 9/11 is taking place , they will act accordingly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What are your thoughts?
Do you think that we can actually make air travel (and any other kind of travel, for that matter) truly secure?
" No.
There will never be a time when anything is "truly secure" only more secure.
We can make air travel safer and indeed most people have already taken a few of the steps necessary by instinct.
9/11 changed peoples' mindset about hijackings in general and now it is far more dangerous for people who hijack a plane.
If the passengers have even a suspicion that anything like what happened on 9/11 is taking place, they will act accordingly.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30588028</id>
	<title>Guns on planes!?</title>
	<author>Prien715</author>
	<datestamp>1262087280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Um...because you shouldn't fire bullets in an air-tight aluminum tube because it could cause the plane to malfunction/crash/kill everyone on board?</p><p>From a decision tree perspective, the terrorist doesn't mind dying...so you either let him kill everyone on the plane...or you can shoot him and do the same thing yourself.  And that doesn't even account for the xenophobe who screams terrorist and shoots when he sees someone with brown skin and speaks "funny".</p><p>Now, special bullets that won't go through the plane?  Maybe.  But no, I for one am glad we try and make sure there's no guns on planes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Um...because you should n't fire bullets in an air-tight aluminum tube because it could cause the plane to malfunction/crash/kill everyone on board ? From a decision tree perspective , the terrorist does n't mind dying...so you either let him kill everyone on the plane...or you can shoot him and do the same thing yourself .
And that does n't even account for the xenophobe who screams terrorist and shoots when he sees someone with brown skin and speaks " funny " .Now , special bullets that wo n't go through the plane ?
Maybe. But no , I for one am glad we try and make sure there 's no guns on planes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um...because you shouldn't fire bullets in an air-tight aluminum tube because it could cause the plane to malfunction/crash/kill everyone on board?From a decision tree perspective, the terrorist doesn't mind dying...so you either let him kill everyone on the plane...or you can shoot him and do the same thing yourself.
And that doesn't even account for the xenophobe who screams terrorist and shoots when he sees someone with brown skin and speaks "funny".Now, special bullets that won't go through the plane?
Maybe.  But no, I for one am glad we try and make sure there's no guns on planes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30594562</id>
	<title>IDIOTS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259859600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Listen up tools, the solution is simple and is currently the primary method for 1 small country surrounded by hostile neighbors with self proclaimed global enemies, Israel.</p><p>What do they do?</p><p>They fucking profile and dont waste their time on Red Headed Grandmothers or Blond Haired Blue Eyed Babies.</p><p>Its fucking ridiculous to simply ignore that "the terrorists" are males, typically of medium or dark complexion and muslim.</p><p>now shut the fuck up and get on the fucking plane knowing that fucking tool in the white house along with all of his minions tools, are working toward your collective demise simply because they are worshipping some PC Deity of which there is no appeasing!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Listen up tools , the solution is simple and is currently the primary method for 1 small country surrounded by hostile neighbors with self proclaimed global enemies , Israel.What do they do ? They fucking profile and dont waste their time on Red Headed Grandmothers or Blond Haired Blue Eyed Babies.Its fucking ridiculous to simply ignore that " the terrorists " are males , typically of medium or dark complexion and muslim.now shut the fuck up and get on the fucking plane knowing that fucking tool in the white house along with all of his minions tools , are working toward your collective demise simply because they are worshipping some PC Deity of which there is no appeasing !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Listen up tools, the solution is simple and is currently the primary method for 1 small country surrounded by hostile neighbors with self proclaimed global enemies, Israel.What do they do?They fucking profile and dont waste their time on Red Headed Grandmothers or Blond Haired Blue Eyed Babies.Its fucking ridiculous to simply ignore that "the terrorists" are males, typically of medium or dark complexion and muslim.now shut the fuck up and get on the fucking plane knowing that fucking tool in the white house along with all of his minions tools, are working toward your collective demise simply because they are worshipping some PC Deity of which there is no appeasing!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584874</id>
	<title>Re:Can we make Air Travel Secure?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262116740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, the quote is that anyone who would give up <i>essential</i> liberty to gain a little <i>temporary</i> security. You make it sound as if letting security search your bag when you enter a concert disqualifies one from the rights and privileges of citizenship. As always, the devil is in the details.</p><p>--<br>Toro</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , the quote is that anyone who would give up essential liberty to gain a little temporary security .
You make it sound as if letting security search your bag when you enter a concert disqualifies one from the rights and privileges of citizenship .
As always , the devil is in the details.--Toro</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, the quote is that anyone who would give up essential liberty to gain a little temporary security.
You make it sound as if letting security search your bag when you enter a concert disqualifies one from the rights and privileges of citizenship.
As always, the devil is in the details.--Toro
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30590362</id>
	<title>Re:Can we make Air Travel Secure?</title>
	<author>GrumblyStuff</author>
	<datestamp>1262105520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Sedation at your request?</p></div></blockquote><p>Fuck yeah!  I mean, it'd suck if the plane went down and you needed to crawl out on your own (had you been conscious) but why not?  It'd be great if it was like The Fifth Element.  Hop into the little cubby hole, yer out like a light, and fresh as a daisy when they land.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sedation at your request ? Fuck yeah !
I mean , it 'd suck if the plane went down and you needed to crawl out on your own ( had you been conscious ) but why not ?
It 'd be great if it was like The Fifth Element .
Hop into the little cubby hole , yer out like a light , and fresh as a daisy when they land .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sedation at your request?Fuck yeah!
I mean, it'd suck if the plane went down and you needed to crawl out on your own (had you been conscious) but why not?
It'd be great if it was like The Fifth Element.
Hop into the little cubby hole, yer out like a light, and fresh as a daisy when they land.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585176</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585118</id>
	<title>Re:Go Back to Allowing Passenger To be Armed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262117940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The odds of getting shot by an armed and sleepy, grumpy, drunk, clumsy, whatever, passenger would be exponentially higher than the current terrorism threat.</p><p>Terrorists aren't the only ones running the risk of being shot dead on a plane if you let average Joe start target shooting in aisle 15.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The odds of getting shot by an armed and sleepy , grumpy , drunk , clumsy , whatever , passenger would be exponentially higher than the current terrorism threat.Terrorists are n't the only ones running the risk of being shot dead on a plane if you let average Joe start target shooting in aisle 15 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The odds of getting shot by an armed and sleepy, grumpy, drunk, clumsy, whatever, passenger would be exponentially higher than the current terrorism threat.Terrorists aren't the only ones running the risk of being shot dead on a plane if you let average Joe start target shooting in aisle 15.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30588516</id>
	<title>USA: Get out of Middle East</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262089800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Umm, he's not.</p><p>All of the terrorism that originates in the middle east from Islamic extremists is a direct result of bad foreign policy on behalf of the USA in that region.</p><p>Specifically, if the USA dismantled its military bases in Saudi Arabia, etc, then it would probably be a bigger step in halting terrorism than anything else.</p><p>Why?</p><p>Because it would remove foreign military from their holy soil. There would be no more infidels desecrating their land.</p><p>Whilst we may think that is a stupid way to think, that is their country, their region, so it is their right to do so. They don't get to tell us to be Islamic so we shouldn't tell them what to think about foreign military presence on their land.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Umm , he 's not.All of the terrorism that originates in the middle east from Islamic extremists is a direct result of bad foreign policy on behalf of the USA in that region.Specifically , if the USA dismantled its military bases in Saudi Arabia , etc , then it would probably be a bigger step in halting terrorism than anything else.Why ? Because it would remove foreign military from their holy soil .
There would be no more infidels desecrating their land.Whilst we may think that is a stupid way to think , that is their country , their region , so it is their right to do so .
They do n't get to tell us to be Islamic so we should n't tell them what to think about foreign military presence on their land .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Umm, he's not.All of the terrorism that originates in the middle east from Islamic extremists is a direct result of bad foreign policy on behalf of the USA in that region.Specifically, if the USA dismantled its military bases in Saudi Arabia, etc, then it would probably be a bigger step in halting terrorism than anything else.Why?Because it would remove foreign military from their holy soil.
There would be no more infidels desecrating their land.Whilst we may think that is a stupid way to think, that is their country, their region, so it is their right to do so.
They don't get to tell us to be Islamic so we shouldn't tell them what to think about foreign military presence on their land.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585342</id>
	<title>Schneier is right.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262118960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Schneier is right, as always.</p><p>Politicians always react to one specific attack, and just do something to make people feel more secure, not to actually improve security. Many of these actions just limit the <b>freedom</b> or conflict with peoples <b>privacy</b>, which ironically makes most people think they are more secure.</p><p>He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither. -- Benjamin Franklin</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Schneier is right , as always.Politicians always react to one specific attack , and just do something to make people feel more secure , not to actually improve security .
Many of these actions just limit the freedom or conflict with peoples privacy , which ironically makes most people think they are more secure.He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither .
-- Benjamin Franklin</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Schneier is right, as always.Politicians always react to one specific attack, and just do something to make people feel more secure, not to actually improve security.
Many of these actions just limit the freedom or conflict with peoples privacy, which ironically makes most people think they are more secure.He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.
-- Benjamin Franklin</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30589142</id>
	<title>Re:Can we make it somewhat safe? Yes.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262093700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You sound like the Pigs from Animal Farm.</p><p>The safety net that we have now from terrorism has nothing to do with theatre or improved law enforcement.  Technology will do nothing to scare or harm terrorism.  We are safer today because the end game changed from 30 days of being held hostage to in a few minutes you might explode.  The people in airplanes and in any other situation are more apt to react now that they fear for their lives.</p><p>The only difference between the unibomber and an al-qaeda terrorist is that al-qaeda sometimes has meetings.  No matter how much you throw technology at that problem, no matter how much you inconvenience the people as a whole or how much you pierce their individual liberties, the problem will still exist.</p><p>The most effective way to make the U.S. more secure is to remove the effectiveness of terrorism.  Don't give them air time, don't spend $200M-&gt;$1B anytime a bomb made from grocery store items goes off, don't attack innocents in response to terrorism, and don't take away freedom and call the lack thereof security.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You sound like the Pigs from Animal Farm.The safety net that we have now from terrorism has nothing to do with theatre or improved law enforcement .
Technology will do nothing to scare or harm terrorism .
We are safer today because the end game changed from 30 days of being held hostage to in a few minutes you might explode .
The people in airplanes and in any other situation are more apt to react now that they fear for their lives.The only difference between the unibomber and an al-qaeda terrorist is that al-qaeda sometimes has meetings .
No matter how much you throw technology at that problem , no matter how much you inconvenience the people as a whole or how much you pierce their individual liberties , the problem will still exist.The most effective way to make the U.S. more secure is to remove the effectiveness of terrorism .
Do n't give them air time , do n't spend $ 200M- &gt; $ 1B anytime a bomb made from grocery store items goes off , do n't attack innocents in response to terrorism , and do n't take away freedom and call the lack thereof security .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You sound like the Pigs from Animal Farm.The safety net that we have now from terrorism has nothing to do with theatre or improved law enforcement.
Technology will do nothing to scare or harm terrorism.
We are safer today because the end game changed from 30 days of being held hostage to in a few minutes you might explode.
The people in airplanes and in any other situation are more apt to react now that they fear for their lives.The only difference between the unibomber and an al-qaeda terrorist is that al-qaeda sometimes has meetings.
No matter how much you throw technology at that problem, no matter how much you inconvenience the people as a whole or how much you pierce their individual liberties, the problem will still exist.The most effective way to make the U.S. more secure is to remove the effectiveness of terrorism.
Don't give them air time, don't spend $200M-&gt;$1B anytime a bomb made from grocery store items goes off, don't attack innocents in response to terrorism, and don't take away freedom and call the lack thereof security.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585876</id>
	<title>Change of Mindset</title>
	<author>gedrin</author>
	<datestamp>1262077980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The greatest security measure implemented since 9/11 has not been put in place by the government or any other formal policy.  Before the 9/11 attacks were over, the mindset had changed.  Without any official making a statement, people, using their own judgement, through out the advice to sit quietly and hope to be rescued.  Prior to those attacks, the response to a guy trying to light something on fire would have been to inform a flight attendant.  Now, it is to beat him down and drag him off in a head lock.  That's probably the most effective security change we've had.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The greatest security measure implemented since 9/11 has not been put in place by the government or any other formal policy .
Before the 9/11 attacks were over , the mindset had changed .
Without any official making a statement , people , using their own judgement , through out the advice to sit quietly and hope to be rescued .
Prior to those attacks , the response to a guy trying to light something on fire would have been to inform a flight attendant .
Now , it is to beat him down and drag him off in a head lock .
That 's probably the most effective security change we 've had .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The greatest security measure implemented since 9/11 has not been put in place by the government or any other formal policy.
Before the 9/11 attacks were over, the mindset had changed.
Without any official making a statement, people, using their own judgement, through out the advice to sit quietly and hope to be rescued.
Prior to those attacks, the response to a guy trying to light something on fire would have been to inform a flight attendant.
Now, it is to beat him down and drag him off in a head lock.
That's probably the most effective security change we've had.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30590578</id>
	<title>Re:Our biggest problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262107920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every time a terrorist does something...</p><p>You can force people to do something they dont want to do.</p><p>You can stop or delay them from doing something they want to do.</p><p>You can arrest/kidnap them if they dont do everything you want them to do.</p><p>You can beat them.</p><p>That is one hell of a teddy bear.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every time a terrorist does something...You can force people to do something they dont want to do.You can stop or delay them from doing something they want to do.You can arrest/kidnap them if they dont do everything you want them to do.You can beat them.That is one hell of a teddy bear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every time a terrorist does something...You can force people to do something they dont want to do.You can stop or delay them from doing something they want to do.You can arrest/kidnap them if they dont do everything you want them to do.You can beat them.That is one hell of a teddy bear.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585372</id>
	<title>Re:Bruce is only pointing out the obvious. . . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262119080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you read the article, you would see that Schneier is advocating against exactly the type of thinking you call "RATIONAL".  In the article, he talks about how the TSA focused on liquids and shoes because those were the specific methods of attack that were attempted; what happens when they try using solid explosives and hiding them in their pants instead?  If you're going to hassle people who have a one-way ticket, paid in cash, and no luggage then what are you going to do when they wise up and get a two-way ticket, paid in credit, and bring a few bags?  Your "RATIONAL" thinking doesn't actually do anything to make anybody safer, though it might make us FEEL safer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you read the article , you would see that Schneier is advocating against exactly the type of thinking you call " RATIONAL " .
In the article , he talks about how the TSA focused on liquids and shoes because those were the specific methods of attack that were attempted ; what happens when they try using solid explosives and hiding them in their pants instead ?
If you 're going to hassle people who have a one-way ticket , paid in cash , and no luggage then what are you going to do when they wise up and get a two-way ticket , paid in credit , and bring a few bags ?
Your " RATIONAL " thinking does n't actually do anything to make anybody safer , though it might make us FEEL safer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you read the article, you would see that Schneier is advocating against exactly the type of thinking you call "RATIONAL".
In the article, he talks about how the TSA focused on liquids and shoes because those were the specific methods of attack that were attempted; what happens when they try using solid explosives and hiding them in their pants instead?
If you're going to hassle people who have a one-way ticket, paid in cash, and no luggage then what are you going to do when they wise up and get a two-way ticket, paid in credit, and bring a few bags?
Your "RATIONAL" thinking doesn't actually do anything to make anybody safer, though it might make us FEEL safer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30588728</id>
	<title>Re:Bruce Schneier is blowing smoke</title>
	<author>paulsnx2</author>
	<datestamp>1262090940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Schneier is right that an attack could indeed come anywhere and that it is impossible to defend against them all. Your house could be hit by a tornado, so why do you have smoke alarms? A lock on your door is not going to stop a determined burglar, so why lock your door at all? Why even have a door?"</p><p>Your analogies are bogus.  Smoke alarms reduce your risk of fire, not just fire caused by tornadoes.  Locks reduce your risk of burglary, not just burglary by a determined burglar.  Doors do not just stop burglars, but prevent animals and bugs from just walking into your house.</p><p>The "Security Theater" we are spending billions on doesn't do anything useful but pretend to stop terrorists.</p><p>Actual Cost/Benefit analysis needs to be done on security, and the cost is far higher than the benefit.  Even if three or four times the terrorist attacks occurred (which would be hugely tragic!  Don't get me wrong!) because we diverted these billions of dollars from "Security Theater" and directed them to our highways and public transportation to reduce traffic deaths by five percent, thousands more people would be alive than sticking to the current approach.</p><p>That's because we have only had 3000 deaths in 10 years from terrorism, while we have had 400,000 traffic deaths in the same period.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Schneier is right that an attack could indeed come anywhere and that it is impossible to defend against them all .
Your house could be hit by a tornado , so why do you have smoke alarms ?
A lock on your door is not going to stop a determined burglar , so why lock your door at all ?
Why even have a door ?
" Your analogies are bogus .
Smoke alarms reduce your risk of fire , not just fire caused by tornadoes .
Locks reduce your risk of burglary , not just burglary by a determined burglar .
Doors do not just stop burglars , but prevent animals and bugs from just walking into your house.The " Security Theater " we are spending billions on does n't do anything useful but pretend to stop terrorists.Actual Cost/Benefit analysis needs to be done on security , and the cost is far higher than the benefit .
Even if three or four times the terrorist attacks occurred ( which would be hugely tragic !
Do n't get me wrong !
) because we diverted these billions of dollars from " Security Theater " and directed them to our highways and public transportation to reduce traffic deaths by five percent , thousands more people would be alive than sticking to the current approach.That 's because we have only had 3000 deaths in 10 years from terrorism , while we have had 400,000 traffic deaths in the same period .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Schneier is right that an attack could indeed come anywhere and that it is impossible to defend against them all.
Your house could be hit by a tornado, so why do you have smoke alarms?
A lock on your door is not going to stop a determined burglar, so why lock your door at all?
Why even have a door?
"Your analogies are bogus.
Smoke alarms reduce your risk of fire, not just fire caused by tornadoes.
Locks reduce your risk of burglary, not just burglary by a determined burglar.
Doors do not just stop burglars, but prevent animals and bugs from just walking into your house.The "Security Theater" we are spending billions on doesn't do anything useful but pretend to stop terrorists.Actual Cost/Benefit analysis needs to be done on security, and the cost is far higher than the benefit.
Even if three or four times the terrorist attacks occurred (which would be hugely tragic!
Don't get me wrong!
) because we diverted these billions of dollars from "Security Theater" and directed them to our highways and public transportation to reduce traffic deaths by five percent, thousands more people would be alive than sticking to the current approach.That's because we have only had 3000 deaths in 10 years from terrorism, while we have had 400,000 traffic deaths in the same period.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585238</id>
	<title>Schneier characterizes the CNN piece as...</title>
	<author>jra</author>
	<datestamp>1262118540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"a rewrite of an older article of [his]".</p><p>Most of the piece, clearly, isn't specific to this attack... but I think that's actually his point here: he didn't *have to* write a fresh piece for this, since the problem hasn't really changed, *just* because this particular guy wore Semtex boxers on a plane.</p><p>The problem is what it always is, and Security Theatre isn't going to change it.</p><p>*I* tend to think that what Bruce ought to do is to write one or more general circulation pieces on the issue, explaining the underlying background even more deeply than he generally does, and sell them to Popular Mechanics.  And GQ.  And Playboy.  And The Atlantic.  Etc....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" a rewrite of an older article of [ his ] " .Most of the piece , clearly , is n't specific to this attack... but I think that 's actually his point here : he did n't * have to * write a fresh piece for this , since the problem has n't really changed , * just * because this particular guy wore Semtex boxers on a plane.The problem is what it always is , and Security Theatre is n't going to change it .
* I * tend to think that what Bruce ought to do is to write one or more general circulation pieces on the issue , explaining the underlying background even more deeply than he generally does , and sell them to Popular Mechanics .
And GQ .
And Playboy .
And The Atlantic .
Etc... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"a rewrite of an older article of [his]".Most of the piece, clearly, isn't specific to this attack... but I think that's actually his point here: he didn't *have to* write a fresh piece for this, since the problem hasn't really changed, *just* because this particular guy wore Semtex boxers on a plane.The problem is what it always is, and Security Theatre isn't going to change it.
*I* tend to think that what Bruce ought to do is to write one or more general circulation pieces on the issue, explaining the underlying background even more deeply than he generally does, and sell them to Popular Mechanics.
And GQ.
And Playboy.
And The Atlantic.
Etc....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30590274</id>
	<title>Re:Go Back to Allowing Passenger To be Armed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262104620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>[Citation Needed]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>[ Citation Needed ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[Citation Needed]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30586044</id>
	<title>Yes, we can!</title>
	<author>mi</author>
	<datestamp>1262078640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Do you think that we can actually make air travel (and any other kind of travel, for that matter) truly secure?"</p></div></blockquote><p>Not only do we <em>can</em>, the past years show, we <em>have</em>... By abandoning the cowardly (if seemingly "sophisticated") paradigm of "obey their orders, do as they say, let SWAT handle it, when they land" we made it rather difficult for these a-holes to do their thing. Even the fourth plane on 9/11 didn't hit its target, because the terrorist &mdash; in a moment of weakness &mdash; allowed the passengers to learn, that some hijackers may not be interested in <em>ever landing</em>.

</p><p>How <em>truly</em> secure now then? Well, <em>nothing</em> ever will be absolutely secure. But air-travel is more secure than (ever!) before now, that the fellow passengers readily engage the would-be terrorist preventing him from blowing up his shoes or underpants. I think, it is secure enough for them to switch to different targets (bridges, tunnels, ships?)...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you think that we can actually make air travel ( and any other kind of travel , for that matter ) truly secure ?
" Not only do we can , the past years show , we have... By abandoning the cowardly ( if seemingly " sophisticated " ) paradigm of " obey their orders , do as they say , let SWAT handle it , when they land " we made it rather difficult for these a-holes to do their thing .
Even the fourth plane on 9/11 did n't hit its target , because the terrorist    in a moment of weakness    allowed the passengers to learn , that some hijackers may not be interested in ever landing .
How truly secure now then ?
Well , nothing ever will be absolutely secure .
But air-travel is more secure than ( ever !
) before now , that the fellow passengers readily engage the would-be terrorist preventing him from blowing up his shoes or underpants .
I think , it is secure enough for them to switch to different targets ( bridges , tunnels , ships ?
) .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you think that we can actually make air travel (and any other kind of travel, for that matter) truly secure?
"Not only do we can, the past years show, we have... By abandoning the cowardly (if seemingly "sophisticated") paradigm of "obey their orders, do as they say, let SWAT handle it, when they land" we made it rather difficult for these a-holes to do their thing.
Even the fourth plane on 9/11 didn't hit its target, because the terrorist — in a moment of weakness — allowed the passengers to learn, that some hijackers may not be interested in ever landing.
How truly secure now then?
Well, nothing ever will be absolutely secure.
But air-travel is more secure than (ever!
) before now, that the fellow passengers readily engage the would-be terrorist preventing him from blowing up his shoes or underpants.
I think, it is secure enough for them to switch to different targets (bridges, tunnels, ships?
)...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585300</id>
	<title>Who's afraid of air travel?</title>
	<author>Bromskloss</author>
	<datestamp>1262118780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Do you think that we can actually make air travel (and any other kind of travel, for that matter) truly secure?</p></div><p>Isn't it already as secure as anything else?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you think that we can actually make air travel ( and any other kind of travel , for that matter ) truly secure ? Is n't it already as secure as anything else ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you think that we can actually make air travel (and any other kind of travel, for that matter) truly secure?Isn't it already as secure as anything else?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30589958</id>
	<title>Re:Bruce's fallicy</title>
	<author>CAIMLAS</author>
	<datestamp>1262101080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yet, Hasan and the Ft. Hood attack - which is much, much more significant in terms of body count, potential damage, etc. - is being completely overlooked as potential societal/security changes are concerned. There have been no policy changes. Troops are still not allowed weapons on base. There have been no (justifiable) increases in profiling (not stereotyping, but profiling). Nothing.</p><p>I'll stop being critical of the TSA's security masterpiece theater when there are actual efforts taken to prevent things which are actually plausible. I'm talking about: stop issuing a disproportionate number of vistas to Islamic countries; allow citizens to defend themselves</p><p>On a network, gateway security isn't enough. You need endpoint security or you're fucked. It's the same with physical security: if all they've got to do is get through the gate, they'll get through. In both cases, the threat might still get through, but if there's a better security mindset, your chances of surviving unscathed improve. I'd think Bruce, a so-called security professional, would realize that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yet , Hasan and the Ft. Hood attack - which is much , much more significant in terms of body count , potential damage , etc .
- is being completely overlooked as potential societal/security changes are concerned .
There have been no policy changes .
Troops are still not allowed weapons on base .
There have been no ( justifiable ) increases in profiling ( not stereotyping , but profiling ) .
Nothing.I 'll stop being critical of the TSA 's security masterpiece theater when there are actual efforts taken to prevent things which are actually plausible .
I 'm talking about : stop issuing a disproportionate number of vistas to Islamic countries ; allow citizens to defend themselvesOn a network , gateway security is n't enough .
You need endpoint security or you 're fucked .
It 's the same with physical security : if all they 've got to do is get through the gate , they 'll get through .
In both cases , the threat might still get through , but if there 's a better security mindset , your chances of surviving unscathed improve .
I 'd think Bruce , a so-called security professional , would realize that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yet, Hasan and the Ft. Hood attack - which is much, much more significant in terms of body count, potential damage, etc.
- is being completely overlooked as potential societal/security changes are concerned.
There have been no policy changes.
Troops are still not allowed weapons on base.
There have been no (justifiable) increases in profiling (not stereotyping, but profiling).
Nothing.I'll stop being critical of the TSA's security masterpiece theater when there are actual efforts taken to prevent things which are actually plausible.
I'm talking about: stop issuing a disproportionate number of vistas to Islamic countries; allow citizens to defend themselvesOn a network, gateway security isn't enough.
You need endpoint security or you're fucked.
It's the same with physical security: if all they've got to do is get through the gate, they'll get through.
In both cases, the threat might still get through, but if there's a better security mindset, your chances of surviving unscathed improve.
I'd think Bruce, a so-called security professional, would realize that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30586796</id>
	<title>Re:Go Back to Allowing Passenger To be Armed</title>
	<author>Mr. Freeman</author>
	<datestamp>1262082480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Carrying guns onto planes can cause a lot of problems if it's not done extremely carefully.  For most situations on the ground, say a restaurant, a bunch of armed citizens could easily drop an armed robber and that'd be the end of it.  In a plane, you have to worry about decompression (sure, it's no explosive decompression, but it's still something you have to worry about), the very tightly packed people, and the presence of hydraulic and other control lines that can easily be penetrated by a stray bullet.  It's not a simple matter of "There's a terrorist, open fire".</htmltext>
<tokenext>Carrying guns onto planes can cause a lot of problems if it 's not done extremely carefully .
For most situations on the ground , say a restaurant , a bunch of armed citizens could easily drop an armed robber and that 'd be the end of it .
In a plane , you have to worry about decompression ( sure , it 's no explosive decompression , but it 's still something you have to worry about ) , the very tightly packed people , and the presence of hydraulic and other control lines that can easily be penetrated by a stray bullet .
It 's not a simple matter of " There 's a terrorist , open fire " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Carrying guns onto planes can cause a lot of problems if it's not done extremely carefully.
For most situations on the ground, say a restaurant, a bunch of armed citizens could easily drop an armed robber and that'd be the end of it.
In a plane, you have to worry about decompression (sure, it's no explosive decompression, but it's still something you have to worry about), the very tightly packed people, and the presence of hydraulic and other control lines that can easily be penetrated by a stray bullet.
It's not a simple matter of "There's a terrorist, open fire".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585248</id>
	<title>Hope people start listening</title>
	<author>deep9x</author>
	<datestamp>1262118540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Schneier's been saying most of these things in similar articles for years now, and I can only hope it eventually is taken seriously.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Schneier 's been saying most of these things in similar articles for years now , and I can only hope it eventually is taken seriously .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Schneier's been saying most of these things in similar articles for years now, and I can only hope it eventually is taken seriously.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585502</id>
	<title>Reverse of Computer Security</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262119680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find it interesting that this stance in the piece - which I agree with - is opposite that of computer and network security. In computer security we defend against every attack vector because trying to unravel motivations and possible sources is a waste of time (although I am sure someone is doing it). There is a neat write up about this over at ATW: http://www.pantos.org/atw/35703.html (see relying on attacker's motivations).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it interesting that this stance in the piece - which I agree with - is opposite that of computer and network security .
In computer security we defend against every attack vector because trying to unravel motivations and possible sources is a waste of time ( although I am sure someone is doing it ) .
There is a neat write up about this over at ATW : http : //www.pantos.org/atw/35703.html ( see relying on attacker 's motivations ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it interesting that this stance in the piece - which I agree with - is opposite that of computer and network security.
In computer security we defend against every attack vector because trying to unravel motivations and possible sources is a waste of time (although I am sure someone is doing it).
There is a neat write up about this over at ATW: http://www.pantos.org/atw/35703.html (see relying on attacker's motivations).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585970</id>
	<title>Re:What about making other things more secure firs</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1262078340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are posting on the internet, there is no excuse for guessing. You did guess relatively correctly, at least for the couple of years I checked:</p><p><a href="http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10\_sy.html" title="cdc.gov" rel="nofollow">http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10\_sy.html</a> [cdc.gov]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are posting on the internet , there is no excuse for guessing .
You did guess relatively correctly , at least for the couple of years I checked : http : //webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10 \ _sy.html [ cdc.gov ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are posting on the internet, there is no excuse for guessing.
You did guess relatively correctly, at least for the couple of years I checked:http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10\_sy.html [cdc.gov]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30595520</id>
	<title>Re:Yes I do Know</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259862540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yeah you are right, just rob the right of people to travel.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yeah you are right , just rob the right of people to travel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yeah you are right, just rob the right of people to travel.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30586394</id>
	<title>Re:Can we make Air Travel Secure?</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1262080500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The "Security Theatre" is just a new opening for corrupt politicans and power-hungry individuals to remove more freedom from people.

Benjamin Franklin said it best when he said "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."</p></div><p>We can't give up even just a little liberty to gain security against corrupt politicians?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The " Security Theatre " is just a new opening for corrupt politicans and power-hungry individuals to remove more freedom from people .
Benjamin Franklin said it best when he said " Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both .
" We ca n't give up even just a little liberty to gain security against corrupt politicians ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The "Security Theatre" is just a new opening for corrupt politicans and power-hungry individuals to remove more freedom from people.
Benjamin Franklin said it best when he said "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
"We can't give up even just a little liberty to gain security against corrupt politicians?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585076</id>
	<title>Re:Bruce is only pointing out the obvious. . . .</title>
	<author>bcrowell</author>
	<datestamp>1262117760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>In a RATIONAL world, **one** terrorism flag (i.e. one-way ticket, buying with cash, no luggage, watch list, etc) would yield pulling the passenger aside and "enhanced investigation": two flags, and the person is getting a very thorough body and luggage search, and three or more flags, it's grab the latex gloves, because it's a strip-search and fine-tooth comb search through luggage and posessions.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
It's pretty evident from your remarks that you didn't actually read Schneier's article. He doesn't advocate anything like this.
</p><p>
Your post advocates focusing on airplanes. Schneier's article advocates not focusing on airplanes.
</p><p>
Your post advocates increased security at the airport. His article advocates "investigation, intelligence, and emergency response," i.e., old-fasioned police work to foil plots before they go into action.
</p><p>
Your post advocates strip searching people because a bureaucrat put their name on a list, presumably because you believe that if one guy put explosives in his underwear, the next guy will do that too. His article says, "We confiscate liquids, screen shoes, and ban box cutters on airplanes. We tell people they can't use an airplane restroom in the last 90 minutes of an international flight. But it's not the target and tactics of the last attack that are important, but the next attack. These measures are only effective if we happen to guess what the next terrorists are planning."
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In a RATIONAL world , * * one * * terrorism flag ( i.e .
one-way ticket , buying with cash , no luggage , watch list , etc ) would yield pulling the passenger aside and " enhanced investigation " : two flags , and the person is getting a very thorough body and luggage search , and three or more flags , it 's grab the latex gloves , because it 's a strip-search and fine-tooth comb search through luggage and posessions .
It 's pretty evident from your remarks that you did n't actually read Schneier 's article .
He does n't advocate anything like this .
Your post advocates focusing on airplanes .
Schneier 's article advocates not focusing on airplanes .
Your post advocates increased security at the airport .
His article advocates " investigation , intelligence , and emergency response , " i.e. , old-fasioned police work to foil plots before they go into action .
Your post advocates strip searching people because a bureaucrat put their name on a list , presumably because you believe that if one guy put explosives in his underwear , the next guy will do that too .
His article says , " We confiscate liquids , screen shoes , and ban box cutters on airplanes .
We tell people they ca n't use an airplane restroom in the last 90 minutes of an international flight .
But it 's not the target and tactics of the last attack that are important , but the next attack .
These measures are only effective if we happen to guess what the next terrorists are planning .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In a RATIONAL world, **one** terrorism flag (i.e.
one-way ticket, buying with cash, no luggage, watch list, etc) would yield pulling the passenger aside and "enhanced investigation": two flags, and the person is getting a very thorough body and luggage search, and three or more flags, it's grab the latex gloves, because it's a strip-search and fine-tooth comb search through luggage and posessions.
It's pretty evident from your remarks that you didn't actually read Schneier's article.
He doesn't advocate anything like this.
Your post advocates focusing on airplanes.
Schneier's article advocates not focusing on airplanes.
Your post advocates increased security at the airport.
His article advocates "investigation, intelligence, and emergency response," i.e., old-fasioned police work to foil plots before they go into action.
Your post advocates strip searching people because a bureaucrat put their name on a list, presumably because you believe that if one guy put explosives in his underwear, the next guy will do that too.
His article says, "We confiscate liquids, screen shoes, and ban box cutters on airplanes.
We tell people they can't use an airplane restroom in the last 90 minutes of an international flight.
But it's not the target and tactics of the last attack that are important, but the next attack.
These measures are only effective if we happen to guess what the next terrorists are planning.
"

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30586984</id>
	<title>Re:no</title>
	<author>MooUK</author>
	<datestamp>1262083500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People's hand and feet can make pretty good weapons. I don't think you're going to succeed in banning them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People 's hand and feet can make pretty good weapons .
I do n't think you 're going to succeed in banning them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People's hand and feet can make pretty good weapons.
I don't think you're going to succeed in banning them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585062</id>
	<title>Re:Can we make Air Travel Secure?</title>
	<author>stewbacca</author>
	<datestamp>1262117700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Shit happens, especially when you do absolutely nothing to stop it. Terrorists will follow the path of least resistance.</p><p>And to fix the Franklin quote, I would prefer to live in a society that gives up a little liberty to gain a SHITLOAD of security. Our current system has it backwards...giving up a little liberty (I don't find the current airport travel system to be anything other than a minor inconvenience) for very little (if any) security. Why can't we do it right and get a better security return for the same investment?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Shit happens , especially when you do absolutely nothing to stop it .
Terrorists will follow the path of least resistance.And to fix the Franklin quote , I would prefer to live in a society that gives up a little liberty to gain a SHITLOAD of security .
Our current system has it backwards...giving up a little liberty ( I do n't find the current airport travel system to be anything other than a minor inconvenience ) for very little ( if any ) security .
Why ca n't we do it right and get a better security return for the same investment ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shit happens, especially when you do absolutely nothing to stop it.
Terrorists will follow the path of least resistance.And to fix the Franklin quote, I would prefer to live in a society that gives up a little liberty to gain a SHITLOAD of security.
Our current system has it backwards...giving up a little liberty (I don't find the current airport travel system to be anything other than a minor inconvenience) for very little (if any) security.
Why can't we do it right and get a better security return for the same investment?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30586078</id>
	<title>Re:They're not dumb</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1262078880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some are smart, but most are dumb. They can get through airport security just fine, but they don't really think past the moment of grabbing the bomb from their purse and shouting "Allah Akbhar" (even though that tends to make people notice you 5-10 seconds earlier). 24-style terrorist masterminds are a myth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some are smart , but most are dumb .
They can get through airport security just fine , but they do n't really think past the moment of grabbing the bomb from their purse and shouting " Allah Akbhar " ( even though that tends to make people notice you 5-10 seconds earlier ) .
24-style terrorist masterminds are a myth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some are smart, but most are dumb.
They can get through airport security just fine, but they don't really think past the moment of grabbing the bomb from their purse and shouting "Allah Akbhar" (even though that tends to make people notice you 5-10 seconds earlier).
24-style terrorist masterminds are a myth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584534</id>
	<title>Yes, but...</title>
	<author>Angst Badger</author>
	<datestamp>1262115120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, we can probably make air travel completely secure, or very nearly so. The problem is that the level of scrutiny that would require would make air travel too expensive for anyone to afford and so unpleasant that even those rich enough to afford it would be unwilling to undergo it.</p><p>That said, there's room for progress, but odds are we won't see any. We'll just see more nonsensical, ineffective rules and more numerous pissing contests with the semi-literate thugs they hire for airport security.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , we can probably make air travel completely secure , or very nearly so .
The problem is that the level of scrutiny that would require would make air travel too expensive for anyone to afford and so unpleasant that even those rich enough to afford it would be unwilling to undergo it.That said , there 's room for progress , but odds are we wo n't see any .
We 'll just see more nonsensical , ineffective rules and more numerous pissing contests with the semi-literate thugs they hire for airport security .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, we can probably make air travel completely secure, or very nearly so.
The problem is that the level of scrutiny that would require would make air travel too expensive for anyone to afford and so unpleasant that even those rich enough to afford it would be unwilling to undergo it.That said, there's room for progress, but odds are we won't see any.
We'll just see more nonsensical, ineffective rules and more numerous pissing contests with the semi-literate thugs they hire for airport security.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30594300</id>
	<title>Re:Can we make Air Travel Secure?</title>
	<author>IndustrialComplex</author>
	<datestamp>1259858880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Franklin DID sail in ships though.</p><p>And ending unequality and unfairness?  the recent attempted bomber was actually fairly well off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Franklin DID sail in ships though.And ending unequality and unfairness ?
the recent attempted bomber was actually fairly well off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Franklin DID sail in ships though.And ending unequality and unfairness?
the recent attempted bomber was actually fairly well off.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585512</id>
	<title>Bruce Schneier is blowing smoke</title>
	<author>SmallFurryCreature</author>
	<datestamp>1262119680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think he is going senile, since clearly he has forgotten the endless terrorists attacks on planes BEFORE security was raised. For the young ones, open your history books or even just watch Munich for an idea of how the world was before "security theater".
</p><p>What is the point of all those armed guards walking about? Well because BEFORE they walked around, any attacked could just walk in and gun people down with the police on scene only having pistols and being far to thinly spread and airports typically being a long way away from the city centers where SWAT teams (which are themselves a new invention) operate.
</p><p>Bruce Schneier seems to desire what most simple people desire, a magic solution that will fix everything. It is the Oprah Winfrey method of fixing problems and it only works in making her filthy rich. Check how many follow-ups she does. Check how badly her magic one-shot solutions work on her own life, like her weight.
</p><p>He suggests several solutions, and shows how much of a racist he really is in the process:
</p><p>Arabic translators. Eh, the latest attacker comes from Nigeria. There Berbers who speak Arabic but the individual is not one of them. Main language of Nigeria between all the various groups is English. Now I grant you, Americans would probably need translators to understand English but why does Bruce Schneier automatically link terrorism to the Arabic language? He complains after all about ordinary buildings becoming targets, like Oklahoma? Did that guy study Arabic?
</p><p>He also suggests that better ties with the Islamic world (again with Islam) would prevent terrorism. Better ties like freedom to travel and study in the west? Exactly like what was given to the latest attacker? In fact, which of the 9/11 attackers was NOT allowed to freely travel and do anything they want in the west? Were they kept behind an iron curtain or welcomed with open arms?
</p><p>So, we know that attack on aircraft were far more common BEFORE security increased. We also know that the most secured airline in the world (El Al) hasn't had any successful attacks.
</p><p>So is there a link between security "theater" and the number of attacks? What you got to accept before you can answer this question is that not all attacks are the same. A soldier (and a terrorist would see him/herself as a soldier fighting for a cause) might accept the potential of death but few would want to throw it away. The men who landed at Omaha must have known the risks but if had asked the men that went into the boats to have half their number put in the boilers to fuel the passage across to an unopposed beach, they would have refused. Not all attacks that result in death are committed by suicide attackers.
</p><p>The attacker will want a return on their investment (terror for a life) and just being shot after the first bullet being fired is not very terrorizing. It would just be another criminal.
</p><p>Schneier is right that an attack could indeed come anywhere and that it is impossible to defend against them all. Your house could be hit by a tornado, so why do you have smoke alarms? A lock on your door is not going to stop a determined burglar, so why lock your door at all? Why even have a door?
</p><p>England pre-WW2 was debating wether they needed all those farms that messed up the country side. It had a large empire and booming trade, surely it could import everything it needed. It could, until the war. The same argument is currently being held in Holland, get rid of all the farms and re-locate them to places with more space. Sensible, right up to the point that you can't ship things anymore. What exactly is an army for when you haven't used it in 60 years. Well because you don't get to say when you need one. Germany steam-rolled over europe because the other countries had not been ready.
</p><p>And the thing about being ready is that you can't stop it. Because then you aren't ready. The US has vowed never to led its guard down again after Pearl Harbour but that comes at an enormous cost AND it might not be enough because the</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think he is going senile , since clearly he has forgotten the endless terrorists attacks on planes BEFORE security was raised .
For the young ones , open your history books or even just watch Munich for an idea of how the world was before " security theater " .
What is the point of all those armed guards walking about ?
Well because BEFORE they walked around , any attacked could just walk in and gun people down with the police on scene only having pistols and being far to thinly spread and airports typically being a long way away from the city centers where SWAT teams ( which are themselves a new invention ) operate .
Bruce Schneier seems to desire what most simple people desire , a magic solution that will fix everything .
It is the Oprah Winfrey method of fixing problems and it only works in making her filthy rich .
Check how many follow-ups she does .
Check how badly her magic one-shot solutions work on her own life , like her weight .
He suggests several solutions , and shows how much of a racist he really is in the process : Arabic translators .
Eh , the latest attacker comes from Nigeria .
There Berbers who speak Arabic but the individual is not one of them .
Main language of Nigeria between all the various groups is English .
Now I grant you , Americans would probably need translators to understand English but why does Bruce Schneier automatically link terrorism to the Arabic language ?
He complains after all about ordinary buildings becoming targets , like Oklahoma ?
Did that guy study Arabic ?
He also suggests that better ties with the Islamic world ( again with Islam ) would prevent terrorism .
Better ties like freedom to travel and study in the west ?
Exactly like what was given to the latest attacker ?
In fact , which of the 9/11 attackers was NOT allowed to freely travel and do anything they want in the west ?
Were they kept behind an iron curtain or welcomed with open arms ?
So , we know that attack on aircraft were far more common BEFORE security increased .
We also know that the most secured airline in the world ( El Al ) has n't had any successful attacks .
So is there a link between security " theater " and the number of attacks ?
What you got to accept before you can answer this question is that not all attacks are the same .
A soldier ( and a terrorist would see him/herself as a soldier fighting for a cause ) might accept the potential of death but few would want to throw it away .
The men who landed at Omaha must have known the risks but if had asked the men that went into the boats to have half their number put in the boilers to fuel the passage across to an unopposed beach , they would have refused .
Not all attacks that result in death are committed by suicide attackers .
The attacker will want a return on their investment ( terror for a life ) and just being shot after the first bullet being fired is not very terrorizing .
It would just be another criminal .
Schneier is right that an attack could indeed come anywhere and that it is impossible to defend against them all .
Your house could be hit by a tornado , so why do you have smoke alarms ?
A lock on your door is not going to stop a determined burglar , so why lock your door at all ?
Why even have a door ?
England pre-WW2 was debating wether they needed all those farms that messed up the country side .
It had a large empire and booming trade , surely it could import everything it needed .
It could , until the war .
The same argument is currently being held in Holland , get rid of all the farms and re-locate them to places with more space .
Sensible , right up to the point that you ca n't ship things anymore .
What exactly is an army for when you have n't used it in 60 years .
Well because you do n't get to say when you need one .
Germany steam-rolled over europe because the other countries had not been ready .
And the thing about being ready is that you ca n't stop it .
Because then you are n't ready .
The US has vowed never to led its guard down again after Pearl Harbour but that comes at an enormous cost AND it might not be enough because the</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think he is going senile, since clearly he has forgotten the endless terrorists attacks on planes BEFORE security was raised.
For the young ones, open your history books or even just watch Munich for an idea of how the world was before "security theater".
What is the point of all those armed guards walking about?
Well because BEFORE they walked around, any attacked could just walk in and gun people down with the police on scene only having pistols and being far to thinly spread and airports typically being a long way away from the city centers where SWAT teams (which are themselves a new invention) operate.
Bruce Schneier seems to desire what most simple people desire, a magic solution that will fix everything.
It is the Oprah Winfrey method of fixing problems and it only works in making her filthy rich.
Check how many follow-ups she does.
Check how badly her magic one-shot solutions work on her own life, like her weight.
He suggests several solutions, and shows how much of a racist he really is in the process:
Arabic translators.
Eh, the latest attacker comes from Nigeria.
There Berbers who speak Arabic but the individual is not one of them.
Main language of Nigeria between all the various groups is English.
Now I grant you, Americans would probably need translators to understand English but why does Bruce Schneier automatically link terrorism to the Arabic language?
He complains after all about ordinary buildings becoming targets, like Oklahoma?
Did that guy study Arabic?
He also suggests that better ties with the Islamic world (again with Islam) would prevent terrorism.
Better ties like freedom to travel and study in the west?
Exactly like what was given to the latest attacker?
In fact, which of the 9/11 attackers was NOT allowed to freely travel and do anything they want in the west?
Were they kept behind an iron curtain or welcomed with open arms?
So, we know that attack on aircraft were far more common BEFORE security increased.
We also know that the most secured airline in the world (El Al) hasn't had any successful attacks.
So is there a link between security "theater" and the number of attacks?
What you got to accept before you can answer this question is that not all attacks are the same.
A soldier (and a terrorist would see him/herself as a soldier fighting for a cause) might accept the potential of death but few would want to throw it away.
The men who landed at Omaha must have known the risks but if had asked the men that went into the boats to have half their number put in the boilers to fuel the passage across to an unopposed beach, they would have refused.
Not all attacks that result in death are committed by suicide attackers.
The attacker will want a return on their investment (terror for a life) and just being shot after the first bullet being fired is not very terrorizing.
It would just be another criminal.
Schneier is right that an attack could indeed come anywhere and that it is impossible to defend against them all.
Your house could be hit by a tornado, so why do you have smoke alarms?
A lock on your door is not going to stop a determined burglar, so why lock your door at all?
Why even have a door?
England pre-WW2 was debating wether they needed all those farms that messed up the country side.
It had a large empire and booming trade, surely it could import everything it needed.
It could, until the war.
The same argument is currently being held in Holland, get rid of all the farms and re-locate them to places with more space.
Sensible, right up to the point that you can't ship things anymore.
What exactly is an army for when you haven't used it in 60 years.
Well because you don't get to say when you need one.
Germany steam-rolled over europe because the other countries had not been ready.
And the thing about being ready is that you can't stop it.
Because then you aren't ready.
The US has vowed never to led its guard down again after Pearl Harbour but that comes at an enormous cost AND it might not be enough because the</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30586154</id>
	<title>Re:Our biggest problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262079180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I absolutely hate it when they interview clueless loons like this woman.  It is patently a "shut up and get in line" suggestion from the media....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I absolutely hate it when they interview clueless loons like this woman .
It is patently a " shut up and get in line " suggestion from the media... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I absolutely hate it when they interview clueless loons like this woman.
It is patently a "shut up and get in line" suggestion from the media....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584970</id>
	<title>USA terrified: ergo, USA has lost War on Terror..</title>
	<author>fantomas</author>
	<datestamp>1262117280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The USA has declared for several years a "War on Terror". The USA (and many other nations to be fair) is a state that fears visitors bringing their own nail scissors to its shores. The USA is seriously thinking of asking people to keep their hands in view and not visit the toilet 60 minutes before arriving as this is seen as a real threat to its national security.</p><p>These actions don't seem rational to me. The country with a military spend ten times greater than the next largest country, probably with a military the size of most of the rest of the world is scared of individuals approaching its shores bearing nail scissors? These seem to be the action of a terrified, irrational people and nation. Therefore, if the USA (and others) have declared a War on Terror*, then the USA being terrified means the emotion Terror has won. What happens now?</p><p>*I would note that I have a problem with the concept "War on Terror" as I don't see how you can declare a war on a human emotion. Is it possible to have a "War on Joy" for example?  Perhaps you could declare a "War on preventing terror in Americans" and find ways of stopping Americans being terrified but I think this would be a tricky task. A lot of people are quite frightened of spiders in their bath tubs after all.</p><p>I think "War on Terror" is short for "War on people who use non-conventional forms of warfare against us that do not declare war on us as a sovereign nation" but I fear that this is difficult to bound in any way so actually means "permanent warfare against any individual or group that we, by our definitions, define as guilty of violent action against us and/or a threat to us at any time in the future". If it is not against another sovereign state, can war be declared, and can it be agreed to be ceased? References really welcomed to any well written definitions on what a "War on Terror" means. I'd really love to find some well argued definitions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The USA has declared for several years a " War on Terror " .
The USA ( and many other nations to be fair ) is a state that fears visitors bringing their own nail scissors to its shores .
The USA is seriously thinking of asking people to keep their hands in view and not visit the toilet 60 minutes before arriving as this is seen as a real threat to its national security.These actions do n't seem rational to me .
The country with a military spend ten times greater than the next largest country , probably with a military the size of most of the rest of the world is scared of individuals approaching its shores bearing nail scissors ?
These seem to be the action of a terrified , irrational people and nation .
Therefore , if the USA ( and others ) have declared a War on Terror * , then the USA being terrified means the emotion Terror has won .
What happens now ?
* I would note that I have a problem with the concept " War on Terror " as I do n't see how you can declare a war on a human emotion .
Is it possible to have a " War on Joy " for example ?
Perhaps you could declare a " War on preventing terror in Americans " and find ways of stopping Americans being terrified but I think this would be a tricky task .
A lot of people are quite frightened of spiders in their bath tubs after all.I think " War on Terror " is short for " War on people who use non-conventional forms of warfare against us that do not declare war on us as a sovereign nation " but I fear that this is difficult to bound in any way so actually means " permanent warfare against any individual or group that we , by our definitions , define as guilty of violent action against us and/or a threat to us at any time in the future " .
If it is not against another sovereign state , can war be declared , and can it be agreed to be ceased ?
References really welcomed to any well written definitions on what a " War on Terror " means .
I 'd really love to find some well argued definitions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The USA has declared for several years a "War on Terror".
The USA (and many other nations to be fair) is a state that fears visitors bringing their own nail scissors to its shores.
The USA is seriously thinking of asking people to keep their hands in view and not visit the toilet 60 minutes before arriving as this is seen as a real threat to its national security.These actions don't seem rational to me.
The country with a military spend ten times greater than the next largest country, probably with a military the size of most of the rest of the world is scared of individuals approaching its shores bearing nail scissors?
These seem to be the action of a terrified, irrational people and nation.
Therefore, if the USA (and others) have declared a War on Terror*, then the USA being terrified means the emotion Terror has won.
What happens now?
*I would note that I have a problem with the concept "War on Terror" as I don't see how you can declare a war on a human emotion.
Is it possible to have a "War on Joy" for example?
Perhaps you could declare a "War on preventing terror in Americans" and find ways of stopping Americans being terrified but I think this would be a tricky task.
A lot of people are quite frightened of spiders in their bath tubs after all.I think "War on Terror" is short for "War on people who use non-conventional forms of warfare against us that do not declare war on us as a sovereign nation" but I fear that this is difficult to bound in any way so actually means "permanent warfare against any individual or group that we, by our definitions, define as guilty of violent action against us and/or a threat to us at any time in the future".
If it is not against another sovereign state, can war be declared, and can it be agreed to be ceased?
References really welcomed to any well written definitions on what a "War on Terror" means.
I'd really love to find some well argued definitions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585162</id>
	<title>Re:no</title>
	<author>digitalunity</author>
	<datestamp>1262118120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes. Despite the theatrics, our current security is fairly good at preventing physical metallic objects that could be used as weapons. This is a good thing, but doesn't prevent people from using other dangerous materials like ceramics are high density plastics which are equally dangerous as clubs or knives.</p><p>Beyond that, there aren't a lot of other security measures that will have mass appeal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes .
Despite the theatrics , our current security is fairly good at preventing physical metallic objects that could be used as weapons .
This is a good thing , but does n't prevent people from using other dangerous materials like ceramics are high density plastics which are equally dangerous as clubs or knives.Beyond that , there are n't a lot of other security measures that will have mass appeal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes.
Despite the theatrics, our current security is fairly good at preventing physical metallic objects that could be used as weapons.
This is a good thing, but doesn't prevent people from using other dangerous materials like ceramics are high density plastics which are equally dangerous as clubs or knives.Beyond that, there aren't a lot of other security measures that will have mass appeal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584356</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585684</id>
	<title>Re:What about making other things more secure firs</title>
	<author>fprintf</author>
	<datestamp>1262077200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You will be neg'd out of existence because your post is a troll and flamebait, in addition to being wholely inaccurate (as the followup posts indicate).</p><p>Please take your political agenda elsewhere.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You will be neg 'd out of existence because your post is a troll and flamebait , in addition to being wholely inaccurate ( as the followup posts indicate ) .Please take your political agenda elsewhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You will be neg'd out of existence because your post is a troll and flamebait, in addition to being wholely inaccurate (as the followup posts indicate).Please take your political agenda elsewhere.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30603176</id>
	<title>Re:Our biggest problem</title>
	<author>tkw954</author>
	<datestamp>1259865780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>it's a teddy bear that keeps the closet monsters away</p></div></blockquote><p>

My teddy bear keeps the closet monsters away; have you ever seen one?  I also have a rock that repels tigers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's a teddy bear that keeps the closet monsters away My teddy bear keeps the closet monsters away ; have you ever seen one ?
I also have a rock that repels tigers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's a teddy bear that keeps the closet monsters away

My teddy bear keeps the closet monsters away; have you ever seen one?
I also have a rock that repels tigers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30586846</id>
	<title>Re:Bruce is only pointing out the obvious. . . .</title>
	<author>Carnildo</author>
	<datestamp>1262082720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>In a RATIONAL world, **one** terrorism flag (i.e. one-way ticket, buying with cash, no luggage, watch list, etc) would yield pulling the passenger aside and "enhanced investigation": two flags, and the person is getting a very thorough body and luggage search, and three or more flags, it's grab the latex gloves, because it's a strip-search and fine-tooth comb search through luggage and posessions.</p></div></blockquote><p>Earlier this year, I bought a one-way ticket at the last minute with cash while carrying no luggage.  Does this make me a terrorist?  No, it just means I missed my connecting flight because the flight I was on was delayed by weather, and the airline lost my luggage.</p><p>In a RATIONAL world, I'd be permitted to walk from the ticket counter to the departure gate without any interference -- the determination that I'm not a terrorist would have taken place far from the airport and long before I arrived, through the actions of whichever three-letter agency is tasked with investigating and breaking up terrorist plots.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In a RATIONAL world , * * one * * terrorism flag ( i.e .
one-way ticket , buying with cash , no luggage , watch list , etc ) would yield pulling the passenger aside and " enhanced investigation " : two flags , and the person is getting a very thorough body and luggage search , and three or more flags , it 's grab the latex gloves , because it 's a strip-search and fine-tooth comb search through luggage and posessions.Earlier this year , I bought a one-way ticket at the last minute with cash while carrying no luggage .
Does this make me a terrorist ?
No , it just means I missed my connecting flight because the flight I was on was delayed by weather , and the airline lost my luggage.In a RATIONAL world , I 'd be permitted to walk from the ticket counter to the departure gate without any interference -- the determination that I 'm not a terrorist would have taken place far from the airport and long before I arrived , through the actions of whichever three-letter agency is tasked with investigating and breaking up terrorist plots .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In a RATIONAL world, **one** terrorism flag (i.e.
one-way ticket, buying with cash, no luggage, watch list, etc) would yield pulling the passenger aside and "enhanced investigation": two flags, and the person is getting a very thorough body and luggage search, and three or more flags, it's grab the latex gloves, because it's a strip-search and fine-tooth comb search through luggage and posessions.Earlier this year, I bought a one-way ticket at the last minute with cash while carrying no luggage.
Does this make me a terrorist?
No, it just means I missed my connecting flight because the flight I was on was delayed by weather, and the airline lost my luggage.In a RATIONAL world, I'd be permitted to walk from the ticket counter to the departure gate without any interference -- the determination that I'm not a terrorist would have taken place far from the airport and long before I arrived, through the actions of whichever three-letter agency is tasked with investigating and breaking up terrorist plots.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585278</id>
	<title>Get real; there is an overriding state interest he</title>
	<author>dirkdodgers</author>
	<datestamp>1262118660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Planes have been demonstrated to be used as weapons of mass destruction. Laugh at that if you want, but you'd have to be one sick, narcissistic fuck to think that's humorous. Should we really allow airlines to pickup lightly screened passengers out of Yemen by the busload and fly them into our country just because that's the business model they chose? Should we really outlaw intrusive screening because you're uptight about the possibility that some dork behind the scanner will chuckle at your beer gut and your low hanging balls?</p><p>Get real. There is absolutely an overriding state interest in ensuring that planes are not commandeered by terrorists and are not taken down by terrorists over densely populated areas, if nothing else because it is charged with the protection of the life and property of those on the ground in the paths of these flights. Requiring intrusive screening techniques and requiring that passengers keep their hands visible and their laps unobstructed are entirely reasonable as short-term measures until a full reevaluation can be completed.</p><p>Flying is a privilege, not a right. Security of life and property, is a right, and you do not get to endanger my life and property for your own preference for convenience or privacy in exercise of the privilege of flying.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Planes have been demonstrated to be used as weapons of mass destruction .
Laugh at that if you want , but you 'd have to be one sick , narcissistic fuck to think that 's humorous .
Should we really allow airlines to pickup lightly screened passengers out of Yemen by the busload and fly them into our country just because that 's the business model they chose ?
Should we really outlaw intrusive screening because you 're uptight about the possibility that some dork behind the scanner will chuckle at your beer gut and your low hanging balls ? Get real .
There is absolutely an overriding state interest in ensuring that planes are not commandeered by terrorists and are not taken down by terrorists over densely populated areas , if nothing else because it is charged with the protection of the life and property of those on the ground in the paths of these flights .
Requiring intrusive screening techniques and requiring that passengers keep their hands visible and their laps unobstructed are entirely reasonable as short-term measures until a full reevaluation can be completed.Flying is a privilege , not a right .
Security of life and property , is a right , and you do not get to endanger my life and property for your own preference for convenience or privacy in exercise of the privilege of flying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Planes have been demonstrated to be used as weapons of mass destruction.
Laugh at that if you want, but you'd have to be one sick, narcissistic fuck to think that's humorous.
Should we really allow airlines to pickup lightly screened passengers out of Yemen by the busload and fly them into our country just because that's the business model they chose?
Should we really outlaw intrusive screening because you're uptight about the possibility that some dork behind the scanner will chuckle at your beer gut and your low hanging balls?Get real.
There is absolutely an overriding state interest in ensuring that planes are not commandeered by terrorists and are not taken down by terrorists over densely populated areas, if nothing else because it is charged with the protection of the life and property of those on the ground in the paths of these flights.
Requiring intrusive screening techniques and requiring that passengers keep their hands visible and their laps unobstructed are entirely reasonable as short-term measures until a full reevaluation can be completed.Flying is a privilege, not a right.
Security of life and property, is a right, and you do not get to endanger my life and property for your own preference for convenience or privacy in exercise of the privilege of flying.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585172</id>
	<title>Re:Can we make Air Travel Secure?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262118180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The sooner most people grow and learn that "Shit Happens (tm)" and that no one can every prepare for every eventuality, the better. The "Security Theatre" is just a new opening for corrupt politicans and power-hungry individuals to remove more freedom from people.</p></div><p>That's a defeatist attitude. One problem is we're leaving ourselves helpless -- assuming that the checkpoints will work, creating "sterile zones", and if those methods fail we have nothing to fall back on. Israel, on the other hand, requires that all of its citizens undergo military training -- and curiously enough, being armed in public is commonplace. Carrying knives onto planes is legal. Very few terrorists succeed despite the large numbers of attempts occurring daily, because at any point a citizen has the training to take a terrorist down and knows that they are surrounded by others who also have training and know what to do, look for, and react when a situation occurs.</p><p>Whereas in this country, our sense of helplessness and fear leads people to become terrified of a man with food poisoning puking his guts out in the bathroom during landing -- <i>because of the color of his skin</i>. That's simply pathetic for so many reasons, first of which is that the guy must have been terrified to open the door for fear of being dragged out and beat on by a bunch of people who'd already judged him a threat and could easily kill him for doing nothing worse than eating a burrito that didn't agree with him and that's a shame on us. Secondly, that our rules are so stringent and unyielding that we would make grown people piss or shit their pants, vomit over each other and themselves -- and for what? How can that possibly help security? This is a pathetic state of affairs that wouldn't exist if we as a society felt we could take care of ourselves.</p><p>Our problem isn't in terms of operational security -- our problem is culture. We are constantly told to be docile and passive in the face of lethal threats. How is this a sane response? Anyone who's had even the most minimal combat training will tell you that the right answer 98\% of the time is to turn into the attack. I don't care if the guy has fully automatic assault rifle and body armor on the plane -- five people with pocket knives within fifteen feet of him bum-rushing him's going to drop him if they're coordinated. And yes, a couple people will die that is a certainty -- or you can sit there and let the two hundred or so people die. Really, now -- if you had the knife in your hand, which option would you pick? Wait for death, or meet it head on? We all strive to prevent the worst-case scenario, but we shouldn't be paralyzed by fear if we find ourselves in it.</p><p>Terrorism only works because we allow ourselves to be afraid. As politely as I can say this -- stop living in fear. Learn how to defend yourself and then stop putting yourself in high-risk situations. That's advice that works as well for countries as it does for individuals.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The sooner most people grow and learn that " Shit Happens ( tm ) " and that no one can every prepare for every eventuality , the better .
The " Security Theatre " is just a new opening for corrupt politicans and power-hungry individuals to remove more freedom from people.That 's a defeatist attitude .
One problem is we 're leaving ourselves helpless -- assuming that the checkpoints will work , creating " sterile zones " , and if those methods fail we have nothing to fall back on .
Israel , on the other hand , requires that all of its citizens undergo military training -- and curiously enough , being armed in public is commonplace .
Carrying knives onto planes is legal .
Very few terrorists succeed despite the large numbers of attempts occurring daily , because at any point a citizen has the training to take a terrorist down and knows that they are surrounded by others who also have training and know what to do , look for , and react when a situation occurs.Whereas in this country , our sense of helplessness and fear leads people to become terrified of a man with food poisoning puking his guts out in the bathroom during landing -- because of the color of his skin .
That 's simply pathetic for so many reasons , first of which is that the guy must have been terrified to open the door for fear of being dragged out and beat on by a bunch of people who 'd already judged him a threat and could easily kill him for doing nothing worse than eating a burrito that did n't agree with him and that 's a shame on us .
Secondly , that our rules are so stringent and unyielding that we would make grown people piss or shit their pants , vomit over each other and themselves -- and for what ?
How can that possibly help security ?
This is a pathetic state of affairs that would n't exist if we as a society felt we could take care of ourselves.Our problem is n't in terms of operational security -- our problem is culture .
We are constantly told to be docile and passive in the face of lethal threats .
How is this a sane response ?
Anyone who 's had even the most minimal combat training will tell you that the right answer 98 \ % of the time is to turn into the attack .
I do n't care if the guy has fully automatic assault rifle and body armor on the plane -- five people with pocket knives within fifteen feet of him bum-rushing him 's going to drop him if they 're coordinated .
And yes , a couple people will die that is a certainty -- or you can sit there and let the two hundred or so people die .
Really , now -- if you had the knife in your hand , which option would you pick ?
Wait for death , or meet it head on ?
We all strive to prevent the worst-case scenario , but we should n't be paralyzed by fear if we find ourselves in it.Terrorism only works because we allow ourselves to be afraid .
As politely as I can say this -- stop living in fear .
Learn how to defend yourself and then stop putting yourself in high-risk situations .
That 's advice that works as well for countries as it does for individuals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The sooner most people grow and learn that "Shit Happens (tm)" and that no one can every prepare for every eventuality, the better.
The "Security Theatre" is just a new opening for corrupt politicans and power-hungry individuals to remove more freedom from people.That's a defeatist attitude.
One problem is we're leaving ourselves helpless -- assuming that the checkpoints will work, creating "sterile zones", and if those methods fail we have nothing to fall back on.
Israel, on the other hand, requires that all of its citizens undergo military training -- and curiously enough, being armed in public is commonplace.
Carrying knives onto planes is legal.
Very few terrorists succeed despite the large numbers of attempts occurring daily, because at any point a citizen has the training to take a terrorist down and knows that they are surrounded by others who also have training and know what to do, look for, and react when a situation occurs.Whereas in this country, our sense of helplessness and fear leads people to become terrified of a man with food poisoning puking his guts out in the bathroom during landing -- because of the color of his skin.
That's simply pathetic for so many reasons, first of which is that the guy must have been terrified to open the door for fear of being dragged out and beat on by a bunch of people who'd already judged him a threat and could easily kill him for doing nothing worse than eating a burrito that didn't agree with him and that's a shame on us.
Secondly, that our rules are so stringent and unyielding that we would make grown people piss or shit their pants, vomit over each other and themselves -- and for what?
How can that possibly help security?
This is a pathetic state of affairs that wouldn't exist if we as a society felt we could take care of ourselves.Our problem isn't in terms of operational security -- our problem is culture.
We are constantly told to be docile and passive in the face of lethal threats.
How is this a sane response?
Anyone who's had even the most minimal combat training will tell you that the right answer 98\% of the time is to turn into the attack.
I don't care if the guy has fully automatic assault rifle and body armor on the plane -- five people with pocket knives within fifteen feet of him bum-rushing him's going to drop him if they're coordinated.
And yes, a couple people will die that is a certainty -- or you can sit there and let the two hundred or so people die.
Really, now -- if you had the knife in your hand, which option would you pick?
Wait for death, or meet it head on?
We all strive to prevent the worst-case scenario, but we shouldn't be paralyzed by fear if we find ourselves in it.Terrorism only works because we allow ourselves to be afraid.
As politely as I can say this -- stop living in fear.
Learn how to defend yourself and then stop putting yourself in high-risk situations.
That's advice that works as well for countries as it does for individuals.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585702</id>
	<title>I worked there ....</title>
	<author>tazanator</author>
	<datestamp>1262077260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Having worked for the TSA and the army for some time, the only way for safe air travel is you show up at the airport and just like a prison you strip and leave everything behind for a jump suit.  Only the jump suit and your body goes on the plane (no phones, paper, whatever!  and body screened for hidden items) a second plane flies the luggage and you belongings to the destination.  Humans are safe and only belongings can get blown up.  (only threat left is the burrito you had for lunch)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Having worked for the TSA and the army for some time , the only way for safe air travel is you show up at the airport and just like a prison you strip and leave everything behind for a jump suit .
Only the jump suit and your body goes on the plane ( no phones , paper , whatever !
and body screened for hidden items ) a second plane flies the luggage and you belongings to the destination .
Humans are safe and only belongings can get blown up .
( only threat left is the burrito you had for lunch )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having worked for the TSA and the army for some time, the only way for safe air travel is you show up at the airport and just like a prison you strip and leave everything behind for a jump suit.
Only the jump suit and your body goes on the plane (no phones, paper, whatever!
and body screened for hidden items) a second plane flies the luggage and you belongings to the destination.
Humans are safe and only belongings can get blown up.
(only threat left is the burrito you had for lunch)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30591280</id>
	<title>Khalid the Droll...</title>
	<author>evilviper</author>
	<datestamp>1259873340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The scariest thing about all this, is that it was prophesied to a "T" on the Daily Show quite some time ago:</p><p><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-june-19-2006/calvin-trillin" title="thedailyshow.com">http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-june-19-2006/calvin-trillin</a> [thedailyshow.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The scariest thing about all this , is that it was prophesied to a " T " on the Daily Show quite some time ago : http : //www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-june-19-2006/calvin-trillin [ thedailyshow.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The scariest thing about all this, is that it was prophesied to a "T" on the Daily Show quite some time ago:http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-june-19-2006/calvin-trillin [thedailyshow.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585104</id>
	<title>They're not dumb</title>
	<author>busydoingnothing</author>
	<datestamp>1262117880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think the biggest mistake that we appear to make is that we think these people attempting to pull of these attacks are dumb. I think we grossly underestimate their intelligence, almost as if it's dangerous or anti-American to think of them as smart and very capable. In response to their failed attempts, we institute rules that'll potentially prevent that specific attempt in the future, and any person of average intelligence can see how absurd it is to think that will make us any safer, as if there's not a thousand other ways to commit such an act. In turn, that makes <i>us</i> look absolutely foolish. Shouldn't we at least <i>try</i> to look like we're outsmarting them?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the biggest mistake that we appear to make is that we think these people attempting to pull of these attacks are dumb .
I think we grossly underestimate their intelligence , almost as if it 's dangerous or anti-American to think of them as smart and very capable .
In response to their failed attempts , we institute rules that 'll potentially prevent that specific attempt in the future , and any person of average intelligence can see how absurd it is to think that will make us any safer , as if there 's not a thousand other ways to commit such an act .
In turn , that makes us look absolutely foolish .
Should n't we at least try to look like we 're outsmarting them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the biggest mistake that we appear to make is that we think these people attempting to pull of these attacks are dumb.
I think we grossly underestimate their intelligence, almost as if it's dangerous or anti-American to think of them as smart and very capable.
In response to their failed attempts, we institute rules that'll potentially prevent that specific attempt in the future, and any person of average intelligence can see how absurd it is to think that will make us any safer, as if there's not a thousand other ways to commit such an act.
In turn, that makes us look absolutely foolish.
Shouldn't we at least try to look like we're outsmarting them?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585784</id>
	<title>Re:What about making other things more secure firs</title>
	<author>swinefc</author>
	<datestamp>1262077620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Quick Google search shows that 300,000 people are killed by obesity each year.  Time to ban cheeseburgers.</p><p>Please let the madness of trying to ban / legislate away all the things that can hurt us.</p><p>The question becomes how far is too far?  I think as long as I wake up each morning without fearing for my life, then a reasonable level of safety has been achieved.</p><p>I like to talk on the phone while driving.  BTW, I find the radio much more distracting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Quick Google search shows that 300,000 people are killed by obesity each year .
Time to ban cheeseburgers.Please let the madness of trying to ban / legislate away all the things that can hurt us.The question becomes how far is too far ?
I think as long as I wake up each morning without fearing for my life , then a reasonable level of safety has been achieved.I like to talk on the phone while driving .
BTW , I find the radio much more distracting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quick Google search shows that 300,000 people are killed by obesity each year.
Time to ban cheeseburgers.Please let the madness of trying to ban / legislate away all the things that can hurt us.The question becomes how far is too far?
I think as long as I wake up each morning without fearing for my life, then a reasonable level of safety has been achieved.I like to talk on the phone while driving.
BTW, I find the radio much more distracting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584608</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584792</id>
	<title>it can be improved</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262116260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Replace the TSA with a bunch of Israeli screeners.  They manage to do a good job without inconveniencing legitimate travelers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Replace the TSA with a bunch of Israeli screeners .
They manage to do a good job without inconveniencing legitimate travelers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Replace the TSA with a bunch of Israeli screeners.
They manage to do a good job without inconveniencing legitimate travelers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30589742</id>
	<title>Re:Can we make Air Travel Secure?</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1262099280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>That's a defeatist attitude.</p></div></blockquote><p>

No it's not. A defeatist attitude is that we have to sacrifice what we hold dear in order to gain a blanket of false security.</p><blockquote><div><p>Israel, on the other hand, requires that all of its citizens undergo military training -- and curiously enough, being armed in public is commonplace. Carrying knives onto planes is legal.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Israel is not a poster child of a safe place to live. You can be killed there for having the wrong colour skin or simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time. You also forget that despite all this Israel still suffers regular attacks. Israel developed national service as a response to real attacks, not a proactive defence against imagined dangers.<br> <br>

Further more, giving everyone guns will make people forget about the terrorist bogeyman, but only because they now have to worry about everyone else around them, only one person has to pop a vein in their head and decide that shooting their way through the Macca's line is a good idea. MAD does not work on a large scale for this reason, it makes everyone as safe as the most unstable individual.</p><blockquote><div><p>because at any point a citizen has the training to take a terrorist down</p></div></blockquote><p>

You're assuming that everyone wants this. You're also assuming that everyone will be capable of doing this. We can't even make sure that everyone on the road can drive safely yet you expect them to become Krav Maga experts, good luck with that.<br> <br>

You also fail to account for the fact that now many potential terrorist will have the same training or that the current tactics will not evolve. You are making the same mistake as the TSA/Homeland Security, you're preparing to defend against the last attack rather then treating the cause.<br> <br>

Now your general point is OK but your application is not sound. No, we should not be afraid but we do not have to kill in order to do this, having to kill to ensure your safety is the act of a scared coward. What we forget is that previously, every time a plane was hijacked, it landed and the hijackers sent a list of demands to the authorities (normally for money and/or prisoners), the authorities either acquiesced or stormed the plane, most deaths in hijackings occurred when the police/militaries botched the storming part. Now since 2001, as Bruce Shneier points out, passengers will fight back so most of the worlds terrorist organisations are now sitting back in their palaces/caves/jungle huts saying "fuck, now we cant hijack planes for fun and profit any more", the law of unintended consequences at work. The vast majority of terrorist organisations (HAMAS, FARC, LTTE, Abu Sayaf and so on) are aiming for a very specific goal (normally land/regime change in their home countries) so killing a plane load of good hostages doesnt get them anywhere.<br> <br>

BTW, the Moro Islamic Liberation Front has to be the best named terrorist organisation in the world.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's a defeatist attitude .
No it 's not .
A defeatist attitude is that we have to sacrifice what we hold dear in order to gain a blanket of false security.Israel , on the other hand , requires that all of its citizens undergo military training -- and curiously enough , being armed in public is commonplace .
Carrying knives onto planes is legal .
Israel is not a poster child of a safe place to live .
You can be killed there for having the wrong colour skin or simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time .
You also forget that despite all this Israel still suffers regular attacks .
Israel developed national service as a response to real attacks , not a proactive defence against imagined dangers .
Further more , giving everyone guns will make people forget about the terrorist bogeyman , but only because they now have to worry about everyone else around them , only one person has to pop a vein in their head and decide that shooting their way through the Macca 's line is a good idea .
MAD does not work on a large scale for this reason , it makes everyone as safe as the most unstable individual.because at any point a citizen has the training to take a terrorist down You 're assuming that everyone wants this .
You 're also assuming that everyone will be capable of doing this .
We ca n't even make sure that everyone on the road can drive safely yet you expect them to become Krav Maga experts , good luck with that .
You also fail to account for the fact that now many potential terrorist will have the same training or that the current tactics will not evolve .
You are making the same mistake as the TSA/Homeland Security , you 're preparing to defend against the last attack rather then treating the cause .
Now your general point is OK but your application is not sound .
No , we should not be afraid but we do not have to kill in order to do this , having to kill to ensure your safety is the act of a scared coward .
What we forget is that previously , every time a plane was hijacked , it landed and the hijackers sent a list of demands to the authorities ( normally for money and/or prisoners ) , the authorities either acquiesced or stormed the plane , most deaths in hijackings occurred when the police/militaries botched the storming part .
Now since 2001 , as Bruce Shneier points out , passengers will fight back so most of the worlds terrorist organisations are now sitting back in their palaces/caves/jungle huts saying " fuck , now we cant hijack planes for fun and profit any more " , the law of unintended consequences at work .
The vast majority of terrorist organisations ( HAMAS , FARC , LTTE , Abu Sayaf and so on ) are aiming for a very specific goal ( normally land/regime change in their home countries ) so killing a plane load of good hostages doesnt get them anywhere .
BTW , the Moro Islamic Liberation Front has to be the best named terrorist organisation in the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's a defeatist attitude.
No it's not.
A defeatist attitude is that we have to sacrifice what we hold dear in order to gain a blanket of false security.Israel, on the other hand, requires that all of its citizens undergo military training -- and curiously enough, being armed in public is commonplace.
Carrying knives onto planes is legal.
Israel is not a poster child of a safe place to live.
You can be killed there for having the wrong colour skin or simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
You also forget that despite all this Israel still suffers regular attacks.
Israel developed national service as a response to real attacks, not a proactive defence against imagined dangers.
Further more, giving everyone guns will make people forget about the terrorist bogeyman, but only because they now have to worry about everyone else around them, only one person has to pop a vein in their head and decide that shooting their way through the Macca's line is a good idea.
MAD does not work on a large scale for this reason, it makes everyone as safe as the most unstable individual.because at any point a citizen has the training to take a terrorist down

You're assuming that everyone wants this.
You're also assuming that everyone will be capable of doing this.
We can't even make sure that everyone on the road can drive safely yet you expect them to become Krav Maga experts, good luck with that.
You also fail to account for the fact that now many potential terrorist will have the same training or that the current tactics will not evolve.
You are making the same mistake as the TSA/Homeland Security, you're preparing to defend against the last attack rather then treating the cause.
Now your general point is OK but your application is not sound.
No, we should not be afraid but we do not have to kill in order to do this, having to kill to ensure your safety is the act of a scared coward.
What we forget is that previously, every time a plane was hijacked, it landed and the hijackers sent a list of demands to the authorities (normally for money and/or prisoners), the authorities either acquiesced or stormed the plane, most deaths in hijackings occurred when the police/militaries botched the storming part.
Now since 2001, as Bruce Shneier points out, passengers will fight back so most of the worlds terrorist organisations are now sitting back in their palaces/caves/jungle huts saying "fuck, now we cant hijack planes for fun and profit any more", the law of unintended consequences at work.
The vast majority of terrorist organisations (HAMAS, FARC, LTTE, Abu Sayaf and so on) are aiming for a very specific goal (normally land/regime change in their home countries) so killing a plane load of good hostages doesnt get them anywhere.
BTW, the Moro Islamic Liberation Front has to be the best named terrorist organisation in the world.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30587020</id>
	<title>Re:no</title>
	<author>digitig</author>
	<datestamp>1262083740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yes. Despite the theatrics, our current security is fairly good at preventing physical metallic objects that could be used as weapons.</p></div><p>"Fairly good", but of course not perfect. "Truly secure" is as much a myth as "Truly safe". Security and safety have to be traded against utility whether we like it or not. After all, as somebody pointed out on BBC radio yesterday (so this idea is already well publicised), if the suicide bomber can't get the stuff on board then they can cause plenty of devastation setting off an explosive in a crowded security screening area at a major airport.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes .
Despite the theatrics , our current security is fairly good at preventing physical metallic objects that could be used as weapons .
" Fairly good " , but of course not perfect .
" Truly secure " is as much a myth as " Truly safe " .
Security and safety have to be traded against utility whether we like it or not .
After all , as somebody pointed out on BBC radio yesterday ( so this idea is already well publicised ) , if the suicide bomber ca n't get the stuff on board then they can cause plenty of devastation setting off an explosive in a crowded security screening area at a major airport .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes.
Despite the theatrics, our current security is fairly good at preventing physical metallic objects that could be used as weapons.
"Fairly good", but of course not perfect.
"Truly secure" is as much a myth as "Truly safe".
Security and safety have to be traded against utility whether we like it or not.
After all, as somebody pointed out on BBC radio yesterday (so this idea is already well publicised), if the suicide bomber can't get the stuff on board then they can cause plenty of devastation setting off an explosive in a crowded security screening area at a major airport.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30590396</id>
	<title>Re:Bruce is only pointing out the obvious. . . .</title>
	<author>shadowbearer</author>
	<datestamp>1262105940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>as far as the TSA and similar efforts go, the Emperor not only has no clothes,</i></p><p>
&nbsp; A friend of mine not long ago likened it to the Emperor doing a strip tease in public, and the media didn't show up, save for a few bloggers<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p><p>
&nbsp; Irony is still one of the least appreciated forms of humor...</p><p>SB</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>as far as the TSA and similar efforts go , the Emperor not only has no clothes ,   A friend of mine not long ago likened it to the Emperor doing a strip tease in public , and the media did n't show up , save for a few bloggers ; )   Irony is still one of the least appreciated forms of humor...SB</tokentext>
<sentencetext>as far as the TSA and similar efforts go, the Emperor not only has no clothes,
  A friend of mine not long ago likened it to the Emperor doing a strip tease in public, and the media didn't show up, save for a few bloggers ;)
  Irony is still one of the least appreciated forms of humor...SB</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585010</id>
	<title>Can be done, but public won't like it.</title>
	<author>petes\_PoV</author>
	<datestamp>1262117400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No carry on at all and dressed only in disposable paper overalls.
<p>
Once you separate the people (i.e. their bodies) from everything else the chances of them doing anything that could threaten an airplane drop dramatically. Short of ingesting some sort of explosive, in large enough quantities to make a hole in a plane there aren't many other ways to do damage.
</p><p>
However, all that will happen then is that the baddies will find other ways to cause fear: such as targeting easier forms of transport, IEDs beside motorways for example.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No carry on at all and dressed only in disposable paper overalls .
Once you separate the people ( i.e .
their bodies ) from everything else the chances of them doing anything that could threaten an airplane drop dramatically .
Short of ingesting some sort of explosive , in large enough quantities to make a hole in a plane there are n't many other ways to do damage .
However , all that will happen then is that the baddies will find other ways to cause fear : such as targeting easier forms of transport , IEDs beside motorways for example .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No carry on at all and dressed only in disposable paper overalls.
Once you separate the people (i.e.
their bodies) from everything else the chances of them doing anything that could threaten an airplane drop dramatically.
Short of ingesting some sort of explosive, in large enough quantities to make a hole in a plane there aren't many other ways to do damage.
However, all that will happen then is that the baddies will find other ways to cause fear: such as targeting easier forms of transport, IEDs beside motorways for example.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584474</id>
	<title>Go Back to Allowing Passenger To be Armed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262114880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Terrorists prefer easy targets.  This is much less likely if they have to assume the plane (or bus.. or train) might be full of people carrying weapons.</p><p>No.. I'm not an NRA activist or a 'gun wacko'.  I don't even own a firearm, but I do know that people used to carry guns on planes and that the stupidity with hijacking actually went up when passengers were required to disarm.  I'd like to see terrorists run the risk of being shot dead in order to carry out their idiocy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Terrorists prefer easy targets .
This is much less likely if they have to assume the plane ( or bus.. or train ) might be full of people carrying weapons.No.. I 'm not an NRA activist or a 'gun wacko' .
I do n't even own a firearm , but I do know that people used to carry guns on planes and that the stupidity with hijacking actually went up when passengers were required to disarm .
I 'd like to see terrorists run the risk of being shot dead in order to carry out their idiocy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Terrorists prefer easy targets.
This is much less likely if they have to assume the plane (or bus.. or train) might be full of people carrying weapons.No.. I'm not an NRA activist or a 'gun wacko'.
I don't even own a firearm, but I do know that people used to carry guns on planes and that the stupidity with hijacking actually went up when passengers were required to disarm.
I'd like to see terrorists run the risk of being shot dead in order to carry out their idiocy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585034</id>
	<title>Travel safely outside the NATO alliance</title>
	<author>xiando</author>
	<datestamp>1262117580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Only the NATO alliance and then primarily it's biggest member, the USA, carries out false-flag terrorist attacks against it's own citizens using aircraft. Don't travel to the US and you're pretty much safe, stay out of the NATO alliance and you're flying with no chance of being killed by your government in a false-flag terror attack.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Only the NATO alliance and then primarily it 's biggest member , the USA , carries out false-flag terrorist attacks against it 's own citizens using aircraft .
Do n't travel to the US and you 're pretty much safe , stay out of the NATO alliance and you 're flying with no chance of being killed by your government in a false-flag terror attack .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only the NATO alliance and then primarily it's biggest member, the USA, carries out false-flag terrorist attacks against it's own citizens using aircraft.
Don't travel to the US and you're pretty much safe, stay out of the NATO alliance and you're flying with no chance of being killed by your government in a false-flag terror attack.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30587740</id>
	<title>Re:Can we make Air Travel Secure?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262086200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Israel, on the other hand, requires that all of its citizens undergo military training -- and curiously enough, being armed in public is commonplace. Carrying knives onto planes is legal. Very few terrorists succeed despite the large numbers of attempts occurring daily, because at any point a citizen has the training to take a terrorist down and knows that they are surrounded by others who also have training and know what to do, look for, and react when a situation occurs.</p></div><p>Sorry, but no - I'm Israeli, and I was never allowed on an EL AL (or other) plane carrying a knife, or anything resembling a weapon.<br>And also sorry to break your illusion, Israelis are just like the next person - only very very small percent of Israelis has the training to subdue a terrorist on a place - just like any other nationals.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Israel , on the other hand , requires that all of its citizens undergo military training -- and curiously enough , being armed in public is commonplace .
Carrying knives onto planes is legal .
Very few terrorists succeed despite the large numbers of attempts occurring daily , because at any point a citizen has the training to take a terrorist down and knows that they are surrounded by others who also have training and know what to do , look for , and react when a situation occurs.Sorry , but no - I 'm Israeli , and I was never allowed on an EL AL ( or other ) plane carrying a knife , or anything resembling a weapon.And also sorry to break your illusion , Israelis are just like the next person - only very very small percent of Israelis has the training to subdue a terrorist on a place - just like any other nationals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Israel, on the other hand, requires that all of its citizens undergo military training -- and curiously enough, being armed in public is commonplace.
Carrying knives onto planes is legal.
Very few terrorists succeed despite the large numbers of attempts occurring daily, because at any point a citizen has the training to take a terrorist down and knows that they are surrounded by others who also have training and know what to do, look for, and react when a situation occurs.Sorry, but no - I'm Israeli, and I was never allowed on an EL AL (or other) plane carrying a knife, or anything resembling a weapon.And also sorry to break your illusion, Israelis are just like the next person - only very very small percent of Israelis has the training to subdue a terrorist on a place - just like any other nationals.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585952</id>
	<title>Re:no</title>
	<author>jcr</author>
	<datestamp>1262078220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>our current security is fairly good at preventing physical metallic objects that could be used as weapons. </i></p><p>No, it's not.  I've taken my umbrella on flights since 9/11, and if I had to choose between that and a knife, I'd give the other guy the knife every time.</p><p>-jcr</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>our current security is fairly good at preventing physical metallic objects that could be used as weapons .
No , it 's not .
I 've taken my umbrella on flights since 9/11 , and if I had to choose between that and a knife , I 'd give the other guy the knife every time.-jcr</tokentext>
<sentencetext>our current security is fairly good at preventing physical metallic objects that could be used as weapons.
No, it's not.
I've taken my umbrella on flights since 9/11, and if I had to choose between that and a knife, I'd give the other guy the knife every time.-jcr</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584358</id>
	<title>the4thdimension must idolize</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262114400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Captain James Tiberius Kirk, due to, all of the, commas inserted, into his summary, perhaps to add dramatic, effect. A little tough, to read, but who am I to be, a grammar, Nazi.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)~</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Captain James Tiberius Kirk , due to , all of the , commas inserted , into his summary , perhaps to add dramatic , effect .
A little tough , to read , but who am I to be , a grammar , Nazi .
: - ) ~</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Captain James Tiberius Kirk, due to, all of the, commas inserted, into his summary, perhaps to add dramatic, effect.
A little tough, to read, but who am I to be, a grammar, Nazi.
:-)~</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30589674</id>
	<title>Re:no</title>
	<author>shadowbearer</author>
	<datestamp>1262098560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> Is it a "battered black umbrella, with a couple of bullet holes in it"?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p><p>SB<br>
&nbsp; (a recommendation to read Robert Frezza and his Small Colonial War series of SF books is in order here)</p><p>
&nbsp; (an old fashioned long umbrella has a lot more reach and potential lethality, at least if one can make modifications to it...)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it a " battered black umbrella , with a couple of bullet holes in it " ?
; ) SB   ( a recommendation to read Robert Frezza and his Small Colonial War series of SF books is in order here )   ( an old fashioned long umbrella has a lot more reach and potential lethality , at least if one can make modifications to it... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Is it a "battered black umbrella, with a couple of bullet holes in it"?
;)SB
  (a recommendation to read Robert Frezza and his Small Colonial War series of SF books is in order here)
  (an old fashioned long umbrella has a lot more reach and potential lethality, at least if one can make modifications to it...)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30588984</id>
	<title>Re:Can be done, but public won't like it.</title>
	<author>jonwil</author>
	<datestamp>1262092440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even if you do that, I can still find at least 20 things on the plane itself that can be used to kill or incapacitate the pilots and crew (which is generally the easiest answer if you want to bring down the airplane)<br>Not to mention that Al-Queda could easily teach their terrorists the art of killing with your bare hands.</p><p>Short of putting all the passengers to sleep with pills or knockout gas, it is impossible to stop a determined terrorist from gaining control of the plane and/or damaging it in such a way as to cause it to crash.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if you do that , I can still find at least 20 things on the plane itself that can be used to kill or incapacitate the pilots and crew ( which is generally the easiest answer if you want to bring down the airplane ) Not to mention that Al-Queda could easily teach their terrorists the art of killing with your bare hands.Short of putting all the passengers to sleep with pills or knockout gas , it is impossible to stop a determined terrorist from gaining control of the plane and/or damaging it in such a way as to cause it to crash .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if you do that, I can still find at least 20 things on the plane itself that can be used to kill or incapacitate the pilots and crew (which is generally the easiest answer if you want to bring down the airplane)Not to mention that Al-Queda could easily teach their terrorists the art of killing with your bare hands.Short of putting all the passengers to sleep with pills or knockout gas, it is impossible to stop a determined terrorist from gaining control of the plane and/or damaging it in such a way as to cause it to crash.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584834</id>
	<title>Extra "security" makes people feel safe?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262116500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find it odd that there are people who feel more safe when they take off their shoes. Whenever I've gone somewhere where they pat me down and check me with a metal detector wand, it makes me feel like someone is going to shoot me inside there. I feel more vulnerable.</p><p>I recently went to a rollerskating rink where I was wanded and patted down by a police officer. Of course he didn't even check my skates which has more than enough room for a hand gun. Metal detector and pat down at a skate rink, perhaps I shouldn't be here. Did I feel safe there? Not at all, it did the opposite.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it odd that there are people who feel more safe when they take off their shoes .
Whenever I 've gone somewhere where they pat me down and check me with a metal detector wand , it makes me feel like someone is going to shoot me inside there .
I feel more vulnerable.I recently went to a rollerskating rink where I was wanded and patted down by a police officer .
Of course he did n't even check my skates which has more than enough room for a hand gun .
Metal detector and pat down at a skate rink , perhaps I should n't be here .
Did I feel safe there ?
Not at all , it did the opposite .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it odd that there are people who feel more safe when they take off their shoes.
Whenever I've gone somewhere where they pat me down and check me with a metal detector wand, it makes me feel like someone is going to shoot me inside there.
I feel more vulnerable.I recently went to a rollerskating rink where I was wanded and patted down by a police officer.
Of course he didn't even check my skates which has more than enough room for a hand gun.
Metal detector and pat down at a skate rink, perhaps I shouldn't be here.
Did I feel safe there?
Not at all, it did the opposite.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584608</id>
	<title>What about making other things more secure first?</title>
	<author>Eadwacer</author>
	<datestamp>1262115480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Roughly 16,000 people were killed by automobiles in the first six months of this year. Roughly 22,000 were killed by preventable medical errors. If we crashed two or three 747s per week, we still wouldn't be at that level of deaths. If the money we waste on TSA were spent elsewhere, we'd be ahead of the game.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Roughly 16,000 people were killed by automobiles in the first six months of this year .
Roughly 22,000 were killed by preventable medical errors .
If we crashed two or three 747s per week , we still would n't be at that level of deaths .
If the money we waste on TSA were spent elsewhere , we 'd be ahead of the game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Roughly 16,000 people were killed by automobiles in the first six months of this year.
Roughly 22,000 were killed by preventable medical errors.
If we crashed two or three 747s per week, we still wouldn't be at that level of deaths.
If the money we waste on TSA were spent elsewhere, we'd be ahead of the game.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30589834</id>
	<title>Re:Change of Mindset</title>
	<author>colinrichardday</author>
	<datestamp>1262100000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, if you insist on dragging facts and logic into the discussion . . .</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , if you insist on dragging facts and logic into the discussion .
. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, if you insist on dragging facts and logic into the discussion .
. .</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30586534</id>
	<title>Bravo Bruce!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262081160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bruce's commentary is one of the base written and most cogent arguments I've read to date criticizing the U.S.'s current security policies. My only addition would be to expand upon how our often schizophrenic foreign policy has resulted in the disenfranchisement of millions around the world. If we'd concentrated more on supporting and fostering democratic and economic reforms throughout the developing world rather than propping up two bit dictators for political expediency then we wouldn't be in this situation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bruce 's commentary is one of the base written and most cogent arguments I 've read to date criticizing the U.S. 's current security policies .
My only addition would be to expand upon how our often schizophrenic foreign policy has resulted in the disenfranchisement of millions around the world .
If we 'd concentrated more on supporting and fostering democratic and economic reforms throughout the developing world rather than propping up two bit dictators for political expediency then we would n't be in this situation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bruce's commentary is one of the base written and most cogent arguments I've read to date criticizing the U.S.'s current security policies.
My only addition would be to expand upon how our often schizophrenic foreign policy has resulted in the disenfranchisement of millions around the world.
If we'd concentrated more on supporting and fostering democratic and economic reforms throughout the developing world rather than propping up two bit dictators for political expediency then we wouldn't be in this situation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585130</id>
	<title>Correction</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262117940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety , deserve neither liberty nor safety .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30586520</id>
	<title>There is no security, get over it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262081100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Security is a myth. Get over it.</p><p>The best security is diligent on-site people, so if 8 inch knives were handed out as we boarded airplanes, then we'd all be safer.  AND more polite.</p><p>I avoid flying.  I used to fly multiple times a week rather than drive 2 hours. It was easy and just a little faster. Cost was not an issue. Not anymore thanks to all the so-called security. Now I drive 7 hours just to avoid the hassles of air travel. Good job TSA, airlines, and our government. Good job.</p><p>What really told me we were going too far in the wrong direction was when my 2 inch pocket knife/keychain was confiscated by the TSA. A week later, my replacement pocket knife was taken on another trip. What a waste.</p><p>30 years ago, my mother traveled with her fancy silver for carving ham and turkey dinners in her carry on. That had the big fork and huge knife. No issues. What has really changed? Nothing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Security is a myth .
Get over it.The best security is diligent on-site people , so if 8 inch knives were handed out as we boarded airplanes , then we 'd all be safer .
AND more polite.I avoid flying .
I used to fly multiple times a week rather than drive 2 hours .
It was easy and just a little faster .
Cost was not an issue .
Not anymore thanks to all the so-called security .
Now I drive 7 hours just to avoid the hassles of air travel .
Good job TSA , airlines , and our government .
Good job.What really told me we were going too far in the wrong direction was when my 2 inch pocket knife/keychain was confiscated by the TSA .
A week later , my replacement pocket knife was taken on another trip .
What a waste.30 years ago , my mother traveled with her fancy silver for carving ham and turkey dinners in her carry on .
That had the big fork and huge knife .
No issues .
What has really changed ?
Nothing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Security is a myth.
Get over it.The best security is diligent on-site people, so if 8 inch knives were handed out as we boarded airplanes, then we'd all be safer.
AND more polite.I avoid flying.
I used to fly multiple times a week rather than drive 2 hours.
It was easy and just a little faster.
Cost was not an issue.
Not anymore thanks to all the so-called security.
Now I drive 7 hours just to avoid the hassles of air travel.
Good job TSA, airlines, and our government.
Good job.What really told me we were going too far in the wrong direction was when my 2 inch pocket knife/keychain was confiscated by the TSA.
A week later, my replacement pocket knife was taken on another trip.
What a waste.30 years ago, my mother traveled with her fancy silver for carving ham and turkey dinners in her carry on.
That had the big fork and huge knife.
No issues.
What has really changed?
Nothing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585666</id>
	<title>Bruce's fallicy</title>
	<author>santiagodraco</author>
	<datestamp>1262120340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bruce tries to make a case that "movie theater" attacks are all the government plans for and that in some way we OVERPLAN and think about such attacks.  He also states that we need better intelligence and to look at the "little stuff" and be smarter about security, sure that makes sense.  But movie theater attacks are over emphasized?</p><p>Bruce, here's where you are missing the point.   On 911 the largest "movie theater" attack ever was executed.  Do you think this was a fluke?  Do you not think that they'd do this again, every day, if they could?   You my friend are missing the point.   Sure, smaller types of attacks are likely to be more common, but not nearly as impactful.   You miss the forest for the trees.   Preventing another 911 is top priority.  911 killed thousands, greatly disrupted the world economy and led to even further deaths and destruction due to necessasary retaliation.</p><p>Don't get so caught up in the little stuff that you miss the bigger picture.  We can't afford another 911.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bruce tries to make a case that " movie theater " attacks are all the government plans for and that in some way we OVERPLAN and think about such attacks .
He also states that we need better intelligence and to look at the " little stuff " and be smarter about security , sure that makes sense .
But movie theater attacks are over emphasized ? Bruce , here 's where you are missing the point .
On 911 the largest " movie theater " attack ever was executed .
Do you think this was a fluke ?
Do you not think that they 'd do this again , every day , if they could ?
You my friend are missing the point .
Sure , smaller types of attacks are likely to be more common , but not nearly as impactful .
You miss the forest for the trees .
Preventing another 911 is top priority .
911 killed thousands , greatly disrupted the world economy and led to even further deaths and destruction due to necessasary retaliation.Do n't get so caught up in the little stuff that you miss the bigger picture .
We ca n't afford another 911 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bruce tries to make a case that "movie theater" attacks are all the government plans for and that in some way we OVERPLAN and think about such attacks.
He also states that we need better intelligence and to look at the "little stuff" and be smarter about security, sure that makes sense.
But movie theater attacks are over emphasized?Bruce, here's where you are missing the point.
On 911 the largest "movie theater" attack ever was executed.
Do you think this was a fluke?
Do you not think that they'd do this again, every day, if they could?
You my friend are missing the point.
Sure, smaller types of attacks are likely to be more common, but not nearly as impactful.
You miss the forest for the trees.
Preventing another 911 is top priority.
911 killed thousands, greatly disrupted the world economy and led to even further deaths and destruction due to necessasary retaliation.Don't get so caught up in the little stuff that you miss the bigger picture.
We can't afford another 911.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30588464</id>
	<title>Re:no</title>
	<author>dgatwood</author>
	<datestamp>1262089500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Beyond that, there aren't a lot of other security measures that will have mass appeal.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>I think that you hit the nail on the head there.  It's easy to stop terrorism if you have no moral or ethical limitations, but as soon as you limit yourself to what is acceptable, it is almost impossible.  For example, you could put a hundred million in a bank account and announce that it will be used to put a price on the heads of the family and friends of anyone who commits an act of terror against the U.S.  Then carry out the threat.  It won't take long to dry up their supply of volunteers.  Or go one step further and nuke their entire village or city.  Highly effective, but not at all palatable.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Beyond that , there are n't a lot of other security measures that will have mass appeal .
I think that you hit the nail on the head there .
It 's easy to stop terrorism if you have no moral or ethical limitations , but as soon as you limit yourself to what is acceptable , it is almost impossible .
For example , you could put a hundred million in a bank account and announce that it will be used to put a price on the heads of the family and friends of anyone who commits an act of terror against the U.S. Then carry out the threat .
It wo n't take long to dry up their supply of volunteers .
Or go one step further and nuke their entire village or city .
Highly effective , but not at all palatable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Beyond that, there aren't a lot of other security measures that will have mass appeal.
I think that you hit the nail on the head there.
It's easy to stop terrorism if you have no moral or ethical limitations, but as soon as you limit yourself to what is acceptable, it is almost impossible.
For example, you could put a hundred million in a bank account and announce that it will be used to put a price on the heads of the family and friends of anyone who commits an act of terror against the U.S.  Then carry out the threat.
It won't take long to dry up their supply of volunteers.
Or go one step further and nuke their entire village or city.
Highly effective, but not at all palatable.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30595340</id>
	<title>anon</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259862060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>just stop enforcing your MTV culture on anybody else in the world<br>(things like jackass for example etc).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>just stop enforcing your MTV culture on anybody else in the world ( things like jackass for example etc ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>just stop enforcing your MTV culture on anybody else in the world(things like jackass for example etc).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30589770</id>
	<title>Re:What about making other things more secure firs</title>
	<author>Mspangler</author>
	<datestamp>1262099520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First page on a google search;<br>in 2004;  29,569 total firearm fatalities, including 16,750 suicides, 649 accidents and 235 with unknown intent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First page on a google search ; in 2004 ; 29,569 total firearm fatalities , including 16,750 suicides , 649 accidents and 235 with unknown intent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First page on a google search;in 2004;  29,569 total firearm fatalities, including 16,750 suicides, 649 accidents and 235 with unknown intent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30590706</id>
	<title>Re:Some other things you might not know about Bruc</title>
	<author>shadowbearer</author>
	<datestamp>1262109300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
&nbsp; Bruce Schneier has decrypted the results of millions of years of trillions of monkeys trying to duplicate all of modern civilization. He doesn't publish the results because it'd mean the end of All We Hold Dear (TM).</p><p>
&nbsp; Hey, at least the guy has some feelings, give him a break. Chuck never attempted anything like that.</p><p>SB</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>  Bruce Schneier has decrypted the results of millions of years of trillions of monkeys trying to duplicate all of modern civilization .
He does n't publish the results because it 'd mean the end of All We Hold Dear ( TM ) .
  Hey , at least the guy has some feelings , give him a break .
Chuck never attempted anything like that.SB</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
  Bruce Schneier has decrypted the results of millions of years of trillions of monkeys trying to duplicate all of modern civilization.
He doesn't publish the results because it'd mean the end of All We Hold Dear (TM).
  Hey, at least the guy has some feelings, give him a break.
Chuck never attempted anything like that.SB</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30588488</id>
	<title>Re:no</title>
	<author>CohibaVancouver</author>
	<datestamp>1262089620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>our current security is fairly good at preventing physical metallic objects that could be used as weapons. This is a good thing</i> </p><p>

No, it's not a 'good thing' it's a bloody waste of time and energy that could be spent elsewhere.  Ban guns and explosives?  Definitely.  But sharps?  Who cares?<br> <br>
Any hijacking today would promptly fail if hijackers attempted to take a plane armed only with sharps. <br> <br>

The success of a hijacking very much depends on the weapon used. If a hijacker or hijackers have guns on board, well then I think people would remain in their seats. It's very difficult to storm an enemy armed with a gun. <br> <br>

Ditto if they claimed there was a bomb on board and they had a remote trigger 'somewhere' - People would likely keep their seats. <br> <br>

So should security screen for guns and bombs? Absolutely - X-ray laptops blah blah blah. <br> <br>

But anything less than a gun or bomb? I think people on board would react and beat the hijackers to death with the drinks cart, their laptops, duty free rum bottles, whatever. Even if a handful of hijackers had knives to the necks of the FAs, people would react and attack the hijackers, and even if they did have knives to the necks of the FAs and no one reacted, what would happen? The crew wouldn't open the locked flightdeck door - They'd just land at the nearest airport and it's game over for the hijackers. Flight crews don't give in to hijackers any more - The modis operandi has changed. <br> <br>

So with a trained crew and a locked reinforced cockpit door they wouldn't be taking control of the plane anyway, so the knives would be useless. <br> <br>

So should security screen for sharps? Waste of time. There's nothing a hijacker can do with a sharp other than injure or maybe kill some of the people on board. Where's the terrorist value in that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>our current security is fairly good at preventing physical metallic objects that could be used as weapons .
This is a good thing No , it 's not a 'good thing ' it 's a bloody waste of time and energy that could be spent elsewhere .
Ban guns and explosives ?
Definitely. But sharps ?
Who cares ?
Any hijacking today would promptly fail if hijackers attempted to take a plane armed only with sharps .
The success of a hijacking very much depends on the weapon used .
If a hijacker or hijackers have guns on board , well then I think people would remain in their seats .
It 's very difficult to storm an enemy armed with a gun .
Ditto if they claimed there was a bomb on board and they had a remote trigger 'somewhere ' - People would likely keep their seats .
So should security screen for guns and bombs ?
Absolutely - X-ray laptops blah blah blah .
But anything less than a gun or bomb ?
I think people on board would react and beat the hijackers to death with the drinks cart , their laptops , duty free rum bottles , whatever .
Even if a handful of hijackers had knives to the necks of the FAs , people would react and attack the hijackers , and even if they did have knives to the necks of the FAs and no one reacted , what would happen ?
The crew would n't open the locked flightdeck door - They 'd just land at the nearest airport and it 's game over for the hijackers .
Flight crews do n't give in to hijackers any more - The modis operandi has changed .
So with a trained crew and a locked reinforced cockpit door they would n't be taking control of the plane anyway , so the knives would be useless .
So should security screen for sharps ?
Waste of time .
There 's nothing a hijacker can do with a sharp other than injure or maybe kill some of the people on board .
Where 's the terrorist value in that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>our current security is fairly good at preventing physical metallic objects that could be used as weapons.
This is a good thing 

No, it's not a 'good thing' it's a bloody waste of time and energy that could be spent elsewhere.
Ban guns and explosives?
Definitely.  But sharps?
Who cares?
Any hijacking today would promptly fail if hijackers attempted to take a plane armed only with sharps.
The success of a hijacking very much depends on the weapon used.
If a hijacker or hijackers have guns on board, well then I think people would remain in their seats.
It's very difficult to storm an enemy armed with a gun.
Ditto if they claimed there was a bomb on board and they had a remote trigger 'somewhere' - People would likely keep their seats.
So should security screen for guns and bombs?
Absolutely - X-ray laptops blah blah blah.
But anything less than a gun or bomb?
I think people on board would react and beat the hijackers to death with the drinks cart, their laptops, duty free rum bottles, whatever.
Even if a handful of hijackers had knives to the necks of the FAs, people would react and attack the hijackers, and even if they did have knives to the necks of the FAs and no one reacted, what would happen?
The crew wouldn't open the locked flightdeck door - They'd just land at the nearest airport and it's game over for the hijackers.
Flight crews don't give in to hijackers any more - The modis operandi has changed.
So with a trained crew and a locked reinforced cockpit door they wouldn't be taking control of the plane anyway, so the knives would be useless.
So should security screen for sharps?
Waste of time.
There's nothing a hijacker can do with a sharp other than injure or maybe kill some of the people on board.
Where's the terrorist value in that?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584376</id>
	<title>Uh No</title>
	<author>spribyl</author>
	<datestamp>1262114460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Terrorists are like fools,  they will always build a better one.<br>How about we treat the problem instead of the symptom.  Give them something to loose or care about.   When you have nothing you have nothing to loose.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Terrorists are like fools , they will always build a better one.How about we treat the problem instead of the symptom .
Give them something to loose or care about .
When you have nothing you have nothing to loose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Terrorists are like fools,  they will always build a better one.How about we treat the problem instead of the symptom.
Give them something to loose or care about.
When you have nothing you have nothing to loose.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30611524</id>
	<title>sismondi</title>
	<author>psismondi</author>
	<datestamp>1262268240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Americans are not actually in any serious danger from terrorists. The threat is tiny compared with the loss of life from, say, drunk drivers. Americans (and increasingly, people in Canada, where I live) live in a constant state of paranoia about terrorist attacks, crime (which criminologists say is *decreasing* here) and so on.

The threat to our lives and freedom from out of control police and military authority is much greater than any threat from Al Qaeda.

The US, Britain, and of course the former USSR made things waaaay worse in the Middle East than they had to be. Sure Al Qaeda is evil. But that organization is, at least in part, the product of cynical, exploitive and massively violent policies on the part of western powers. Now we Canadians are pulling the same idiotic stunts.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Americans are not actually in any serious danger from terrorists .
The threat is tiny compared with the loss of life from , say , drunk drivers .
Americans ( and increasingly , people in Canada , where I live ) live in a constant state of paranoia about terrorist attacks , crime ( which criminologists say is * decreasing * here ) and so on .
The threat to our lives and freedom from out of control police and military authority is much greater than any threat from Al Qaeda .
The US , Britain , and of course the former USSR made things waaaay worse in the Middle East than they had to be .
Sure Al Qaeda is evil .
But that organization is , at least in part , the product of cynical , exploitive and massively violent policies on the part of western powers .
Now we Canadians are pulling the same idiotic stunts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Americans are not actually in any serious danger from terrorists.
The threat is tiny compared with the loss of life from, say, drunk drivers.
Americans (and increasingly, people in Canada, where I live) live in a constant state of paranoia about terrorist attacks, crime (which criminologists say is *decreasing* here) and so on.
The threat to our lives and freedom from out of control police and military authority is much greater than any threat from Al Qaeda.
The US, Britain, and of course the former USSR made things waaaay worse in the Middle East than they had to be.
Sure Al Qaeda is evil.
But that organization is, at least in part, the product of cynical, exploitive and massively violent policies on the part of western powers.
Now we Canadians are pulling the same idiotic stunts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30591272</id>
	<title>Re:Can we make Air Travel Secure?</title>
	<author>mahadiga</author>
	<datestamp>1259873280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think it is possible to make air travel safer by giving <b>sedate</b> to passengers till the flight reaches its destination.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it is possible to make air travel safer by giving sedate to passengers till the flight reaches its destination .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it is possible to make air travel safer by giving sedate to passengers till the flight reaches its destination.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585582</id>
	<title>Everyone here is missing the point.</title>
	<author>MyFirstNameIsPaul</author>
	<datestamp>1262119980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It isn't that we allow any random person to walk onboard with a firearm, it's that we allow the airlines to manage their own security.  This would likely result in the total elimination of terrorist events on planes at a substantially reduced cost.  These companies are multi-billion dollar firms that are threatened every time some poor indigent person who happen to be born in a country suppressed by the U.S. wants to put a final end to his PTSD, and they're not going to be run by congressman trying to send pork projects to some random place in the U.S.  They'll take real actions to provide real results since they know that they'll lose tons of business if they don't because their competition won't be making the same mistake.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is n't that we allow any random person to walk onboard with a firearm , it 's that we allow the airlines to manage their own security .
This would likely result in the total elimination of terrorist events on planes at a substantially reduced cost .
These companies are multi-billion dollar firms that are threatened every time some poor indigent person who happen to be born in a country suppressed by the U.S. wants to put a final end to his PTSD , and they 're not going to be run by congressman trying to send pork projects to some random place in the U.S. They 'll take real actions to provide real results since they know that they 'll lose tons of business if they do n't because their competition wo n't be making the same mistake .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It isn't that we allow any random person to walk onboard with a firearm, it's that we allow the airlines to manage their own security.
This would likely result in the total elimination of terrorist events on planes at a substantially reduced cost.
These companies are multi-billion dollar firms that are threatened every time some poor indigent person who happen to be born in a country suppressed by the U.S. wants to put a final end to his PTSD, and they're not going to be run by congressman trying to send pork projects to some random place in the U.S.  They'll take real actions to provide real results since they know that they'll lose tons of business if they don't because their competition won't be making the same mistake.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30586970</id>
	<title>Re:Bruce is only pointing out the obvious. . . .</title>
	<author>McFly777</author>
	<datestamp>1262083440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No offense, but buying a one-way ticket and not having luggage shouldn't get quite the reaction you are speaking of. I usually avoid checking luggage, instead keeping to the minimum needed in my carryon. And there are times when one needs a one-way ticket.</p><p>For example, I had two interviews in two different cities. Each company bought me round trip tickets, but I couldn't get from one to the other in time without buying a one way in the middle, and forfiting half of the "free" round trips. Another example will be when I move, I will need to drive my car to my new place, fly "home" one way, and drive the second car to my new place. I won't need luggage at all in that case. Third example; one-day business trip (no luggage) + missed return flight (change in plans) = one-way ticket with no luggage.</p><p>In example one and three someone will say, "why didn't you just change the flight instead of buying an additional one-way ticket?"  The answer is that the airlines are now charging more for the change fee ( &gt;$150) than the cost to buy another one-way ticket.</p><p>This brings me to another point, having to buy a round trip ticket to be "less suspicious" isn't going to deter a terrorist. If he is willing to die, why should he care if he spends an extra $140 doing it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No offense , but buying a one-way ticket and not having luggage should n't get quite the reaction you are speaking of .
I usually avoid checking luggage , instead keeping to the minimum needed in my carryon .
And there are times when one needs a one-way ticket.For example , I had two interviews in two different cities .
Each company bought me round trip tickets , but I could n't get from one to the other in time without buying a one way in the middle , and forfiting half of the " free " round trips .
Another example will be when I move , I will need to drive my car to my new place , fly " home " one way , and drive the second car to my new place .
I wo n't need luggage at all in that case .
Third example ; one-day business trip ( no luggage ) + missed return flight ( change in plans ) = one-way ticket with no luggage.In example one and three someone will say , " why did n't you just change the flight instead of buying an additional one-way ticket ?
" The answer is that the airlines are now charging more for the change fee ( &gt; $ 150 ) than the cost to buy another one-way ticket.This brings me to another point , having to buy a round trip ticket to be " less suspicious " is n't going to deter a terrorist .
If he is willing to die , why should he care if he spends an extra $ 140 doing it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No offense, but buying a one-way ticket and not having luggage shouldn't get quite the reaction you are speaking of.
I usually avoid checking luggage, instead keeping to the minimum needed in my carryon.
And there are times when one needs a one-way ticket.For example, I had two interviews in two different cities.
Each company bought me round trip tickets, but I couldn't get from one to the other in time without buying a one way in the middle, and forfiting half of the "free" round trips.
Another example will be when I move, I will need to drive my car to my new place, fly "home" one way, and drive the second car to my new place.
I won't need luggage at all in that case.
Third example; one-day business trip (no luggage) + missed return flight (change in plans) = one-way ticket with no luggage.In example one and three someone will say, "why didn't you just change the flight instead of buying an additional one-way ticket?
"  The answer is that the airlines are now charging more for the change fee ( &gt;$150) than the cost to buy another one-way ticket.This brings me to another point, having to buy a round trip ticket to be "less suspicious" isn't going to deter a terrorist.
If he is willing to die, why should he care if he spends an extra $140 doing it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584784</id>
	<title>Re:Can we make Air Travel Secure?</title>
	<author>jhol13</author>
	<datestamp>1262116260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>AFAIK Franklin never flew in a plane. So I'd rather listen someone else. Besides, listening a long since decomposed body would not be fun anyway.</p><p>We can make flight saf<b>er</b> - and I bet the cheapest way is to educate people and try to decrease unequality and unfairness in the world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>AFAIK Franklin never flew in a plane .
So I 'd rather listen someone else .
Besides , listening a long since decomposed body would not be fun anyway.We can make flight safer - and I bet the cheapest way is to educate people and try to decrease unequality and unfairness in the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AFAIK Franklin never flew in a plane.
So I'd rather listen someone else.
Besides, listening a long since decomposed body would not be fun anyway.We can make flight safer - and I bet the cheapest way is to educate people and try to decrease unequality and unfairness in the world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585934</id>
	<title>Re:Can we make Air Travel Secure?</title>
	<author>dissy</author>
	<datestamp>1262078160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The answer: No.</p></div><p>I would say Yes, we Can.</p><p>However the cost of doing so would place it far far far outside of me being able to ever use it, and fairly far outside of millionaires wanting to use it.  Yes it would probably cost that much.</p><p>However adding 6+ zeros after the price tag just to guarantee such a thing would not make people fly safer, it would make people not fly, and thus flying would disappear as an industry.</p><p>On second thought, I guess making the price of all tickets in the multiple millions of dollars WOULD provide safety in a round-a-bout way.  Can't die on a plane if you can never afford to be on a plane<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;}</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The answer : No.I would say Yes , we Can.However the cost of doing so would place it far far far outside of me being able to ever use it , and fairly far outside of millionaires wanting to use it .
Yes it would probably cost that much.However adding 6 + zeros after the price tag just to guarantee such a thing would not make people fly safer , it would make people not fly , and thus flying would disappear as an industry.On second thought , I guess making the price of all tickets in the multiple millions of dollars WOULD provide safety in a round-a-bout way .
Ca n't die on a plane if you can never afford to be on a plane ; }</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The answer: No.I would say Yes, we Can.However the cost of doing so would place it far far far outside of me being able to ever use it, and fairly far outside of millionaires wanting to use it.
Yes it would probably cost that much.However adding 6+ zeros after the price tag just to guarantee such a thing would not make people fly safer, it would make people not fly, and thus flying would disappear as an industry.On second thought, I guess making the price of all tickets in the multiple millions of dollars WOULD provide safety in a round-a-bout way.
Can't die on a plane if you can never afford to be on a plane ;}
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30588598</id>
	<title>Re:Can we make it somewhat safe? Yes.</title>
	<author>JohnFen</author>
	<datestamp>1262090280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Iraq/Afghanistan shows us plainly this is not true.</p></div><p>Apples and oranges. They're fighting a war for their own land in Afghanistan/Iraq, which means that there are a large number of people who are willing to go to extreme lengths than is typical. Even so, the percentage of the population willing to do these things is quite small. The percentage of that percentage that would be willing to come over here and engage in the same things is even smaller.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Now this I think is unfair, the rules are put in place by committees of people that really are looking to make people safer but with little understanding or concern for the well-being of all the people who are not terrorists, or at least that aspect gets lost in the process.</p></div><p>I think that it's quite fair. History bears this out time and time again. Perhaps the people who are putting these rules into place have our best interests in mind (although I'd be surprised if that's the main concern for most of them -- most of them are worried about political ramifications and fundraising, not our best interests) however there will inevitably come corrupt goons who will abuse these rules, potentially to disastrous effect.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>But what about the gain of a LOT of security for a little liberty?  When the equation is far more asymmetric is it not also more compelling?</p></div><p>Perhaps so, however this is not the situation we are facing. What we are facing, speculations of future technology aside, is the inverse of this -- we'd have to lose a LOT of liberty to gain a little security. Personally, I'd rather live in a dangerous and free world than a safe and unfree one. As near as I can see, based on what the government (and too many people) have been saying and doing, is that this is the decision in front of us.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>This is why my thinking that the end game of airport security is this - full body scans, mandatory ID to board planes.</p></div><p>Your idea would be less intrusive, but not fundamentally any better. Also, it's years away from being technologically possible, at best. We'd still be subject to the whims of the authorities, we'd still lose our privacy, we'd still be treated like cattle and like criminals.</p><p>The security system as it is now keeps me from flying except in extreme circumstances. I hate being so demeaned, and avoid it. If it gets worse, such as full body scans (whether your fantasy version or the one that exists now), pat-downs, etc., then I simply will no longer fly at all. I'm far from the only one who takes this stance.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Iraq/Afghanistan shows us plainly this is not true.Apples and oranges .
They 're fighting a war for their own land in Afghanistan/Iraq , which means that there are a large number of people who are willing to go to extreme lengths than is typical .
Even so , the percentage of the population willing to do these things is quite small .
The percentage of that percentage that would be willing to come over here and engage in the same things is even smaller.Now this I think is unfair , the rules are put in place by committees of people that really are looking to make people safer but with little understanding or concern for the well-being of all the people who are not terrorists , or at least that aspect gets lost in the process.I think that it 's quite fair .
History bears this out time and time again .
Perhaps the people who are putting these rules into place have our best interests in mind ( although I 'd be surprised if that 's the main concern for most of them -- most of them are worried about political ramifications and fundraising , not our best interests ) however there will inevitably come corrupt goons who will abuse these rules , potentially to disastrous effect.But what about the gain of a LOT of security for a little liberty ?
When the equation is far more asymmetric is it not also more compelling ? Perhaps so , however this is not the situation we are facing .
What we are facing , speculations of future technology aside , is the inverse of this -- we 'd have to lose a LOT of liberty to gain a little security .
Personally , I 'd rather live in a dangerous and free world than a safe and unfree one .
As near as I can see , based on what the government ( and too many people ) have been saying and doing , is that this is the decision in front of us.This is why my thinking that the end game of airport security is this - full body scans , mandatory ID to board planes.Your idea would be less intrusive , but not fundamentally any better .
Also , it 's years away from being technologically possible , at best .
We 'd still be subject to the whims of the authorities , we 'd still lose our privacy , we 'd still be treated like cattle and like criminals.The security system as it is now keeps me from flying except in extreme circumstances .
I hate being so demeaned , and avoid it .
If it gets worse , such as full body scans ( whether your fantasy version or the one that exists now ) , pat-downs , etc. , then I simply will no longer fly at all .
I 'm far from the only one who takes this stance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Iraq/Afghanistan shows us plainly this is not true.Apples and oranges.
They're fighting a war for their own land in Afghanistan/Iraq, which means that there are a large number of people who are willing to go to extreme lengths than is typical.
Even so, the percentage of the population willing to do these things is quite small.
The percentage of that percentage that would be willing to come over here and engage in the same things is even smaller.Now this I think is unfair, the rules are put in place by committees of people that really are looking to make people safer but with little understanding or concern for the well-being of all the people who are not terrorists, or at least that aspect gets lost in the process.I think that it's quite fair.
History bears this out time and time again.
Perhaps the people who are putting these rules into place have our best interests in mind (although I'd be surprised if that's the main concern for most of them -- most of them are worried about political ramifications and fundraising, not our best interests) however there will inevitably come corrupt goons who will abuse these rules, potentially to disastrous effect.But what about the gain of a LOT of security for a little liberty?
When the equation is far more asymmetric is it not also more compelling?Perhaps so, however this is not the situation we are facing.
What we are facing, speculations of future technology aside, is the inverse of this -- we'd have to lose a LOT of liberty to gain a little security.
Personally, I'd rather live in a dangerous and free world than a safe and unfree one.
As near as I can see, based on what the government (and too many people) have been saying and doing, is that this is the decision in front of us.This is why my thinking that the end game of airport security is this - full body scans, mandatory ID to board planes.Your idea would be less intrusive, but not fundamentally any better.
Also, it's years away from being technologically possible, at best.
We'd still be subject to the whims of the authorities, we'd still lose our privacy, we'd still be treated like cattle and like criminals.The security system as it is now keeps me from flying except in extreme circumstances.
I hate being so demeaned, and avoid it.
If it gets worse, such as full body scans (whether your fantasy version or the one that exists now), pat-downs, etc., then I simply will no longer fly at all.
I'm far from the only one who takes this stance.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585990</id>
	<title>Re:Just what I've always said</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1262078460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unfortunately, society can never be mature. Change will continue to occur and will not stop. Technology will solve all of the world's problems and create new ones in their place. We're stuck in a constant loop of adapting forever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , society can never be mature .
Change will continue to occur and will not stop .
Technology will solve all of the world 's problems and create new ones in their place .
We 're stuck in a constant loop of adapting forever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, society can never be mature.
Change will continue to occur and will not stop.
Technology will solve all of the world's problems and create new ones in their place.
We're stuck in a constant loop of adapting forever.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584566</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30588116</id>
	<title>The chances.</title>
	<author>v(*\_*)vvvv</author>
	<datestamp>1262087760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The chances of getting hit by a hijacked plane is less than winning the lottery. But guess what? Enough of us think it'll happen to them. So that makes it right.</p><p>Lotteries are taxes for people who can't do math, but unfortunately all of us are being forced to pay for anti-terrorism.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The chances of getting hit by a hijacked plane is less than winning the lottery .
But guess what ?
Enough of us think it 'll happen to them .
So that makes it right.Lotteries are taxes for people who ca n't do math , but unfortunately all of us are being forced to pay for anti-terrorism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The chances of getting hit by a hijacked plane is less than winning the lottery.
But guess what?
Enough of us think it'll happen to them.
So that makes it right.Lotteries are taxes for people who can't do math, but unfortunately all of us are being forced to pay for anti-terrorism.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584542</id>
	<title>Simple - stick everyone through an MRI</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262115180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It should be possible to detect signatures of typical types of explosives. The same goes for luggage.</p><p>Then you just have to scorch the earth of areas surrounding airports to avoid SAM missile rockets.</p><p>Of course, only idiots try to blow up planes. The planning that goes into blowing up a plane could easily go into taking down a bridge or elevated footpath.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It should be possible to detect signatures of typical types of explosives .
The same goes for luggage.Then you just have to scorch the earth of areas surrounding airports to avoid SAM missile rockets.Of course , only idiots try to blow up planes .
The planning that goes into blowing up a plane could easily go into taking down a bridge or elevated footpath .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It should be possible to detect signatures of typical types of explosives.
The same goes for luggage.Then you just have to scorch the earth of areas surrounding airports to avoid SAM missile rockets.Of course, only idiots try to blow up planes.
The planning that goes into blowing up a plane could easily go into taking down a bridge or elevated footpath.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585330</id>
	<title>Here's how</title>
	<author>chord.wav</author>
	<datestamp>1262118900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Do you think that we can actually make air travel (and any other kind of travel, for that matter) truly secure?</p></div><p>
Yes, just stop taking the oil and other resources from foreign countries like locusts.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you think that we can actually make air travel ( and any other kind of travel , for that matter ) truly secure ?
Yes , just stop taking the oil and other resources from foreign countries like locusts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you think that we can actually make air travel (and any other kind of travel, for that matter) truly secure?
Yes, just stop taking the oil and other resources from foreign countries like locusts.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30587112</id>
	<title>Re:Go Back to Allowing Passenger To be Armed</title>
	<author>Eil</author>
	<datestamp>1262084040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I'd like to see terrorists run the risk of being shot dead in order to carry out their idiocy.</p></div></blockquote><p>Well, the interesting thing about all of the recent airplane terrorists is they fully expect to die already while carrying out their idiocy. Arming passengers only guarantees that your garden variety drunk (or otherwise mentally unstable individual) will be able to kill other passengers when the whim strikes him.</p><p>If I had to choose between taking a flight that had a 1:10,000,000 chance of having a terrorist onboard and one in which any given passenger could be carrying a deadly weapon, I'd take the former every time.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd like to see terrorists run the risk of being shot dead in order to carry out their idiocy.Well , the interesting thing about all of the recent airplane terrorists is they fully expect to die already while carrying out their idiocy .
Arming passengers only guarantees that your garden variety drunk ( or otherwise mentally unstable individual ) will be able to kill other passengers when the whim strikes him.If I had to choose between taking a flight that had a 1 : 10,000,000 chance of having a terrorist onboard and one in which any given passenger could be carrying a deadly weapon , I 'd take the former every time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd like to see terrorists run the risk of being shot dead in order to carry out their idiocy.Well, the interesting thing about all of the recent airplane terrorists is they fully expect to die already while carrying out their idiocy.
Arming passengers only guarantees that your garden variety drunk (or otherwise mentally unstable individual) will be able to kill other passengers when the whim strikes him.If I had to choose between taking a flight that had a 1:10,000,000 chance of having a terrorist onboard and one in which any given passenger could be carrying a deadly weapon, I'd take the former every time.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30587274</id>
	<title>Re:A better article about Schneier exploits</title>
	<author>modemboy</author>
	<datestamp>1262084580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Considering you can still fly without id, and they have the automated ticket kiosks at the airport now, you wouldn't even have to go to the trouble of forging the boarding pass. Show up to the airport with stolen CC, print out ticket, tell security you forgot your id (subjecting you to the more thorough search) and you're off to terrorizing!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Considering you can still fly without id , and they have the automated ticket kiosks at the airport now , you would n't even have to go to the trouble of forging the boarding pass .
Show up to the airport with stolen CC , print out ticket , tell security you forgot your id ( subjecting you to the more thorough search ) and you 're off to terrorizing !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Considering you can still fly without id, and they have the automated ticket kiosks at the airport now, you wouldn't even have to go to the trouble of forging the boarding pass.
Show up to the airport with stolen CC, print out ticket, tell security you forgot your id (subjecting you to the more thorough search) and you're off to terrorizing!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584566</id>
	<title>Just what I've always said</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262115300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>"When somebody can commit an atrocity and no laws are changed as a result, only then will I agree that we have achieved maturity as a society."</htmltext>
<tokenext>" When somebody can commit an atrocity and no laws are changed as a result , only then will I agree that we have achieved maturity as a society .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"When somebody can commit an atrocity and no laws are changed as a result, only then will I agree that we have achieved maturity as a society.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584646</id>
	<title>Yu&amp;o Fail It</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262115660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>world will have hot on the hhels of</htmltext>
<tokenext>world will have hot on the hhels of</tokentext>
<sentencetext>world will have hot on the hhels of</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585430</id>
	<title>Re:They're not dumb</title>
	<author>Master Moose</author>
	<datestamp>1262119320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Americans trying to look like they are outsmarting people? It would never happen. I thought that the "typical dumb yank" was a gimmick that you were all trying to live up to.</p><p>I never believed it to be completely true (well maybe in the southern states) But I thought it was some part of a master plan - a way to lure your enemies into a false sense of security.</p><p>I thought that by playing dumb and not being shy about it, you were walking around in the carnival of the world with a big chalk mark on your back. Only in reality, as a people, you are all ready and waiting for your opportunity to out carny the carnies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Americans trying to look like they are outsmarting people ?
It would never happen .
I thought that the " typical dumb yank " was a gimmick that you were all trying to live up to.I never believed it to be completely true ( well maybe in the southern states ) But I thought it was some part of a master plan - a way to lure your enemies into a false sense of security.I thought that by playing dumb and not being shy about it , you were walking around in the carnival of the world with a big chalk mark on your back .
Only in reality , as a people , you are all ready and waiting for your opportunity to out carny the carnies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Americans trying to look like they are outsmarting people?
It would never happen.
I thought that the "typical dumb yank" was a gimmick that you were all trying to live up to.I never believed it to be completely true (well maybe in the southern states) But I thought it was some part of a master plan - a way to lure your enemies into a false sense of security.I thought that by playing dumb and not being shy about it, you were walking around in the carnival of the world with a big chalk mark on your back.
Only in reality, as a people, you are all ready and waiting for your opportunity to out carny the carnies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585532</id>
	<title>People care how/why they die.</title>
	<author>AP31R0N</author>
	<datestamp>1262119800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A survey of how and why you'd prefer to do would prolly indicate that people would rather be hit by lightning than blown up by terrorist even if the net result (death) is the same. Plus there is something worse about being killed to benefit someone else's cause, or by someone who meant you ill... and worse yet when it could have been prevented by some policy or procedure.  Misguided or not, that's the case.</p><p>That said, i'd rather see more effort on killing/capturing these people before they get to us and ending the problems that inspire them to want to kill us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A survey of how and why you 'd prefer to do would prolly indicate that people would rather be hit by lightning than blown up by terrorist even if the net result ( death ) is the same .
Plus there is something worse about being killed to benefit someone else 's cause , or by someone who meant you ill... and worse yet when it could have been prevented by some policy or procedure .
Misguided or not , that 's the case.That said , i 'd rather see more effort on killing/capturing these people before they get to us and ending the problems that inspire them to want to kill us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A survey of how and why you'd prefer to do would prolly indicate that people would rather be hit by lightning than blown up by terrorist even if the net result (death) is the same.
Plus there is something worse about being killed to benefit someone else's cause, or by someone who meant you ill... and worse yet when it could have been prevented by some policy or procedure.
Misguided or not, that's the case.That said, i'd rather see more effort on killing/capturing these people before they get to us and ending the problems that inspire them to want to kill us.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30591234</id>
	<title>Re:because planes are the only potential target...</title>
	<author>evilviper</author>
	<datestamp>1259872440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Let's say that we make airline flights 100\% terrorist proof. Then what? Simple, the terrorists move on to bombing other things.</p></div></blockquote><p>Commercial jets are a ripe target because they're barely holding together as it is, and hundreds of people won't survive the fall...</p><p>Otherwise, a bomb that will fit in your shoe or underwear probably won't even kill the guy sitting next to you.</p><blockquote><div><p>Can you imaging the panic that would happen if they bombed a large high school graduation?</p></div></blockquote><p>What's to imagine?  See the '96 Atlanta Olympic park bombing.  See the Oklahoma City, Murrow Federal Building bombing.  etc.  People have small bombs going off in their driveways on a regular basis thanks to teenagers and introductory chemistry class.</p><p>If they really want to kill a bunch of people, the terrorists should start selling cheap cars...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's say that we make airline flights 100 \ % terrorist proof .
Then what ?
Simple , the terrorists move on to bombing other things.Commercial jets are a ripe target because they 're barely holding together as it is , and hundreds of people wo n't survive the fall...Otherwise , a bomb that will fit in your shoe or underwear probably wo n't even kill the guy sitting next to you.Can you imaging the panic that would happen if they bombed a large high school graduation ? What 's to imagine ?
See the '96 Atlanta Olympic park bombing .
See the Oklahoma City , Murrow Federal Building bombing .
etc. People have small bombs going off in their driveways on a regular basis thanks to teenagers and introductory chemistry class.If they really want to kill a bunch of people , the terrorists should start selling cheap cars.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's say that we make airline flights 100\% terrorist proof.
Then what?
Simple, the terrorists move on to bombing other things.Commercial jets are a ripe target because they're barely holding together as it is, and hundreds of people won't survive the fall...Otherwise, a bomb that will fit in your shoe or underwear probably won't even kill the guy sitting next to you.Can you imaging the panic that would happen if they bombed a large high school graduation?What's to imagine?
See the '96 Atlanta Olympic park bombing.
See the Oklahoma City, Murrow Federal Building bombing.
etc.  People have small bombs going off in their driveways on a regular basis thanks to teenagers and introductory chemistry class.If they really want to kill a bunch of people, the terrorists should start selling cheap cars...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30586494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585680</id>
	<title>Re:What about making other things more secure firs</title>
	<author>stewbacca</author>
	<datestamp>1262077200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Government money doesn't work that way. You can't just take money from one government agency and give it to another, let alone give it to a private hospital or doctor to help with preventable medical errors or to private citizens to improve their driving skill.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Government money does n't work that way .
You ca n't just take money from one government agency and give it to another , let alone give it to a private hospital or doctor to help with preventable medical errors or to private citizens to improve their driving skill .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Government money doesn't work that way.
You can't just take money from one government agency and give it to another, let alone give it to a private hospital or doctor to help with preventable medical errors or to private citizens to improve their driving skill.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584608</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30590018</id>
	<title>Re:Why Airplanes?</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1262101860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>There's got to be a reason. Why commercial aircraft? In spite of all the failures in the system, and the gaps when it does function, they're much harder targets than most places. <b>If my goal was to kill lots of people spectacularly,</b></p></div> </blockquote><p>

But the objective of hijacking a plane was never about killing people, it was about getting hostages. Most of the worlds terrorist organisations have very very specific goals, mostly about getting a regime change in their own nation or a concession of land. In the past, when Hamas wanted to make a statement by killing people, they send a suicide bomber onto a bus, into a theatre or just launch a crapload of WWII era rockets. When Hamas wanted hostages to extort western nations they hijacked a plane. Most terrorist organisations have better weapons then an airliner, 9 times out of 10 it was about getting some hostages so they could bargain for money, prisoners and/or political concessions. Ironically, Al-Queda screwed this one up for most terrorist organisations as now passengers will fight back.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's got to be a reason .
Why commercial aircraft ?
In spite of all the failures in the system , and the gaps when it does function , they 're much harder targets than most places .
If my goal was to kill lots of people spectacularly , But the objective of hijacking a plane was never about killing people , it was about getting hostages .
Most of the worlds terrorist organisations have very very specific goals , mostly about getting a regime change in their own nation or a concession of land .
In the past , when Hamas wanted to make a statement by killing people , they send a suicide bomber onto a bus , into a theatre or just launch a crapload of WWII era rockets .
When Hamas wanted hostages to extort western nations they hijacked a plane .
Most terrorist organisations have better weapons then an airliner , 9 times out of 10 it was about getting some hostages so they could bargain for money , prisoners and/or political concessions .
Ironically , Al-Queda screwed this one up for most terrorist organisations as now passengers will fight back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's got to be a reason.
Why commercial aircraft?
In spite of all the failures in the system, and the gaps when it does function, they're much harder targets than most places.
If my goal was to kill lots of people spectacularly, 

But the objective of hijacking a plane was never about killing people, it was about getting hostages.
Most of the worlds terrorist organisations have very very specific goals, mostly about getting a regime change in their own nation or a concession of land.
In the past, when Hamas wanted to make a statement by killing people, they send a suicide bomber onto a bus, into a theatre or just launch a crapload of WWII era rockets.
When Hamas wanted hostages to extort western nations they hijacked a plane.
Most terrorist organisations have better weapons then an airliner, 9 times out of 10 it was about getting some hostages so they could bargain for money, prisoners and/or political concessions.
Ironically, Al-Queda screwed this one up for most terrorist organisations as now passengers will fight back.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585690</id>
	<title>Re:Can be done, but public won't like it.</title>
	<author>Reziac</author>
	<datestamp>1262077200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd think chucking a few cans of shaving cream into open vents, turbines, or whatever else has already been inspected for the flight and will hold a pressurized can in place for half an hour or so, would be just as effective, and a lot cheaper (no need to buy a ticket, just hie yourself over the airport fence in the dark of night).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd think chucking a few cans of shaving cream into open vents , turbines , or whatever else has already been inspected for the flight and will hold a pressurized can in place for half an hour or so , would be just as effective , and a lot cheaper ( no need to buy a ticket , just hie yourself over the airport fence in the dark of night ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd think chucking a few cans of shaving cream into open vents, turbines, or whatever else has already been inspected for the flight and will hold a pressurized can in place for half an hour or so, would be just as effective, and a lot cheaper (no need to buy a ticket, just hie yourself over the airport fence in the dark of night).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30591682</id>
	<title>Re:Our biggest problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259837220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We need to work WITH that tendency, not against it.</p><p>The politicians are responding to a need:  a need to cover their own asses.  Ideally, the security people could provide something along those lines while actually increasing both real security and apparent security, while reducing passenger harassment (e.g. the crap with shoes, water, not being able to use the toilet, etc.)</p><p>Right now, we have no leadership in the TSA (at any level) and DHS is headed by a politician who only knows about immigration, so it's not much better.  First, they need some idea about what the hell they're doing, because they're being left to their own devices and all they can think of are new and ineffective ways of harassing passengers.</p><p>I do think though that there's some danger in thinking that "security theater" is the enemy.  We do need to make people feel safe, we just need to do that while providing real security (and ideally it shouldn't harass passengers).  And we certainly can't accept solutions that provide only the illusion of security without improving anything.</p><p>I just hope that this overhaul of the system they're planning gets decent experts, not more political flunkies.  Maybe then they can figure out how to come up with security measures that don't drive people away from the airports...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We need to work WITH that tendency , not against it.The politicians are responding to a need : a need to cover their own asses .
Ideally , the security people could provide something along those lines while actually increasing both real security and apparent security , while reducing passenger harassment ( e.g .
the crap with shoes , water , not being able to use the toilet , etc .
) Right now , we have no leadership in the TSA ( at any level ) and DHS is headed by a politician who only knows about immigration , so it 's not much better .
First , they need some idea about what the hell they 're doing , because they 're being left to their own devices and all they can think of are new and ineffective ways of harassing passengers.I do think though that there 's some danger in thinking that " security theater " is the enemy .
We do need to make people feel safe , we just need to do that while providing real security ( and ideally it should n't harass passengers ) .
And we certainly ca n't accept solutions that provide only the illusion of security without improving anything.I just hope that this overhaul of the system they 're planning gets decent experts , not more political flunkies .
Maybe then they can figure out how to come up with security measures that do n't drive people away from the airports.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We need to work WITH that tendency, not against it.The politicians are responding to a need:  a need to cover their own asses.
Ideally, the security people could provide something along those lines while actually increasing both real security and apparent security, while reducing passenger harassment (e.g.
the crap with shoes, water, not being able to use the toilet, etc.
)Right now, we have no leadership in the TSA (at any level) and DHS is headed by a politician who only knows about immigration, so it's not much better.
First, they need some idea about what the hell they're doing, because they're being left to their own devices and all they can think of are new and ineffective ways of harassing passengers.I do think though that there's some danger in thinking that "security theater" is the enemy.
We do need to make people feel safe, we just need to do that while providing real security (and ideally it shouldn't harass passengers).
And we certainly can't accept solutions that provide only the illusion of security without improving anything.I just hope that this overhaul of the system they're planning gets decent experts, not more political flunkies.
Maybe then they can figure out how to come up with security measures that don't drive people away from the airports...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30588090</id>
	<title>most americans havent a clue what security is</title>
	<author>webishop</author>
	<datestamp>1262087640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Historically, travel has never been safe.  Travelers have always been exposed to accidents, adverse weather, freak events and predatroy humans.

Schneier's comments about how to stop terrorism are the same I was making immediately post-9/11.  The sad fact is that most people in this country are no more interested in hearing this message today than they were 9 years ago.  The idiots demanding security theatre deserve the bufoons of the TSA.  I call that a match made in heaven.  In the mean time, I'm even more resolved to not fly anywhere in this country.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Historically , travel has never been safe .
Travelers have always been exposed to accidents , adverse weather , freak events and predatroy humans .
Schneier 's comments about how to stop terrorism are the same I was making immediately post-9/11 .
The sad fact is that most people in this country are no more interested in hearing this message today than they were 9 years ago .
The idiots demanding security theatre deserve the bufoons of the TSA .
I call that a match made in heaven .
In the mean time , I 'm even more resolved to not fly anywhere in this country .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Historically, travel has never been safe.
Travelers have always been exposed to accidents, adverse weather, freak events and predatroy humans.
Schneier's comments about how to stop terrorism are the same I was making immediately post-9/11.
The sad fact is that most people in this country are no more interested in hearing this message today than they were 9 years ago.
The idiots demanding security theatre deserve the bufoons of the TSA.
I call that a match made in heaven.
In the mean time, I'm even more resolved to not fly anywhere in this country.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30588928</id>
	<title>Really truly extremely verily secure</title>
	<author>adoarns</author>
	<datestamp>1262092200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So what does "really secure" mean? What's acceptable--or more to it, what is an acceptable expenditure of capital, both in cash and in irritation?</p><p>What are the paragons of the "really secure"? People always reference Fort Knox. Is Fort Knox really secure? The gold depository indeed is very difficult to infiltrate, very difficult to steal from. But is it impossible? Or for that matter, would it be impossible to destroy or scatter? A small-scale nuclear weapon could sublimate the entire deposit. The security of Fort Knox makes it very unlikely it will be compromised, that's all. Just as a jail makes escape very improbable, the population squatting around it very unlikely to be accosted by inmates. But not impossible. There's no impossible except in mathematics and physics.</p><p>So how rare can we make attempts on air transport? Well, since 2001 there has not been a civilian death due to terrorism on commercial aircraft. There have been two noteworthy attempts, both foiled by a mixture of equipment malfunction, bomber incompetence, and fellow passenger vigilance. Most flight-safety wallahs will tell you disasters happen not because of a simple malfunction but because three, four, or five different systems all failed. The fail-safe, the redundant fail-safe, the alternate computer were all rendered useless. Terrorist attacks can happen when similar strings of failure happen in the security apparatus. You can make them rarer but at cost.</p><p>Already commercial flights are unflyable. The airlines' penny-pinching clamps down on checked baggage, so everyone tries to drag through as much carryon as they can, which is exactly what the TSA discourages. To get from one city to another by plane, I have to show ID, I have to forego anything as basic as a regular bottle of shampoo, toothpaste, or mouthwash. Forget razors. They've already figured out what infinitesimal space can accommodate 99\% of passengers with less than 1\% risk of DVT and press us in to fit. My wife can't even come through security to see me off.</p><p>What else can I give up? Perhaps I don't need luggage. Everyone can simply buy new clothes at the destination. Hotels will stock up on toiletries and surcharges. Everyone will doff their shoes in the terminal; airports will be like Japanese houses. Slippers on the plane and whatever you can scavenge at your destination. Go through metal detectors naked. Well, they've got machines that do that essentially anyway and they want to roll them out. Each person spends five minutes with a Bruce Willis look-alike who asks for aspirins and grills you about your destination. "Our records show you visited Aunt Millie just five months ago--what is your real agenda here!?" Special papers for transport. Each seat with seatbelts only releaseable by the captain or designated air marshal. Nothing bad could come of that. No more paper--paper cuts, you see. Tickets carried on USB drives with a USB fee added.</p><p>Just what would make you feel safer? "Really secure" can't happen with commercial air transport because there are too many people. Millions of people, every day, getting on and off planes. If you've got a couple billion dollars in gold locked up in one place, you can make it real secure. Esp. if you have a tank division nearby. If you're talking tens of thousands of flights and millions of people, day-in-day-out, it can't happen. Not without denying every single one of them basic human decency. A few attempts will get through, and will hopefully get foiled. The terrorist masterminds, who are always working on something to hit us where we least expect  it, aren't likely to be targeting planes anyway. Their plans already worked, people are already terrified and cowed.</p><p>The worst thing is that horrible processes and institutions outlast their exigencies. TSA will be around doing the same or worse crap fifteen years after there are any credible threats to commercial air. A whole generation is ruined on air travel, and we're still not building anything else to compete. Trains, anyone? Fuck it, I'll just drive to Cali next time I'm bound there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So what does " really secure " mean ?
What 's acceptable--or more to it , what is an acceptable expenditure of capital , both in cash and in irritation ? What are the paragons of the " really secure " ?
People always reference Fort Knox .
Is Fort Knox really secure ?
The gold depository indeed is very difficult to infiltrate , very difficult to steal from .
But is it impossible ?
Or for that matter , would it be impossible to destroy or scatter ?
A small-scale nuclear weapon could sublimate the entire deposit .
The security of Fort Knox makes it very unlikely it will be compromised , that 's all .
Just as a jail makes escape very improbable , the population squatting around it very unlikely to be accosted by inmates .
But not impossible .
There 's no impossible except in mathematics and physics.So how rare can we make attempts on air transport ?
Well , since 2001 there has not been a civilian death due to terrorism on commercial aircraft .
There have been two noteworthy attempts , both foiled by a mixture of equipment malfunction , bomber incompetence , and fellow passenger vigilance .
Most flight-safety wallahs will tell you disasters happen not because of a simple malfunction but because three , four , or five different systems all failed .
The fail-safe , the redundant fail-safe , the alternate computer were all rendered useless .
Terrorist attacks can happen when similar strings of failure happen in the security apparatus .
You can make them rarer but at cost.Already commercial flights are unflyable .
The airlines ' penny-pinching clamps down on checked baggage , so everyone tries to drag through as much carryon as they can , which is exactly what the TSA discourages .
To get from one city to another by plane , I have to show ID , I have to forego anything as basic as a regular bottle of shampoo , toothpaste , or mouthwash .
Forget razors .
They 've already figured out what infinitesimal space can accommodate 99 \ % of passengers with less than 1 \ % risk of DVT and press us in to fit .
My wife ca n't even come through security to see me off.What else can I give up ?
Perhaps I do n't need luggage .
Everyone can simply buy new clothes at the destination .
Hotels will stock up on toiletries and surcharges .
Everyone will doff their shoes in the terminal ; airports will be like Japanese houses .
Slippers on the plane and whatever you can scavenge at your destination .
Go through metal detectors naked .
Well , they 've got machines that do that essentially anyway and they want to roll them out .
Each person spends five minutes with a Bruce Willis look-alike who asks for aspirins and grills you about your destination .
" Our records show you visited Aunt Millie just five months ago--what is your real agenda here ! ?
" Special papers for transport .
Each seat with seatbelts only releaseable by the captain or designated air marshal .
Nothing bad could come of that .
No more paper--paper cuts , you see .
Tickets carried on USB drives with a USB fee added.Just what would make you feel safer ?
" Really secure " ca n't happen with commercial air transport because there are too many people .
Millions of people , every day , getting on and off planes .
If you 've got a couple billion dollars in gold locked up in one place , you can make it real secure .
Esp. if you have a tank division nearby .
If you 're talking tens of thousands of flights and millions of people , day-in-day-out , it ca n't happen .
Not without denying every single one of them basic human decency .
A few attempts will get through , and will hopefully get foiled .
The terrorist masterminds , who are always working on something to hit us where we least expect it , are n't likely to be targeting planes anyway .
Their plans already worked , people are already terrified and cowed.The worst thing is that horrible processes and institutions outlast their exigencies .
TSA will be around doing the same or worse crap fifteen years after there are any credible threats to commercial air .
A whole generation is ruined on air travel , and we 're still not building anything else to compete .
Trains , anyone ?
Fuck it , I 'll just drive to Cali next time I 'm bound there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what does "really secure" mean?
What's acceptable--or more to it, what is an acceptable expenditure of capital, both in cash and in irritation?What are the paragons of the "really secure"?
People always reference Fort Knox.
Is Fort Knox really secure?
The gold depository indeed is very difficult to infiltrate, very difficult to steal from.
But is it impossible?
Or for that matter, would it be impossible to destroy or scatter?
A small-scale nuclear weapon could sublimate the entire deposit.
The security of Fort Knox makes it very unlikely it will be compromised, that's all.
Just as a jail makes escape very improbable, the population squatting around it very unlikely to be accosted by inmates.
But not impossible.
There's no impossible except in mathematics and physics.So how rare can we make attempts on air transport?
Well, since 2001 there has not been a civilian death due to terrorism on commercial aircraft.
There have been two noteworthy attempts, both foiled by a mixture of equipment malfunction, bomber incompetence, and fellow passenger vigilance.
Most flight-safety wallahs will tell you disasters happen not because of a simple malfunction but because three, four, or five different systems all failed.
The fail-safe, the redundant fail-safe, the alternate computer were all rendered useless.
Terrorist attacks can happen when similar strings of failure happen in the security apparatus.
You can make them rarer but at cost.Already commercial flights are unflyable.
The airlines' penny-pinching clamps down on checked baggage, so everyone tries to drag through as much carryon as they can, which is exactly what the TSA discourages.
To get from one city to another by plane, I have to show ID, I have to forego anything as basic as a regular bottle of shampoo, toothpaste, or mouthwash.
Forget razors.
They've already figured out what infinitesimal space can accommodate 99\% of passengers with less than 1\% risk of DVT and press us in to fit.
My wife can't even come through security to see me off.What else can I give up?
Perhaps I don't need luggage.
Everyone can simply buy new clothes at the destination.
Hotels will stock up on toiletries and surcharges.
Everyone will doff their shoes in the terminal; airports will be like Japanese houses.
Slippers on the plane and whatever you can scavenge at your destination.
Go through metal detectors naked.
Well, they've got machines that do that essentially anyway and they want to roll them out.
Each person spends five minutes with a Bruce Willis look-alike who asks for aspirins and grills you about your destination.
"Our records show you visited Aunt Millie just five months ago--what is your real agenda here!?
" Special papers for transport.
Each seat with seatbelts only releaseable by the captain or designated air marshal.
Nothing bad could come of that.
No more paper--paper cuts, you see.
Tickets carried on USB drives with a USB fee added.Just what would make you feel safer?
"Really secure" can't happen with commercial air transport because there are too many people.
Millions of people, every day, getting on and off planes.
If you've got a couple billion dollars in gold locked up in one place, you can make it real secure.
Esp. if you have a tank division nearby.
If you're talking tens of thousands of flights and millions of people, day-in-day-out, it can't happen.
Not without denying every single one of them basic human decency.
A few attempts will get through, and will hopefully get foiled.
The terrorist masterminds, who are always working on something to hit us where we least expect  it, aren't likely to be targeting planes anyway.
Their plans already worked, people are already terrified and cowed.The worst thing is that horrible processes and institutions outlast their exigencies.
TSA will be around doing the same or worse crap fifteen years after there are any credible threats to commercial air.
A whole generation is ruined on air travel, and we're still not building anything else to compete.
Trains, anyone?
Fuck it, I'll just drive to Cali next time I'm bound there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30588772</id>
	<title>Re:Our biggest problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262091120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>&ldquo;I feel better with the heightened security because I feel safe,&rdquo; said Belisle, who was flying to Washington, D.C., to visit her son in Virginia.</p></div><p>Source: my local newspaper this morning. We call it security theatre. It's annoying, wasteful, ineffective in our minds. For much of the world, it's a teddy bear that keeps the closet monsters away. People just feel better.</p></div><p>Security theater is not intrinsically bad. For good security theater, you need a few things:</p><ul> <li>Brings people's expectations into line with reality (i.e. reassures them that nothing bad will happen, because in reality, nothing bad will)</li><li>Is cheap (in terms of cost and convenience)&mdash;and this is Bruce's criticism, because what's being proposed ain't!</li></ul></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>   I feel better with the heightened security because I feel safe ,    said Belisle , who was flying to Washington , D.C. , to visit her son in Virginia.Source : my local newspaper this morning .
We call it security theatre .
It 's annoying , wasteful , ineffective in our minds .
For much of the world , it 's a teddy bear that keeps the closet monsters away .
People just feel better.Security theater is not intrinsically bad .
For good security theater , you need a few things : Brings people 's expectations into line with reality ( i.e .
reassures them that nothing bad will happen , because in reality , nothing bad will ) Is cheap ( in terms of cost and convenience )    and this is Bruce 's criticism , because what 's being proposed ai n't !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>“I feel better with the heightened security because I feel safe,” said Belisle, who was flying to Washington, D.C., to visit her son in Virginia.Source: my local newspaper this morning.
We call it security theatre.
It's annoying, wasteful, ineffective in our minds.
For much of the world, it's a teddy bear that keeps the closet monsters away.
People just feel better.Security theater is not intrinsically bad.
For good security theater, you need a few things: Brings people's expectations into line with reality (i.e.
reassures them that nothing bad will happen, because in reality, nothing bad will)Is cheap (in terms of cost and convenience)—and this is Bruce's criticism, because what's being proposed ain't!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585748</id>
	<title>They've won already</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262077440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When we change our laws or limit the freedoms of our society due to a terrorist attack, we've already lost the freedom that we say we so dearly believe in.  If we truly believe in the freedom, we shouldn't be giving those up due to terror attacks, wars etc.</p><p>Contrary to many people's fantasy visions of freedom, freedom is never limitless.  Virtually all definitions provide limits to freedom, whether that's murder, rape, theft, etc. and provide more restrictive limits on those found to be outside the acceptable limits.  If we truly believe that the limits to freedoms defined by our laws are correct, they should be correct even for terrorists and shouldn't limit even their freedoms until they've broken a law.</p><p>The current reaction to possible terrorist activities have done more to limit freedom than the direct results of any of the terrorist attacks have done.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When we change our laws or limit the freedoms of our society due to a terrorist attack , we 've already lost the freedom that we say we so dearly believe in .
If we truly believe in the freedom , we should n't be giving those up due to terror attacks , wars etc.Contrary to many people 's fantasy visions of freedom , freedom is never limitless .
Virtually all definitions provide limits to freedom , whether that 's murder , rape , theft , etc .
and provide more restrictive limits on those found to be outside the acceptable limits .
If we truly believe that the limits to freedoms defined by our laws are correct , they should be correct even for terrorists and should n't limit even their freedoms until they 've broken a law.The current reaction to possible terrorist activities have done more to limit freedom than the direct results of any of the terrorist attacks have done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When we change our laws or limit the freedoms of our society due to a terrorist attack, we've already lost the freedom that we say we so dearly believe in.
If we truly believe in the freedom, we shouldn't be giving those up due to terror attacks, wars etc.Contrary to many people's fantasy visions of freedom, freedom is never limitless.
Virtually all definitions provide limits to freedom, whether that's murder, rape, theft, etc.
and provide more restrictive limits on those found to be outside the acceptable limits.
If we truly believe that the limits to freedoms defined by our laws are correct, they should be correct even for terrorists and shouldn't limit even their freedoms until they've broken a law.The current reaction to possible terrorist activities have done more to limit freedom than the direct results of any of the terrorist attacks have done.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30587492</id>
	<title>Not the U.S. who is terrified, it's the TSA</title>
	<author>SuperKendall</author>
	<datestamp>1262085360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>These actions don't seem rational to me. The country with a military spend ten times greater than the next largest country, probably with a military the size of most of the rest of the world is scared of individuals approaching its shores bearing nail scissors?</i></p><p>P.S. - They allowed nail clippers again some time ago.</p><p>But that doesn't mean the core of your argument is not as valid - some of the new rules, in particular the hands thing and the hour line Time Of Penance are just as (if not more) absurd and do nothing to help.</p><p>But make no mistake, it's not more than a handful of travelers and U.S. citizens that welcome these measures.  It's not the citizens that are afraid, it's the bureaucracy!</p><p><i>If it is not against another sovereign state, can war be declared, and can it be agreed to be ceased?</i></p><p>I don't see why you can only have nations declare war, and not any other group.  If companies can be multi-national, why not fighting forces?  To me it's every bit a war as a war with a state that has physical boundaries.  After all, let's say Iran deploys nuclear weapons against someone and we decide to retaliate - there are millions of people there who are not really at war with us either and we would not want to harm.  It's exactly the same with terrorists, a core of people who have declared war on us surrounded by people we should not harm.  So a "war against terrorism" is really not that much different than a traditional modern war, just more physically dispersed.</p><p>And that is also why I think it makes a lot more sense to harden likely targets rather than try and eliminate terrorism, which is obviously an impossible goal (though a realistic one is to make it difficult for them to build serious levels of strength, that is practical because that generally happens in a relatively few specific physical or logical areas you can attack)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These actions do n't seem rational to me .
The country with a military spend ten times greater than the next largest country , probably with a military the size of most of the rest of the world is scared of individuals approaching its shores bearing nail scissors ? P.S .
- They allowed nail clippers again some time ago.But that does n't mean the core of your argument is not as valid - some of the new rules , in particular the hands thing and the hour line Time Of Penance are just as ( if not more ) absurd and do nothing to help.But make no mistake , it 's not more than a handful of travelers and U.S. citizens that welcome these measures .
It 's not the citizens that are afraid , it 's the bureaucracy ! If it is not against another sovereign state , can war be declared , and can it be agreed to be ceased ? I do n't see why you can only have nations declare war , and not any other group .
If companies can be multi-national , why not fighting forces ?
To me it 's every bit a war as a war with a state that has physical boundaries .
After all , let 's say Iran deploys nuclear weapons against someone and we decide to retaliate - there are millions of people there who are not really at war with us either and we would not want to harm .
It 's exactly the same with terrorists , a core of people who have declared war on us surrounded by people we should not harm .
So a " war against terrorism " is really not that much different than a traditional modern war , just more physically dispersed.And that is also why I think it makes a lot more sense to harden likely targets rather than try and eliminate terrorism , which is obviously an impossible goal ( though a realistic one is to make it difficult for them to build serious levels of strength , that is practical because that generally happens in a relatively few specific physical or logical areas you can attack )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These actions don't seem rational to me.
The country with a military spend ten times greater than the next largest country, probably with a military the size of most of the rest of the world is scared of individuals approaching its shores bearing nail scissors?P.S.
- They allowed nail clippers again some time ago.But that doesn't mean the core of your argument is not as valid - some of the new rules, in particular the hands thing and the hour line Time Of Penance are just as (if not more) absurd and do nothing to help.But make no mistake, it's not more than a handful of travelers and U.S. citizens that welcome these measures.
It's not the citizens that are afraid, it's the bureaucracy!If it is not against another sovereign state, can war be declared, and can it be agreed to be ceased?I don't see why you can only have nations declare war, and not any other group.
If companies can be multi-national, why not fighting forces?
To me it's every bit a war as a war with a state that has physical boundaries.
After all, let's say Iran deploys nuclear weapons against someone and we decide to retaliate - there are millions of people there who are not really at war with us either and we would not want to harm.
It's exactly the same with terrorists, a core of people who have declared war on us surrounded by people we should not harm.
So a "war against terrorism" is really not that much different than a traditional modern war, just more physically dispersed.And that is also why I think it makes a lot more sense to harden likely targets rather than try and eliminate terrorism, which is obviously an impossible goal (though a realistic one is to make it difficult for them to build serious levels of strength, that is practical because that generally happens in a relatively few specific physical or logical areas you can attack)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30596548</id>
	<title>Re:Bruce is only pointing out the obvious. . . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259865660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The obvious is not so obvious to a lot of people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The obvious is not so obvious to a lot of people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The obvious is not so obvious to a lot of people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585800</id>
	<title>Re:Bruce is only pointing out the obvious. . . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262077680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In a RATIONAL world, **one** terrorism flag (i.e. one-way ticket, buying with cash, no luggage, watch list, etc) would yield pulling the passenger aside and "enhanced investigation": two flags, and the person is getting a very thorough body and luggage search, and three or more flags, it's grab the latex gloves, because it's a strip-search and fine-tooth comb search through luggage and posessions.</p></div><p>All of the terrorism flags you point out frustrate me every time I hear them, as they don't make any sense at all.  If it is known that a one way ticket is a "flag" then terrorists will simply buy a two way ticket.  Do you think that extra hundred bucks they have to spend to get the return ticket is going to matter if it will reduce their chance of getting caught?  Same with not having luggage, if that's a known flag they'll just carry some luggage.  Buying with cash an issue?  It's not hard to steal someone else's credit card and use that.</p><p>In a RATIONAL world we wouldn't use such easy to overcome flags.  The things you mention are simply security theatre, just like Bruce was talking about in his article.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In a RATIONAL world , * * one * * terrorism flag ( i.e .
one-way ticket , buying with cash , no luggage , watch list , etc ) would yield pulling the passenger aside and " enhanced investigation " : two flags , and the person is getting a very thorough body and luggage search , and three or more flags , it 's grab the latex gloves , because it 's a strip-search and fine-tooth comb search through luggage and posessions.All of the terrorism flags you point out frustrate me every time I hear them , as they do n't make any sense at all .
If it is known that a one way ticket is a " flag " then terrorists will simply buy a two way ticket .
Do you think that extra hundred bucks they have to spend to get the return ticket is going to matter if it will reduce their chance of getting caught ?
Same with not having luggage , if that 's a known flag they 'll just carry some luggage .
Buying with cash an issue ?
It 's not hard to steal someone else 's credit card and use that.In a RATIONAL world we would n't use such easy to overcome flags .
The things you mention are simply security theatre , just like Bruce was talking about in his article .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In a RATIONAL world, **one** terrorism flag (i.e.
one-way ticket, buying with cash, no luggage, watch list, etc) would yield pulling the passenger aside and "enhanced investigation": two flags, and the person is getting a very thorough body and luggage search, and three or more flags, it's grab the latex gloves, because it's a strip-search and fine-tooth comb search through luggage and posessions.All of the terrorism flags you point out frustrate me every time I hear them, as they don't make any sense at all.
If it is known that a one way ticket is a "flag" then terrorists will simply buy a two way ticket.
Do you think that extra hundred bucks they have to spend to get the return ticket is going to matter if it will reduce their chance of getting caught?
Same with not having luggage, if that's a known flag they'll just carry some luggage.
Buying with cash an issue?
It's not hard to steal someone else's credit card and use that.In a RATIONAL world we wouldn't use such easy to overcome flags.
The things you mention are simply security theatre, just like Bruce was talking about in his article.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585460</id>
	<title>Re:Bruce is only pointing out the obvious. . . .</title>
	<author>AK Marc</author>
	<datestamp>1262119440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We react to events, not risks.  The real risks are untouched until exploited.  We need penetration testing.  We need to pay people to try to bring down planes, and then figure out how to stop them.  And is the problem blowing them up, or getting an armed person on board?  Making them crash is easy.  A kid with a slingshot and good aim has a reasonably large chance of taking down a jet.  It took a piece of "debris" to take down a Concord.  <br> <br>We want "safety" and can't even define that.  We let employees run around with almost no control (and a large amount of theft from "secure" baggage areas) and subject passengers to questionable security practices.  We don't deploy bomb detectors because it would be too expensive to put them everywhere, and for some reason, we decided that we have to have exactly the same security everywhere, rather than slowly deploying more effective devices as the funds become available.<br> <br>As it stands, rolling back to the security we had 30 years ago wouldn't greatly impact security, but would greatly improve passenger experience.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We react to events , not risks .
The real risks are untouched until exploited .
We need penetration testing .
We need to pay people to try to bring down planes , and then figure out how to stop them .
And is the problem blowing them up , or getting an armed person on board ?
Making them crash is easy .
A kid with a slingshot and good aim has a reasonably large chance of taking down a jet .
It took a piece of " debris " to take down a Concord .
We want " safety " and ca n't even define that .
We let employees run around with almost no control ( and a large amount of theft from " secure " baggage areas ) and subject passengers to questionable security practices .
We do n't deploy bomb detectors because it would be too expensive to put them everywhere , and for some reason , we decided that we have to have exactly the same security everywhere , rather than slowly deploying more effective devices as the funds become available .
As it stands , rolling back to the security we had 30 years ago would n't greatly impact security , but would greatly improve passenger experience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We react to events, not risks.
The real risks are untouched until exploited.
We need penetration testing.
We need to pay people to try to bring down planes, and then figure out how to stop them.
And is the problem blowing them up, or getting an armed person on board?
Making them crash is easy.
A kid with a slingshot and good aim has a reasonably large chance of taking down a jet.
It took a piece of "debris" to take down a Concord.
We want "safety" and can't even define that.
We let employees run around with almost no control (and a large amount of theft from "secure" baggage areas) and subject passengers to questionable security practices.
We don't deploy bomb detectors because it would be too expensive to put them everywhere, and for some reason, we decided that we have to have exactly the same security everywhere, rather than slowly deploying more effective devices as the funds become available.
As it stands, rolling back to the security we had 30 years ago wouldn't greatly impact security, but would greatly improve passenger experience.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30598314</id>
	<title>Re:Bruce is only pointing out the obvious. . . .</title>
	<author>srvivn21</author>
	<datestamp>1259872500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In a RATIONAL world, **one** terrorism flag (i.e. one-way ticket, buying with cash, no luggage, watch list, etc) would yield pulling the passenger aside and "enhanced investigation": two flags, and the person is getting a very thorough body and luggage search, and three or more flags, it's grab the latex gloves, because it's a strip-search and fine-tooth comb search through luggage and posessions.</p></div><p>So if I decide to buy a car 600 miles away, buy a one-way plane ticket with cash and only carry a small bag (or just a book/magazine to read on the plane), you think I should be physically violated (one-way ticket, paid cash, no luggage)?</p><p>That doesn't sound very rational to me.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In a RATIONAL world , * * one * * terrorism flag ( i.e .
one-way ticket , buying with cash , no luggage , watch list , etc ) would yield pulling the passenger aside and " enhanced investigation " : two flags , and the person is getting a very thorough body and luggage search , and three or more flags , it 's grab the latex gloves , because it 's a strip-search and fine-tooth comb search through luggage and posessions.So if I decide to buy a car 600 miles away , buy a one-way plane ticket with cash and only carry a small bag ( or just a book/magazine to read on the plane ) , you think I should be physically violated ( one-way ticket , paid cash , no luggage ) ? That does n't sound very rational to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In a RATIONAL world, **one** terrorism flag (i.e.
one-way ticket, buying with cash, no luggage, watch list, etc) would yield pulling the passenger aside and "enhanced investigation": two flags, and the person is getting a very thorough body and luggage search, and three or more flags, it's grab the latex gloves, because it's a strip-search and fine-tooth comb search through luggage and posessions.So if I decide to buy a car 600 miles away, buy a one-way plane ticket with cash and only carry a small bag (or just a book/magazine to read on the plane), you think I should be physically violated (one-way ticket, paid cash, no luggage)?That doesn't sound very rational to me.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30590756</id>
	<title>Re:Bruce is only pointing out the obvious. . . .</title>
	<author>Donkey\_Hotey</author>
	<datestamp>1262110080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Last year I was sent by my companyr to Connecticut to help repair a Navy sub.</p><p>1:  As I was going to be there for at least six months, I bought a one-way ticket.</p><p>2:  I bought it with cash (my company reimbursed me for it on my very next paycheck).</p><p>3:  I didn't bring any luggage because all work clothing is provided by my employer, and someone who was already there told me that there were a couple of cheap clothing stores nearby (work 16+ hours/day, 7 days/week = doing laundry ain't a happening thing).</p><p>In your "RATIONAL" world I'm a prime candidate for a strip-search, deep cavity inspection, and not even a reach-around to show for it.  Thanks, but no thanks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Last year I was sent by my companyr to Connecticut to help repair a Navy sub.1 : As I was going to be there for at least six months , I bought a one-way ticket.2 : I bought it with cash ( my company reimbursed me for it on my very next paycheck ) .3 : I did n't bring any luggage because all work clothing is provided by my employer , and someone who was already there told me that there were a couple of cheap clothing stores nearby ( work 16 + hours/day , 7 days/week = doing laundry ai n't a happening thing ) .In your " RATIONAL " world I 'm a prime candidate for a strip-search , deep cavity inspection , and not even a reach-around to show for it .
Thanks , but no thanks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Last year I was sent by my companyr to Connecticut to help repair a Navy sub.1:  As I was going to be there for at least six months, I bought a one-way ticket.2:  I bought it with cash (my company reimbursed me for it on my very next paycheck).3:  I didn't bring any luggage because all work clothing is provided by my employer, and someone who was already there told me that there were a couple of cheap clothing stores nearby (work 16+ hours/day, 7 days/week = doing laundry ain't a happening thing).In your "RATIONAL" world I'm a prime candidate for a strip-search, deep cavity inspection, and not even a reach-around to show for it.
Thanks, but no thanks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30586420</id>
	<title>Re:Bruce Schneier is blowing smoke</title>
	<author>t0p</author>
	<datestamp>1262080560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>airports typically being a long way away from the city centers where SWAT teams (which are themselves a new invention) operate</p></div><p>What exactly do you mean by "new"?  The first SWAT team in the USA was formed in 1968 in Los Angeles. In the 1970s, there was a TV show called "SWAT", about a SWAT team.  Do you really believe that a 40-year old idea is "new"?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>airports typically being a long way away from the city centers where SWAT teams ( which are themselves a new invention ) operateWhat exactly do you mean by " new " ?
The first SWAT team in the USA was formed in 1968 in Los Angeles .
In the 1970s , there was a TV show called " SWAT " , about a SWAT team .
Do you really believe that a 40-year old idea is " new " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>airports typically being a long way away from the city centers where SWAT teams (which are themselves a new invention) operateWhat exactly do you mean by "new"?
The first SWAT team in the USA was formed in 1968 in Los Angeles.
In the 1970s, there was a TV show called "SWAT", about a SWAT team.
Do you really believe that a 40-year old idea is "new"?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30588822</id>
	<title>Re:Can we make Air Travel Secure?</title>
	<author>Pharmboy</author>
	<datestamp>1262091480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I used to fly several times a year, but now fly maybe once, and drive the rest of the time.  Not because of any fear, but because of the shear hassle and expense.  My wife has a heart monitor, and it took a new TSA agent 20 minutes to search her. (its like a pager with two wires to her chest, nothing big at all)  The TSA has become too fucking stupid for its own good.  As I told the airline attendant, just give everyone a baseball bat as they enter the plane and everyone will be safe.  I wanted to say knife or gun, but felt sure that would end up getting me on the "no flight" list, like the guy who tried to set off the bomb...oh yea, thats right, they didn't put HIM on the list.  And I'm supposed to feel safer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I used to fly several times a year , but now fly maybe once , and drive the rest of the time .
Not because of any fear , but because of the shear hassle and expense .
My wife has a heart monitor , and it took a new TSA agent 20 minutes to search her .
( its like a pager with two wires to her chest , nothing big at all ) The TSA has become too fucking stupid for its own good .
As I told the airline attendant , just give everyone a baseball bat as they enter the plane and everyone will be safe .
I wanted to say knife or gun , but felt sure that would end up getting me on the " no flight " list , like the guy who tried to set off the bomb...oh yea , thats right , they did n't put HIM on the list .
And I 'm supposed to feel safer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used to fly several times a year, but now fly maybe once, and drive the rest of the time.
Not because of any fear, but because of the shear hassle and expense.
My wife has a heart monitor, and it took a new TSA agent 20 minutes to search her.
(its like a pager with two wires to her chest, nothing big at all)  The TSA has become too fucking stupid for its own good.
As I told the airline attendant, just give everyone a baseball bat as they enter the plane and everyone will be safe.
I wanted to say knife or gun, but felt sure that would end up getting me on the "no flight" list, like the guy who tried to set off the bomb...oh yea, thats right, they didn't put HIM on the list.
And I'm supposed to feel safer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30588054</id>
	<title>Re:What about making other things more secure firs</title>
	<author>mpe</author>
	<datestamp>1262087400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Roughly 16,000 people were killed by automobiles in the first six months of this year. Roughly 22,000 were killed by preventable medical errors. If we crashed two or three 747s per week, we still wouldn't be at that level of deaths. If the money we waste on TSA were spent elsewhere, we'd be ahead of the game.</i> <br> <br>Even in terms of aviation AA 331 is probably a more important incident to worry about.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Roughly 16,000 people were killed by automobiles in the first six months of this year .
Roughly 22,000 were killed by preventable medical errors .
If we crashed two or three 747s per week , we still would n't be at that level of deaths .
If the money we waste on TSA were spent elsewhere , we 'd be ahead of the game .
Even in terms of aviation AA 331 is probably a more important incident to worry about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Roughly 16,000 people were killed by automobiles in the first six months of this year.
Roughly 22,000 were killed by preventable medical errors.
If we crashed two or three 747s per week, we still wouldn't be at that level of deaths.
If the money we waste on TSA were spent elsewhere, we'd be ahead of the game.
Even in terms of aviation AA 331 is probably a more important incident to worry about.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584608</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584566
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30589770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30587112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30586494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30588612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585784
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30588028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30590020
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30588516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30595520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585280
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585998
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30588822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30591900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30588464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30589964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30588548
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30588488
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30588984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30591272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30588728
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30586420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30587946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30603176
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30586494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30591234
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30587020
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585176
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30590362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30586154
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30594300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30588014
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30590396
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30590756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30589674
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30586796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30586984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30587740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30589142
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30596548
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30593686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30589834
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30590706
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30586556
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30588598
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30586494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30588364
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585582
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30588772
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30588616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30589742
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30586846
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30587400
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30586610
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30586720
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30586986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30586970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30589762
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30591682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30586078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30586248
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30589206
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30590126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30590820
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30586310
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30588294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30598314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30588054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30588760
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30588118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30587492
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30590274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30589884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585062
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30589958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30586512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30590578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585428
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30586394
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30589952
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585800
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30587882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30590824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30591870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30587274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30587150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585106
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30590018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1436254_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_1436254.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584358
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_1436254.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584834
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_1436254.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585330
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_1436254.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585538
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_1436254.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30586508
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_1436254.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584702
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_1436254.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584792
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_1436254.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585194
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_1436254.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30586494
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30591234
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30588612
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30588364
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_1436254.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584356
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30587150
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30586512
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585162
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30587020
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30588464
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30589964
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30588488
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585952
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30589674
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30586984
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30587946
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30593686
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30588118
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_1436254.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585262
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_1436254.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585512
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30588728
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30586420
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30589206
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30589952
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30588516
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_1436254.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584688
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_1436254.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584376
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_1436254.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584448
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585934
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585176
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30590362
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584784
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30594300
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585590
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30588014
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30588616
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30589142
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30588548
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30588760
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30587882
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30588598
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30589884
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30588294
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30591870
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585516
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30586310
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584874
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584738
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585062
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585130
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30591272
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30586394
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585172
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30586720
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30589742
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30588822
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30590824
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30587740
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_1436254.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584518
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585076
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585106
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30590396
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30596548
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30586846
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30587400
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30598314
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585460
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585534
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30590756
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585372
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585800
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30586970
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_1436254.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584748
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30590126
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585998
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30587274
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585428
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_1436254.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584566
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585990
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_1436254.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585276
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30590706
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_1436254.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584474
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30590020
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585118
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30590274
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585582
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30586610
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30587112
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30588028
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585042
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30586796
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_1436254.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585278
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30586248
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30589762
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_1436254.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585876
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30589834
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_1436254.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585666
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30589958
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30586556
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_1436254.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585010
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30588984
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585690
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_1436254.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584608
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584996
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585784
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585566
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585680
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30588054
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585046
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585970
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30589770
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585280
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30591900
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585684
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_1436254.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584452
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30595520
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30586986
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_1436254.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584758
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_1436254.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585300
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_1436254.32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584970
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30587492
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30590820
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_1436254.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585104
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585430
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30586078
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_1436254.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585604
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30590018
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_1436254.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30585236
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_1436254.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30584536
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30586154
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30588772
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30603176
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30591682
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1436254.30590578
</commentlist>
</conversation>
