<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_03_160220</id>
	<title>Do IT Pros Abuse Their Power?</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1262538900000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"I have noticed that many airports and hospitals I've visited have some kind of internet usage policy in place.  Some use software similar to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Websense">Websense</a>, which effectively blocks sites based on blacklisting them by category.  A commonly used blacklist prevents users from accessing 'forums or discussion boards,' yet I find that often these networks allow users to access sites like Fark, Slashdot, Digg and other message boards that appeal to the technical culture one might find in the IT world.   In your experience, do IT administrators abuse their supervisory powers?  Has there ever been a backlash from users or management for doing so?"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " I have noticed that many airports and hospitals I 've visited have some kind of internet usage policy in place .
Some use software similar to Websense , which effectively blocks sites based on blacklisting them by category .
A commonly used blacklist prevents users from accessing 'forums or discussion boards, ' yet I find that often these networks allow users to access sites like Fark , Slashdot , Digg and other message boards that appeal to the technical culture one might find in the IT world .
In your experience , do IT administrators abuse their supervisory powers ?
Has there ever been a backlash from users or management for doing so ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "I have noticed that many airports and hospitals I've visited have some kind of internet usage policy in place.
Some use software similar to Websense, which effectively blocks sites based on blacklisting them by category.
A commonly used blacklist prevents users from accessing 'forums or discussion boards,' yet I find that often these networks allow users to access sites like Fark, Slashdot, Digg and other message boards that appeal to the technical culture one might find in the IT world.
In your experience, do IT administrators abuse their supervisory powers?
Has there ever been a backlash from users or management for doing so?
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30634806</id>
	<title>only if theyre good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262517540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>only if theyre good.</p><p>is this a long enough text for me to press preview and publish? sure hope so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>only if theyre good.is this a long enough text for me to press preview and publish ?
sure hope so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>only if theyre good.is this a long enough text for me to press preview and publish?
sure hope so.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633816</id>
	<title>Absolutely not and stop saying that</title>
	<author>DrBuzzo</author>
	<datestamp>1262509980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No we don't.   And don't say that we do.  Don't imply that we do.  Don't think that we do.    At least, you won't do any of that if you don't want your network connection to start acting up.   In fact, if you want to get any kind of service in any reasonable time, I highly suggest that you only talk positively about the admin.   Kapish?</htmltext>
<tokenext>No we do n't .
And do n't say that we do .
Do n't imply that we do .
Do n't think that we do .
At least , you wo n't do any of that if you do n't want your network connection to start acting up .
In fact , if you want to get any kind of service in any reasonable time , I highly suggest that you only talk positively about the admin .
Kapish ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No we don't.
And don't say that we do.
Don't imply that we do.
Don't think that we do.
At least, you won't do any of that if you don't want your network connection to start acting up.
In fact, if you want to get any kind of service in any reasonable time, I highly suggest that you only talk positively about the admin.
Kapish?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30634102</id>
	<title>No, because I can't.</title>
	<author>jotaeleemeese</author>
	<datestamp>1262512320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It comes as surprise to me that serious companies are not auditing what IT people do.</p><p>Network and Sys Admin managers should be heavily audited and constrained, precisely because they have so much power and *will* eventually abuse the power that has been conveyed to them (this is not an "if" but "when" situation).</p><p>So any properly run company will set policies in place, will ask the different IT teams to implement them and then will ask a 3rd team, without administrative rights, to check that the IT teams are adhering to the policies and procedures as requested.</p><p>Any company in which IT people can abuse their privileges has to look again at how they are organizing their support.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It comes as surprise to me that serious companies are not auditing what IT people do.Network and Sys Admin managers should be heavily audited and constrained , precisely because they have so much power and * will * eventually abuse the power that has been conveyed to them ( this is not an " if " but " when " situation ) .So any properly run company will set policies in place , will ask the different IT teams to implement them and then will ask a 3rd team , without administrative rights , to check that the IT teams are adhering to the policies and procedures as requested.Any company in which IT people can abuse their privileges has to look again at how they are organizing their support .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It comes as surprise to me that serious companies are not auditing what IT people do.Network and Sys Admin managers should be heavily audited and constrained, precisely because they have so much power and *will* eventually abuse the power that has been conveyed to them (this is not an "if" but "when" situation).So any properly run company will set policies in place, will ask the different IT teams to implement them and then will ask a 3rd team, without administrative rights, to check that the IT teams are adhering to the policies and procedures as requested.Any company in which IT people can abuse their privileges has to look again at how they are organizing their support.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632598</id>
	<title>Re:Do power users abuse their IT knowledge?</title>
	<author>modestgeek</author>
	<datestamp>1262543460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't understand why people always try to "get around" these restrictions. If there is a legitimate business need, then get it approved. These preventions are put in place for a reason. The more open the network, the more risk. The more risk means more virus, trojans, botnets, data leakage, etc. IT then has to cleanup your mess. <br> <br>

Besides, SSH tunnels won't work on my network. I've got all protocols being intercepted by the proxy (including encrypted). Then an application firewall behind that to make sure the proxy is doing it's job. Social networking is blocked. End of story. And yes, management backs me. <br> <br>

Want to screw off at work? Get an smartphone and do it on your own device. Get a netbook with an aircard. I don't give a fsck what you do at work. It's not my job to make sure you're spending your time wisely. However, it is my job to protect our computers/network and I do that by blocking "risky" sites.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand why people always try to " get around " these restrictions .
If there is a legitimate business need , then get it approved .
These preventions are put in place for a reason .
The more open the network , the more risk .
The more risk means more virus , trojans , botnets , data leakage , etc .
IT then has to cleanup your mess .
Besides , SSH tunnels wo n't work on my network .
I 've got all protocols being intercepted by the proxy ( including encrypted ) .
Then an application firewall behind that to make sure the proxy is doing it 's job .
Social networking is blocked .
End of story .
And yes , management backs me .
Want to screw off at work ?
Get an smartphone and do it on your own device .
Get a netbook with an aircard .
I do n't give a fsck what you do at work .
It 's not my job to make sure you 're spending your time wisely .
However , it is my job to protect our computers/network and I do that by blocking " risky " sites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't understand why people always try to "get around" these restrictions.
If there is a legitimate business need, then get it approved.
These preventions are put in place for a reason.
The more open the network, the more risk.
The more risk means more virus, trojans, botnets, data leakage, etc.
IT then has to cleanup your mess.
Besides, SSH tunnels won't work on my network.
I've got all protocols being intercepted by the proxy (including encrypted).
Then an application firewall behind that to make sure the proxy is doing it's job.
Social networking is blocked.
End of story.
And yes, management backs me.
Want to screw off at work?
Get an smartphone and do it on your own device.
Get a netbook with an aircard.
I don't give a fsck what you do at work.
It's not my job to make sure you're spending your time wisely.
However, it is my job to protect our computers/network and I do that by blocking "risky" sites.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632750</id>
	<title>Don't blame IT</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262544360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is not an evil perpetrated by IT to make it hard to do your job, we have much more subtle ways of doing that (Using Windows, Exchange, "Network Outages", outsourcing, etc).  If you don't like this, go talk to your HR department who block all of this to protect your brand and shoe due diligence in preventing hostile work environment issues.  Or complain to your politicians about our over litigious world.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not an evil perpetrated by IT to make it hard to do your job , we have much more subtle ways of doing that ( Using Windows , Exchange , " Network Outages " , outsourcing , etc ) .
If you do n't like this , go talk to your HR department who block all of this to protect your brand and shoe due diligence in preventing hostile work environment issues .
Or complain to your politicians about our over litigious world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not an evil perpetrated by IT to make it hard to do your job, we have much more subtle ways of doing that (Using Windows, Exchange, "Network Outages", outsourcing, etc).
If you don't like this, go talk to your HR department who block all of this to protect your brand and shoe due diligence in preventing hostile work environment issues.
Or complain to your politicians about our over litigious world.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632786</id>
	<title>Re:Since when..</title>
	<author>poetmatt</author>
	<datestamp>1262544660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you can blame the fact that the websense ceo is the same guy who was ceo of Mcafee during the time when Mcafee was known to be a piece of shit software that wasn't complete or accurate. Is it any more surprising that he's equally badly mismanaging websense, and is selling to the same crowd with both basically?</p><p>The issue is a man named <a href="http://people.forbes.com/profile/gene-hodges/110674" title="forbes.com">gene hodges </a> [forbes.com], the guy is a horrible ceo (and cause for many tech issues relying on anything he is a part of) .</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you can blame the fact that the websense ceo is the same guy who was ceo of Mcafee during the time when Mcafee was known to be a piece of shit software that was n't complete or accurate .
Is it any more surprising that he 's equally badly mismanaging websense , and is selling to the same crowd with both basically ? The issue is a man named gene hodges [ forbes.com ] , the guy is a horrible ceo ( and cause for many tech issues relying on anything he is a part of ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you can blame the fact that the websense ceo is the same guy who was ceo of Mcafee during the time when Mcafee was known to be a piece of shit software that wasn't complete or accurate.
Is it any more surprising that he's equally badly mismanaging websense, and is selling to the same crowd with both basically?The issue is a man named gene hodges  [forbes.com], the guy is a horrible ceo (and cause for many tech issues relying on anything he is a part of) .</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633848</id>
	<title>Re:New around here?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262510340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And under no circumstances can the use of the ClueBat be deemed abuse of any employee.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And under no circumstances can the use of the ClueBat be deemed abuse of any employee .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And under no circumstances can the use of the ClueBat be deemed abuse of any employee.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632524</id>
	<title>Digg?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262542980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Digg has tech news? I thought it was all libertarianism and marijuana.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Digg has tech news ?
I thought it was all libertarianism and marijuana .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Digg has tech news?
I thought it was all libertarianism and marijuana.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30635650</id>
	<title>Required Reading</title>
	<author>waveclaw</author>
	<datestamp>1262523180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I took an IT certification test in 2008 that required me to identify technology sites important to keeping my skills current.
<p>
.
</p><p>
Of the correct answers required, one was <a href="http://slashdot.org./" title="slashdot.org.">http://slashdot.org./</a> [slashdot.org.]
</p><p>
Make of that what you may, but even on the off days this little 'blog of CowboyNeal's is still considered by many to be less a water cooler for Geeks and more of a IT information resource.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I took an IT certification test in 2008 that required me to identify technology sites important to keeping my skills current .
. Of the correct answers required , one was http : //slashdot.org./ [ slashdot.org .
] Make of that what you may , but even on the off days this little 'blog of CowboyNeal 's is still considered by many to be less a water cooler for Geeks and more of a IT information resource .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I took an IT certification test in 2008 that required me to identify technology sites important to keeping my skills current.
.

Of the correct answers required, one was http://slashdot.org./ [slashdot.org.
]

Make of that what you may, but even on the off days this little 'blog of CowboyNeal's is still considered by many to be less a water cooler for Geeks and more of a IT information resource.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633926</id>
	<title>No, "Professionals" do not</title>
	<author>grasshoppa</author>
	<datestamp>1262511060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The rest of the hacks which shame our profession might, but I'd like to think they are becoming the minority by this point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The rest of the hacks which shame our profession might , but I 'd like to think they are becoming the minority by this point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The rest of the hacks which shame our profession might, but I'd like to think they are becoming the minority by this point.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30635368</id>
	<title>No need for filtering</title>
	<author>cryfreedomlove</author>
	<datestamp>1262521200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You only need internet filtering in the workplace if you have bad hiring practices that allow time wasting B league players on your team.  If you build an A league team then they will self manage their use of a wide open network.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You only need internet filtering in the workplace if you have bad hiring practices that allow time wasting B league players on your team .
If you build an A league team then they will self manage their use of a wide open network .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You only need internet filtering in the workplace if you have bad hiring practices that allow time wasting B league players on your team.
If you build an A league team then they will self manage their use of a wide open network.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30639818</id>
	<title>It Was The Users That Abused Their Privledges</title>
	<author>noc007</author>
	<datestamp>1262615040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>At the company I work for, the users had unrestricted access to the internet. Then they started abusing that freedom by going to porn sites, soaking up all the bandwidth with streaming music and YouTube, and happily going to every malware website possible. We got fed up with blocking IP ranges at the firewall, having to tell a user not to stream media, and finding out how creative a user can get with getting malware.

I campaigned for and got a content filter. Not everyone gets a "no internets" policy. We start off with restricting the really malicious sites first, then allow full access to those that need it (e.g. underwriting), then make category blocks like porn, and then granular as each department head sees fit. So far everyone has gotten use to it. Sites do get miscategorized from time to time, but we can unblock them and recategorize them as needed. Really we should have had something like this when I first started since there is a possibility for unrestricted access to become a liability.

OP, if you want a website unblocked, put a request to the netadmin to have it unblocked. Otherwise appreciate that you do have some level of an internet connection that you're not paying for, get some means of a VPN that wont restrict internet access, or pay a hefty sum for an aircard.</htmltext>
<tokenext>At the company I work for , the users had unrestricted access to the internet .
Then they started abusing that freedom by going to porn sites , soaking up all the bandwidth with streaming music and YouTube , and happily going to every malware website possible .
We got fed up with blocking IP ranges at the firewall , having to tell a user not to stream media , and finding out how creative a user can get with getting malware .
I campaigned for and got a content filter .
Not everyone gets a " no internets " policy .
We start off with restricting the really malicious sites first , then allow full access to those that need it ( e.g .
underwriting ) , then make category blocks like porn , and then granular as each department head sees fit .
So far everyone has gotten use to it .
Sites do get miscategorized from time to time , but we can unblock them and recategorize them as needed .
Really we should have had something like this when I first started since there is a possibility for unrestricted access to become a liability .
OP , if you want a website unblocked , put a request to the netadmin to have it unblocked .
Otherwise appreciate that you do have some level of an internet connection that you 're not paying for , get some means of a VPN that wont restrict internet access , or pay a hefty sum for an aircard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At the company I work for, the users had unrestricted access to the internet.
Then they started abusing that freedom by going to porn sites, soaking up all the bandwidth with streaming music and YouTube, and happily going to every malware website possible.
We got fed up with blocking IP ranges at the firewall, having to tell a user not to stream media, and finding out how creative a user can get with getting malware.
I campaigned for and got a content filter.
Not everyone gets a "no internets" policy.
We start off with restricting the really malicious sites first, then allow full access to those that need it (e.g.
underwriting), then make category blocks like porn, and then granular as each department head sees fit.
So far everyone has gotten use to it.
Sites do get miscategorized from time to time, but we can unblock them and recategorize them as needed.
Really we should have had something like this when I first started since there is a possibility for unrestricted access to become a liability.
OP, if you want a website unblocked, put a request to the netadmin to have it unblocked.
Otherwise appreciate that you do have some level of an internet connection that you're not paying for, get some means of a VPN that wont restrict internet access, or pay a hefty sum for an aircard.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30637954</id>
	<title>I know I do.</title>
	<author>phreakincool</author>
	<datestamp>1262546580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Shit! Its one of the few perks I have left.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Shit !
Its one of the few perks I have left .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shit!
Its one of the few perks I have left.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633608</id>
	<title>Abuse of Power Comes As No Surprise</title>
	<author>Incadenza</author>
	<datestamp>1262550960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am the only one who was imediately reminded of the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2009/03/13/arts/20090313-HOLZ\_2.html" title="nytimes.com">Jenny Holzer</a> [nytimes.com] <a href="http://www.moma.org/collection/browse\_results.php?criteria=O\%3AAD\%3AE\%3A2714&amp;page\_number=7&amp;template\_id=1&amp;sort\_order=1" title="moma.org">truism</a> [moma.org]?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am the only one who was imediately reminded of the Jenny Holzer [ nytimes.com ] truism [ moma.org ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am the only one who was imediately reminded of the Jenny Holzer [nytimes.com] truism [moma.org]?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30634454</id>
	<title>It and Support</title>
	<author>hesperant</author>
	<datestamp>1262515260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can see why this type of question would come up.  If I cannot view something why can the governing team view something similar.
A few explanations are:
IT and support related people are not massive centers of knowledge on technical issues to often complex technical issues, access to other tech resources (even slashdot) are searchable resources.
Allot of sites that are blocked at companies I support, are due to an abuse of them or common fear of them. Sites such as Facebook, or even Google Groups might have already been abused by others within your environment and made it on the list of blocked sites.
Some services use automated complaint metrics to determine the eligibility of a site to be blocked or unblocked.  A boss or coworker complains to an email address or web site that keeps a tally of what sites are causing the most issues and blocks them based on the level of complaint.  As an example, someone in the office likes to listen to Andrew Dice Clay on You Toober and do so loudly.  This individual might have been above reproach (specialized hard to find skill set) so a number of complaints are made to the automated system and soon You Toober becomes unavailable.

These are just possibilities and not the exact reasons.  I thought it best since I do not have any measure of control over your environment.

hesperant</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can see why this type of question would come up .
If I can not view something why can the governing team view something similar .
A few explanations are : IT and support related people are not massive centers of knowledge on technical issues to often complex technical issues , access to other tech resources ( even slashdot ) are searchable resources .
Allot of sites that are blocked at companies I support , are due to an abuse of them or common fear of them .
Sites such as Facebook , or even Google Groups might have already been abused by others within your environment and made it on the list of blocked sites .
Some services use automated complaint metrics to determine the eligibility of a site to be blocked or unblocked .
A boss or coworker complains to an email address or web site that keeps a tally of what sites are causing the most issues and blocks them based on the level of complaint .
As an example , someone in the office likes to listen to Andrew Dice Clay on You Toober and do so loudly .
This individual might have been above reproach ( specialized hard to find skill set ) so a number of complaints are made to the automated system and soon You Toober becomes unavailable .
These are just possibilities and not the exact reasons .
I thought it best since I do not have any measure of control over your environment .
hesperant</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can see why this type of question would come up.
If I cannot view something why can the governing team view something similar.
A few explanations are:
IT and support related people are not massive centers of knowledge on technical issues to often complex technical issues, access to other tech resources (even slashdot) are searchable resources.
Allot of sites that are blocked at companies I support, are due to an abuse of them or common fear of them.
Sites such as Facebook, or even Google Groups might have already been abused by others within your environment and made it on the list of blocked sites.
Some services use automated complaint metrics to determine the eligibility of a site to be blocked or unblocked.
A boss or coworker complains to an email address or web site that keeps a tally of what sites are causing the most issues and blocks them based on the level of complaint.
As an example, someone in the office likes to listen to Andrew Dice Clay on You Toober and do so loudly.
This individual might have been above reproach (specialized hard to find skill set) so a number of complaints are made to the automated system and soon You Toober becomes unavailable.
These are just possibilities and not the exact reasons.
I thought it best since I do not have any measure of control over your environment.
hesperant</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30636666</id>
	<title>Re:thats business</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262531460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You post matches my writing style and describes my office with such accuracy, I expect at least a few people to claim that I wrote it.</p><p>The part you are missing is that many of these "important corporate policies" are designed by IT to make work for themselves.  These very same IT gurus proceed to apply the policies slowly, inconsistently, and poorly -- because they are so "busy".   Working in my office is like going through airport security -- every day, all day long.  Legitimate passengers are given a royal hassle, while the terrorists play straight through.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You post matches my writing style and describes my office with such accuracy , I expect at least a few people to claim that I wrote it.The part you are missing is that many of these " important corporate policies " are designed by IT to make work for themselves .
These very same IT gurus proceed to apply the policies slowly , inconsistently , and poorly -- because they are so " busy " .
Working in my office is like going through airport security -- every day , all day long .
Legitimate passengers are given a royal hassle , while the terrorists play straight through .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You post matches my writing style and describes my office with such accuracy, I expect at least a few people to claim that I wrote it.The part you are missing is that many of these "important corporate policies" are designed by IT to make work for themselves.
These very same IT gurus proceed to apply the policies slowly, inconsistently, and poorly -- because they are so "busy".
Working in my office is like going through airport security -- every day, all day long.
Legitimate passengers are given a royal hassle, while the terrorists play straight through.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633074</id>
	<title>anonymous reader writes...</title>
	<author>Evil Shabazz</author>
	<datestamp>1262546400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, right.. this question is so stupid, I would be surprised if anyone in their right mind would attach their name to it.  The answer: Yes, of course, but no more so than most any other legitimate profession (and by legitimate I rule out the predominant abundance of power abuse in American politics).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , right.. this question is so stupid , I would be surprised if anyone in their right mind would attach their name to it .
The answer : Yes , of course , but no more so than most any other legitimate profession ( and by legitimate I rule out the predominant abundance of power abuse in American politics ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, right.. this question is so stupid, I would be surprised if anyone in their right mind would attach their name to it.
The answer: Yes, of course, but no more so than most any other legitimate profession (and by legitimate I rule out the predominant abundance of power abuse in American politics).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633142</id>
	<title>it depends</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262546880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>speaking as "the IT guy" - it always depends on the companies policies and the usage of the sites/services</p><p>Let's take Facebook as an example: While it can be [used as] a powerfull business network/tool it's also a major distraction and waste of time.<br>Even if 90\% of your FB friends are [your] business contacts it doesn't make it "legit". It's private like Gmail, Twitter, Skype and everything else<br>unless you're instructed to use it.</p><p>Also it's a question of productivity. You might think "Hey, I always finish projects within the dead line! Why do they care if I 'skype' with friends??"<br>Well, simply because you might be able to do 2 projects within the same time frame without all the distractions. (time equals money)</p><p>And from the IT's eyes it can be a pain for the network and hardware (P2P, streaming video like Youtube, and so on).<br>Some banks for example only forward emails up to a few 100kb. Everything above is stored locally and send at a specific time (outside business hours)<br>so it won't interfere with the usual business.</p><p>As for not blocking technical sites - working in the IT it's part of the job to be up to date with the latest tech, gadgets and everything related to your job.<br>So it doesn't really make sense blocking those resources, right? Of course there are situations where it seems unfair in your eyes but if you have a good<br>point about why you should be allowed to use something take the shot, talk to your supervisor and see if it get's through.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>speaking as " the IT guy " - it always depends on the companies policies and the usage of the sites/servicesLet 's take Facebook as an example : While it can be [ used as ] a powerfull business network/tool it 's also a major distraction and waste of time.Even if 90 \ % of your FB friends are [ your ] business contacts it does n't make it " legit " .
It 's private like Gmail , Twitter , Skype and everything elseunless you 're instructed to use it.Also it 's a question of productivity .
You might think " Hey , I always finish projects within the dead line !
Why do they care if I 'skype ' with friends ? ?
" Well , simply because you might be able to do 2 projects within the same time frame without all the distractions .
( time equals money ) And from the IT 's eyes it can be a pain for the network and hardware ( P2P , streaming video like Youtube , and so on ) .Some banks for example only forward emails up to a few 100kb .
Everything above is stored locally and send at a specific time ( outside business hours ) so it wo n't interfere with the usual business.As for not blocking technical sites - working in the IT it 's part of the job to be up to date with the latest tech , gadgets and everything related to your job.So it does n't really make sense blocking those resources , right ?
Of course there are situations where it seems unfair in your eyes but if you have a goodpoint about why you should be allowed to use something take the shot , talk to your supervisor and see if it get 's through .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>speaking as "the IT guy" - it always depends on the companies policies and the usage of the sites/servicesLet's take Facebook as an example: While it can be [used as] a powerfull business network/tool it's also a major distraction and waste of time.Even if 90\% of your FB friends are [your] business contacts it doesn't make it "legit".
It's private like Gmail, Twitter, Skype and everything elseunless you're instructed to use it.Also it's a question of productivity.
You might think "Hey, I always finish projects within the dead line!
Why do they care if I 'skype' with friends??
"Well, simply because you might be able to do 2 projects within the same time frame without all the distractions.
(time equals money)And from the IT's eyes it can be a pain for the network and hardware (P2P, streaming video like Youtube, and so on).Some banks for example only forward emails up to a few 100kb.
Everything above is stored locally and send at a specific time (outside business hours)so it won't interfere with the usual business.As for not blocking technical sites - working in the IT it's part of the job to be up to date with the latest tech, gadgets and everything related to your job.So it doesn't really make sense blocking those resources, right?
Of course there are situations where it seems unfair in your eyes but if you have a goodpoint about why you should be allowed to use something take the shot, talk to your supervisor and see if it get's through.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632814</id>
	<title>Do not mess...</title>
	<author>superflit</author>
	<datestamp>1262544900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do not mess with Slashdot Crowd!<br>We are watching...</p><p>Go back to your MBA friends..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do not mess with Slashdot Crowd ! We are watching...Go back to your MBA friends. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do not mess with Slashdot Crowd!We are watching...Go back to your MBA friends..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30634224</id>
	<title>MwaHaHaHa!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262513220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Of course they don't abuse their power, you foolish little man. These are not the Droids you seek.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course they do n't abuse their power , you foolish little man .
These are not the Droids you seek .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course they don't abuse their power, you foolish little man.
These are not the Droids you seek.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30634672</id>
	<title>Re:IT Pros don't make policy.</title>
	<author>xaxa</author>
	<datestamp>1262516700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Next time you tell this joke, put on a British accent and end it with <i>jizz covered fags are a bitch to light</i>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Next time you tell this joke , put on a British accent and end it with jizz covered fags are a bitch to light .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Next time you tell this joke, put on a British accent and end it with jizz covered fags are a bitch to light.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632838</id>
	<title>Re:Of course</title>
	<author>digitig</author>
	<datestamp>1262545020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't be silly. It would only be "abuse" if it were a <em>bad</em> thing!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't be silly .
It would only be " abuse " if it were a bad thing !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't be silly.
It would only be "abuse" if it were a bad thing!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30634334</id>
	<title>Re:Power Corrupts...</title>
	<author>MerlinTheWizard</author>
	<datestamp>1262514000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yep, it's the most frequent kind of abuse. IT people making changes without prior warning nor any concern about how people work and use IT in their daily routine.

They usually never even ask.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep , it 's the most frequent kind of abuse .
IT people making changes without prior warning nor any concern about how people work and use IT in their daily routine .
They usually never even ask .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep, it's the most frequent kind of abuse.
IT people making changes without prior warning nor any concern about how people work and use IT in their daily routine.
They usually never even ask.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633102</id>
	<title>Not in my company, but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262546640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In companies where I was responsible for IT management, rules applied across the board. Period. There was no going around proxy servers, firewalls, nothing, even by the IT/Network guys. I reviewed every firewall rule and quarterly dumped them all for a formal review.</p><p>OTOH, I have worked at places where the network guys would place specific firewall reverse forward rules so they could RDP into their work systems from home without VPN. The VPN was robust. Even after they left positions in the company where day-to-day control of those resources wasn't part of their jobs, somehow, they still had the login to the DMZ, DMZ routers, firewalls and switches. Scary. We're talking months to over 1 yr later.</p><p>That company needed thousands of specialized firewall and port forwarding rules to enable selected communications with our vendors and partners. I doubt a complete review of all the firewall rules would be possible. Hundreds of entry points into the internal network, perhaps thousands world-wide. It is one of the largest networks in the world, but not at large as milnet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In companies where I was responsible for IT management , rules applied across the board .
Period. There was no going around proxy servers , firewalls , nothing , even by the IT/Network guys .
I reviewed every firewall rule and quarterly dumped them all for a formal review.OTOH , I have worked at places where the network guys would place specific firewall reverse forward rules so they could RDP into their work systems from home without VPN .
The VPN was robust .
Even after they left positions in the company where day-to-day control of those resources was n't part of their jobs , somehow , they still had the login to the DMZ , DMZ routers , firewalls and switches .
Scary. We 're talking months to over 1 yr later.That company needed thousands of specialized firewall and port forwarding rules to enable selected communications with our vendors and partners .
I doubt a complete review of all the firewall rules would be possible .
Hundreds of entry points into the internal network , perhaps thousands world-wide .
It is one of the largest networks in the world , but not at large as milnet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In companies where I was responsible for IT management, rules applied across the board.
Period. There was no going around proxy servers, firewalls, nothing, even by the IT/Network guys.
I reviewed every firewall rule and quarterly dumped them all for a formal review.OTOH, I have worked at places where the network guys would place specific firewall reverse forward rules so they could RDP into their work systems from home without VPN.
The VPN was robust.
Even after they left positions in the company where day-to-day control of those resources wasn't part of their jobs, somehow, they still had the login to the DMZ, DMZ routers, firewalls and switches.
Scary. We're talking months to over 1 yr later.That company needed thousands of specialized firewall and port forwarding rules to enable selected communications with our vendors and partners.
I doubt a complete review of all the firewall rules would be possible.
Hundreds of entry points into the internal network, perhaps thousands world-wide.
It is one of the largest networks in the world, but not at large as milnet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30634344</id>
	<title>I would say SOME Pro's do not</title>
	<author>xQuarkDS9x</author>
	<datestamp>1262514060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would honestly say it depends what kind of work environment you are in. Case in point, I worked in one retail store that had I would estimate about 20-25 terminals throughout the store, and each of them ran from Windows Server 2003. Internet Explorer was of course locked down hardcore to a Symantic Proxy that only allowed you to browse the company website.</p><p>However, apparantly this must have annoyed someone because I had noticed Mozilla Firefox was also installed, and the way it was configured to block access like Internet Explorer? Through proxy settings, a simple clearing out of all the proxy fields in Firefox options enabled FULL internet browsing.</p><p>Overall it just depends how determined they are to block internet access, and how "tech saavy" they think people will be to get past it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would honestly say it depends what kind of work environment you are in .
Case in point , I worked in one retail store that had I would estimate about 20-25 terminals throughout the store , and each of them ran from Windows Server 2003 .
Internet Explorer was of course locked down hardcore to a Symantic Proxy that only allowed you to browse the company website.However , apparantly this must have annoyed someone because I had noticed Mozilla Firefox was also installed , and the way it was configured to block access like Internet Explorer ?
Through proxy settings , a simple clearing out of all the proxy fields in Firefox options enabled FULL internet browsing.Overall it just depends how determined they are to block internet access , and how " tech saavy " they think people will be to get past it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would honestly say it depends what kind of work environment you are in.
Case in point, I worked in one retail store that had I would estimate about 20-25 terminals throughout the store, and each of them ran from Windows Server 2003.
Internet Explorer was of course locked down hardcore to a Symantic Proxy that only allowed you to browse the company website.However, apparantly this must have annoyed someone because I had noticed Mozilla Firefox was also installed, and the way it was configured to block access like Internet Explorer?
Through proxy settings, a simple clearing out of all the proxy fields in Firefox options enabled FULL internet browsing.Overall it just depends how determined they are to block internet access, and how "tech saavy" they think people will be to get past it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30635790</id>
	<title>Re:thats business</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1262524320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>and FTP is outright barred - even though one time it was the only way for a client to send me files IT wouldn't do it</p></div><p>I've had a user attempt to tell me that an anonymous FTP server with upload was absolutely necessary for a collaboration with someone on the outside.  I literally laughed out loud right when he asked, and explained why it was a bad idea.  If that was what you were asking for (or almost as bad or potentially worse, passworded FTP server), then I fully support your IT staff.  SFTP within a chroot on a temporary VM might have been a good compromise though.<br>
If you were asking for an FTP client, it seems kind of strange that you couldn't DL via anon FTP with a browser (was FTP port blocked?).  I can almost see why FTP would be restricted:  To prevent someone from accidentally typing their WORK username/password over the clear to a non-work FTP server.  That's a silly scenario though.  Also, if your client had the FTP server, then why couldn't they put the file on HTTP[S] instead?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>and FTP is outright barred - even though one time it was the only way for a client to send me files IT would n't do itI 've had a user attempt to tell me that an anonymous FTP server with upload was absolutely necessary for a collaboration with someone on the outside .
I literally laughed out loud right when he asked , and explained why it was a bad idea .
If that was what you were asking for ( or almost as bad or potentially worse , passworded FTP server ) , then I fully support your IT staff .
SFTP within a chroot on a temporary VM might have been a good compromise though .
If you were asking for an FTP client , it seems kind of strange that you could n't DL via anon FTP with a browser ( was FTP port blocked ? ) .
I can almost see why FTP would be restricted : To prevent someone from accidentally typing their WORK username/password over the clear to a non-work FTP server .
That 's a silly scenario though .
Also , if your client had the FTP server , then why could n't they put the file on HTTP [ S ] instead ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and FTP is outright barred - even though one time it was the only way for a client to send me files IT wouldn't do itI've had a user attempt to tell me that an anonymous FTP server with upload was absolutely necessary for a collaboration with someone on the outside.
I literally laughed out loud right when he asked, and explained why it was a bad idea.
If that was what you were asking for (or almost as bad or potentially worse, passworded FTP server), then I fully support your IT staff.
SFTP within a chroot on a temporary VM might have been a good compromise though.
If you were asking for an FTP client, it seems kind of strange that you couldn't DL via anon FTP with a browser (was FTP port blocked?).
I can almost see why FTP would be restricted:  To prevent someone from accidentally typing their WORK username/password over the clear to a non-work FTP server.
That's a silly scenario though.
Also, if your client had the FTP server, then why couldn't they put the file on HTTP[S] instead?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633496</id>
	<title>Re:Of course</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262549940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For what it's worth, I think Slashdot is less likely to give you a virus than J Random Web BBS which may or may not be running an old unpatched version of phpBB.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For what it 's worth , I think Slashdot is less likely to give you a virus than J Random Web BBS which may or may not be running an old unpatched version of phpBB .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For what it's worth, I think Slashdot is less likely to give you a virus than J Random Web BBS which may or may not be running an old unpatched version of phpBB.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632696</id>
	<title>Re:New around here?</title>
	<author>Z00L00K</author>
	<datestamp>1262544000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And those who aren't have other issues to pursuit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And those who are n't have other issues to pursuit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And those who aren't have other issues to pursuit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632772</id>
	<title>privacy ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262544540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>since recently  there was someone posting on facebook photos of hospital  patients  without any consent<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...I start understanding some limitations</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>since recently there was someone posting on facebook photos of hospital patients without any consent ...I start understanding some limitations</tokentext>
<sentencetext>since recently  there was someone posting on facebook photos of hospital  patients  without any consent ...I start understanding some limitations</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30637464</id>
	<title>Re:New around here?</title>
	<author>mabhatter654</author>
	<datestamp>1262539440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe your referring to Mrs. Roberts.  The ultimate work-from-home admin?</p><p><a href="http://xkcd.com/341/" title="xkcd.com">http://xkcd.com/341/</a> [xkcd.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe your referring to Mrs. Roberts. The ultimate work-from-home admin ? http : //xkcd.com/341/ [ xkcd.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe your referring to Mrs. Roberts.  The ultimate work-from-home admin?http://xkcd.com/341/ [xkcd.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632796</id>
	<title>Re:Do power users abuse their IT knowledge?</title>
	<author>some-old-geek</author>
	<datestamp>1262544720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Presuming facts not in evidence:
<br> <br>
1. There is a process to present a "legitimate business need"
<br>
2. The process does not consist of a rubber stamp reading "NO!"
<br>
3. Management actually has a clue about what would constitute a "legitimate business need"
<br>
4. Management actually has a clue, period
<br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...etc.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Presuming facts not in evidence : 1 .
There is a process to present a " legitimate business need " 2 .
The process does not consist of a rubber stamp reading " NO !
" 3 .
Management actually has a clue about what would constitute a " legitimate business need " 4 .
Management actually has a clue , period ...etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Presuming facts not in evidence:
 
1.
There is a process to present a "legitimate business need"

2.
The process does not consist of a rubber stamp reading "NO!
"

3.
Management actually has a clue about what would constitute a "legitimate business need"

4.
Management actually has a clue, period
 ...etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30635004</id>
	<title>Re:thats business</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262518980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Locking down internet access using arbitrary policies is just a piece of low hanging fruit for the control freaks and paranoid managers. I used to work for a filtering company and have seen the sales pitch... it's all about the 'savings' you get when doing some simple 'math'. eg '100 staff surfing * 3 hours per day * average salary * bandwidth costs = big savings!'. I'm unsure wether the dollars or the control is more important. I suspect it gives management wood.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Locking down internet access using arbitrary policies is just a piece of low hanging fruit for the control freaks and paranoid managers .
I used to work for a filtering company and have seen the sales pitch... it 's all about the 'savings ' you get when doing some simple 'math' .
eg '100 staff surfing * 3 hours per day * average salary * bandwidth costs = big savings ! ' .
I 'm unsure wether the dollars or the control is more important .
I suspect it gives management wood .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Locking down internet access using arbitrary policies is just a piece of low hanging fruit for the control freaks and paranoid managers.
I used to work for a filtering company and have seen the sales pitch... it's all about the 'savings' you get when doing some simple 'math'.
eg '100 staff surfing * 3 hours per day * average salary * bandwidth costs = big savings!'.
I'm unsure wether the dollars or the control is more important.
I suspect it gives management wood.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632782</id>
	<title>We are asked to balance security and functionality</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262544600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IT guys typically don't abuse their authority.  I've found, in the networks I've administered, management asks me to balance functionality with security.  It's a very nebulous request, and typically it means that IT staff must use their best judgment when creating IT policies.</p><p>I've found the strictest policies are in place in financial firms, and the loosest policies are in place in education, and weirdly enough, law firms.</p><p>-ted</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IT guys typically do n't abuse their authority .
I 've found , in the networks I 've administered , management asks me to balance functionality with security .
It 's a very nebulous request , and typically it means that IT staff must use their best judgment when creating IT policies.I 've found the strictest policies are in place in financial firms , and the loosest policies are in place in education , and weirdly enough , law firms.-ted</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IT guys typically don't abuse their authority.
I've found, in the networks I've administered, management asks me to balance functionality with security.
It's a very nebulous request, and typically it means that IT staff must use their best judgment when creating IT policies.I've found the strictest policies are in place in financial firms, and the loosest policies are in place in education, and weirdly enough, law firms.-ted</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633650</id>
	<title>Re:Do power users abuse their IT knowledge?</title>
	<author>QuantumRiff</author>
	<datestamp>1262551440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't understand why people always try to "get around" these restrictions.</p></div><p>Because they are Technical "solutions" to people problems.  The problem is not technical, management needs to know if they have busy people... If you block all websites, and all games, they will chit-chat, or they will make personal calls...  There is no way to work around lazy people that don't want to work...</p><p>I worked at place that refused to do any internet filtering.  An employee was reported surfing Porn in their office.  (somebody that sat near them complained about it) that's not a technology problem, that's an HR issue.  The person was let go about 30 min later.  Our internet traffic fell for a few days, once people realized that they could, in fact, get fired for goofing around, or sexual harrasment (viewing porn at work is a sexual harrasment issue, as it makes co-workers feel "uncomfortable")</p><p>Seriously, try actually firing the people that don't get their work done, or that do things against the acceptable use policy.  Then, see how much easier it is than having to install and maintain filters..</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand why people always try to " get around " these restrictions.Because they are Technical " solutions " to people problems .
The problem is not technical , management needs to know if they have busy people... If you block all websites , and all games , they will chit-chat , or they will make personal calls... There is no way to work around lazy people that do n't want to work...I worked at place that refused to do any internet filtering .
An employee was reported surfing Porn in their office .
( somebody that sat near them complained about it ) that 's not a technology problem , that 's an HR issue .
The person was let go about 30 min later .
Our internet traffic fell for a few days , once people realized that they could , in fact , get fired for goofing around , or sexual harrasment ( viewing porn at work is a sexual harrasment issue , as it makes co-workers feel " uncomfortable " ) Seriously , try actually firing the people that do n't get their work done , or that do things against the acceptable use policy .
Then , see how much easier it is than having to install and maintain filters. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't understand why people always try to "get around" these restrictions.Because they are Technical "solutions" to people problems.
The problem is not technical, management needs to know if they have busy people... If you block all websites, and all games, they will chit-chat, or they will make personal calls...  There is no way to work around lazy people that don't want to work...I worked at place that refused to do any internet filtering.
An employee was reported surfing Porn in their office.
(somebody that sat near them complained about it) that's not a technology problem, that's an HR issue.
The person was let go about 30 min later.
Our internet traffic fell for a few days, once people realized that they could, in fact, get fired for goofing around, or sexual harrasment (viewing porn at work is a sexual harrasment issue, as it makes co-workers feel "uncomfortable")Seriously, try actually firing the people that don't get their work done, or that do things against the acceptable use policy.
Then, see how much easier it is than having to install and maintain filters..
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30637600</id>
	<title>Re:liability</title>
	<author>shentino</author>
	<datestamp>1262540880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not according to some newer employment contracts that force you to agree not to badmouth the company.  Even on your own dime and time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not according to some newer employment contracts that force you to agree not to badmouth the company .
Even on your own dime and time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not according to some newer employment contracts that force you to agree not to badmouth the company.
Even on your own dime and time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632556</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30634590</id>
	<title>Re:New around here?</title>
	<author>Paracelcus</author>
	<datestamp>1262516220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry to say but I am a BOFH, or was before I retired.</p><p>And I used to regularly deploy my LART to humiliate those lusers that asked the same dull witted questions more than three times weekly OR asked me to "backup" their files before taking away their old monitors, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry to say but I am a BOFH , or was before I retired.And I used to regularly deploy my LART to humiliate those lusers that asked the same dull witted questions more than three times weekly OR asked me to " backup " their files before taking away their old monitors , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry to say but I am a BOFH, or was before I retired.And I used to regularly deploy my LART to humiliate those lusers that asked the same dull witted questions more than three times weekly OR asked me to "backup" their files before taking away their old monitors, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633068</id>
	<title>If anyone says yes....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262546400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>If anyone says yes I will post all your emails online and will lock you out of your accounts.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If anyone says yes I will post all your emails online and will lock you out of your accounts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If anyone says yes I will post all your emails online and will lock you out of your accounts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30640478</id>
	<title>To abuse power you must first have power</title>
	<author>stewbacca</author>
	<datestamp>1262619780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I work at a medium sized software company (500 employees) and was not aware that IT had any power to abuse.</p><p>They can be passive-aggressive and take their sweet time to fix my constantly messed up Active Directory, but other than that, they wield no real power.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I work at a medium sized software company ( 500 employees ) and was not aware that IT had any power to abuse.They can be passive-aggressive and take their sweet time to fix my constantly messed up Active Directory , but other than that , they wield no real power .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I work at a medium sized software company (500 employees) and was not aware that IT had any power to abuse.They can be passive-aggressive and take their sweet time to fix my constantly messed up Active Directory, but other than that, they wield no real power.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30637940</id>
	<title>Re:Who cares? Really?</title>
	<author>ps2os2</author>
	<datestamp>1262546400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes and no. The issue is as always "sex". The law is pretty clear on that in the work place. I agree with you in principal but laws are in place that trump anything one does.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes and no .
The issue is as always " sex " .
The law is pretty clear on that in the work place .
I agree with you in principal but laws are in place that trump anything one does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes and no.
The issue is as always "sex".
The law is pretty clear on that in the work place.
I agree with you in principal but laws are in place that trump anything one does.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632722</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632558</id>
	<title>I blame the boss.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262543220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In my experience most draconian restrictions are imposed by Management.  The technical staff is simply more empowered to work around them or ignore them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In my experience most draconian restrictions are imposed by Management .
The technical staff is simply more empowered to work around them or ignore them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my experience most draconian restrictions are imposed by Management.
The technical staff is simply more empowered to work around them or ignore them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633660</id>
	<title>Re:I blame the boss.</title>
	<author>chebucto</author>
	<datestamp>1262551500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>In my experience most draconian restrictions are imposed by Management. The technical staff is simply more empowered to work around them or ignore them.</i></p><p>Not necessarily. IT people who are responsible for implementing policy abuse their power if they alter the implementation to get some personal advantage (like the discussion board example used in the summary).</p><p>The more petty rule breaking by IT people in user roles is not an abuse of power. It is still, in the long run, the wrong way to deal with draconian policy. Bringing about a change to the policy is a much better solution, even though it may be harder.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In my experience most draconian restrictions are imposed by Management .
The technical staff is simply more empowered to work around them or ignore them.Not necessarily .
IT people who are responsible for implementing policy abuse their power if they alter the implementation to get some personal advantage ( like the discussion board example used in the summary ) .The more petty rule breaking by IT people in user roles is not an abuse of power .
It is still , in the long run , the wrong way to deal with draconian policy .
Bringing about a change to the policy is a much better solution , even though it may be harder .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my experience most draconian restrictions are imposed by Management.
The technical staff is simply more empowered to work around them or ignore them.Not necessarily.
IT people who are responsible for implementing policy abuse their power if they alter the implementation to get some personal advantage (like the discussion board example used in the summary).The more petty rule breaking by IT people in user roles is not an abuse of power.
It is still, in the long run, the wrong way to deal with draconian policy.
Bringing about a change to the policy is a much better solution, even though it may be harder.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30645338</id>
	<title>Good question, most admins do belong to the ...</title>
	<author>CyberdogOSX</author>
	<datestamp>1262596560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... Programmers Research Institute for Code Kracking Security</p><p>
maybe there's a connection.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... Programmers Research Institute for Code Kracking Security maybe there 's a connection .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... Programmers Research Institute for Code Kracking Security
maybe there's a connection.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632630</id>
	<title>Re:IT Pros don't make policy.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262543640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll start by saying that I completely agree with your views. That said... you know, there's more to the Internet than productivity sites and gay furry porn. There's a host of sites in between those categories, it is all the rage these days.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll start by saying that I completely agree with your views .
That said... you know , there 's more to the Internet than productivity sites and gay furry porn .
There 's a host of sites in between those categories , it is all the rage these days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll start by saying that I completely agree with your views.
That said... you know, there's more to the Internet than productivity sites and gay furry porn.
There's a host of sites in between those categories, it is all the rage these days.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633784</id>
	<title>Simple syllogism</title>
	<author>osu-neko</author>
	<datestamp>1262509680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Q1: Are IT pros, in general, humans?</p><p>Q2: Do humans, in general, abuse power when they have it?</p><p>Q3: Is there some reason to believe IT pros different from most humans in this regard?</p><p>I'm kinda curious why this question even got asked.  Unless the answer to any of the above questions is anything less than as patently obvious as I think they all are, ("Yes", "Yes", and "No", for the record), simple logic would make the answer to the posted question obvious.  Q1 &amp; Q2 fall to the same simple "Socrates is mortal" syllogism, unless Q3 is assumed to also be "Yes", but why on earth would anyone think that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Q1 : Are IT pros , in general , humans ? Q2 : Do humans , in general , abuse power when they have it ? Q3 : Is there some reason to believe IT pros different from most humans in this regard ? I 'm kinda curious why this question even got asked .
Unless the answer to any of the above questions is anything less than as patently obvious as I think they all are , ( " Yes " , " Yes " , and " No " , for the record ) , simple logic would make the answer to the posted question obvious .
Q1 &amp; Q2 fall to the same simple " Socrates is mortal " syllogism , unless Q3 is assumed to also be " Yes " , but why on earth would anyone think that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Q1: Are IT pros, in general, humans?Q2: Do humans, in general, abuse power when they have it?Q3: Is there some reason to believe IT pros different from most humans in this regard?I'm kinda curious why this question even got asked.
Unless the answer to any of the above questions is anything less than as patently obvious as I think they all are, ("Yes", "Yes", and "No", for the record), simple logic would make the answer to the posted question obvious.
Q1 &amp; Q2 fall to the same simple "Socrates is mortal" syllogism, unless Q3 is assumed to also be "Yes", but why on earth would anyone think that?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30641534</id>
	<title>I would just like to point out...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262624100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I work in outsourced IT, which pretty much makes me system admin for... say, 30 different companies?</p><p>We've only got blacklists set up at a few of our customers, and generally we're forced to because - here's a shocker - 90\% of end users are dribbling morons.</p><p>If you're blacklisted at work, or don't have administrative rights, there's a good chance that IT did it because the person at the desk next to you (or you yourself) downloaded viruses on facebook 5 days in a row.  I can't do my job if I spend every waking hour removing "Internet Security 2009!" from your PC over and over.</p><p>Get over it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I work in outsourced IT , which pretty much makes me system admin for... say , 30 different companies ? We 've only got blacklists set up at a few of our customers , and generally we 're forced to because - here 's a shocker - 90 \ % of end users are dribbling morons.If you 're blacklisted at work , or do n't have administrative rights , there 's a good chance that IT did it because the person at the desk next to you ( or you yourself ) downloaded viruses on facebook 5 days in a row .
I ca n't do my job if I spend every waking hour removing " Internet Security 2009 !
" from your PC over and over.Get over it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I work in outsourced IT, which pretty much makes me system admin for... say, 30 different companies?We've only got blacklists set up at a few of our customers, and generally we're forced to because - here's a shocker - 90\% of end users are dribbling morons.If you're blacklisted at work, or don't have administrative rights, there's a good chance that IT did it because the person at the desk next to you (or you yourself) downloaded viruses on facebook 5 days in a row.
I can't do my job if I spend every waking hour removing "Internet Security 2009!
" from your PC over and over.Get over it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30636034</id>
	<title>It's true . . .</title>
	<author>greenreaper</author>
	<datestamp>1262526120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://en.wikifur.com/wiki/Sexual\_orientation#Fandom\_surveys" title="wikifur.com">Most furs are straight or bi</a> [wikifur.com], after all, so there's a market for plenty of other types of porn.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most furs are straight or bi [ wikifur.com ] , after all , so there 's a market for plenty of other types of porn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most furs are straight or bi [wikifur.com], after all, so there's a market for plenty of other types of porn.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633360</id>
	<title>Re:thats business</title>
	<author>lukas84</author>
	<datestamp>1262548320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your IT department must be a bunch of jackasses in a larger corporation.</p><p>I work for a small company. Productivity is key. My job (and that of my department) is to allow other departments to be more productive.</p><p>I will try to do everything REASONABLE to fulfill those wishes. Using your Macbook at work is not reasonable, but wishing to have a mailbox quota of 5GB mails instead of 500MB is reasonable, and will be fulfilled as soon as possible.<br>However, more space means more cost - and upper management might not want to give me more money to buy an LTO4 drive, more space for D2D backups and more space in the Exchange servers themselves. This is something that users sometimes don't want to understand.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your IT department must be a bunch of jackasses in a larger corporation.I work for a small company .
Productivity is key .
My job ( and that of my department ) is to allow other departments to be more productive.I will try to do everything REASONABLE to fulfill those wishes .
Using your Macbook at work is not reasonable , but wishing to have a mailbox quota of 5GB mails instead of 500MB is reasonable , and will be fulfilled as soon as possible.However , more space means more cost - and upper management might not want to give me more money to buy an LTO4 drive , more space for D2D backups and more space in the Exchange servers themselves .
This is something that users sometimes do n't want to understand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your IT department must be a bunch of jackasses in a larger corporation.I work for a small company.
Productivity is key.
My job (and that of my department) is to allow other departments to be more productive.I will try to do everything REASONABLE to fulfill those wishes.
Using your Macbook at work is not reasonable, but wishing to have a mailbox quota of 5GB mails instead of 500MB is reasonable, and will be fulfilled as soon as possible.However, more space means more cost - and upper management might not want to give me more money to buy an LTO4 drive, more space for D2D backups and more space in the Exchange servers themselves.
This is something that users sometimes don't want to understand.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632764</id>
	<title>Re:Do power users abuse their IT knowledge?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262544420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Besides, SSH tunnels won't work on my network.</p></div><p><div class="quote"><p>However, it is my job to protect our computers/network and I do that by blocking "risky" sites.</p></div><p>
Good idea.  I'd hate for you to accidentally get a virus when I SSH into my home machine and read my email using mutt.  You'd be surprised at the number of viruses that can encode themselves in an email as a start ZMODEM trigger and get transfered through a zssh connection back to a work computer.  Then all the virus has to do it wait for a double-click...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Besides , SSH tunnels wo n't work on my network.However , it is my job to protect our computers/network and I do that by blocking " risky " sites .
Good idea .
I 'd hate for you to accidentally get a virus when I SSH into my home machine and read my email using mutt .
You 'd be surprised at the number of viruses that can encode themselves in an email as a start ZMODEM trigger and get transfered through a zssh connection back to a work computer .
Then all the virus has to do it wait for a double-click... ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Besides, SSH tunnels won't work on my network.However, it is my job to protect our computers/network and I do that by blocking "risky" sites.
Good idea.
I'd hate for you to accidentally get a virus when I SSH into my home machine and read my email using mutt.
You'd be surprised at the number of viruses that can encode themselves in an email as a start ZMODEM trigger and get transfered through a zssh connection back to a work computer.
Then all the virus has to do it wait for a double-click... ;)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632516</id>
	<title>IT Pros don't make policy.</title>
	<author>lukas84</author>
	<datestamp>1262542920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Policy is made by management. I don't care if you watch gay furry porn for all the three hours you spend in the Office.</p><p>I do care about the security of the network - so if you plug your private Laptop into the Office LAN, you won't get any connection because your machine won't authenticate. But i'll know exactly that you did so. And i'll call you out for it.</p><p>In all the places i've worked, WebSense etc. only worked in the VLANs for the office workers. All IT networks (as did the Exec's networks) had unrestricted internet access (they still went through a malware filtering proxy, but not content filtering). This might be different in larger organizations.</p><p>In the place i work right now, we only have a malware filter. No content filtering at all. I think it's pointless. If someone does not do his job properly, fire him. If someone does his job properly, but uses 10 minutes a day for masturbating to gay furry porn, he's still more productive than someone who takes a 10 minute smoke break every 20 minutes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Policy is made by management .
I do n't care if you watch gay furry porn for all the three hours you spend in the Office.I do care about the security of the network - so if you plug your private Laptop into the Office LAN , you wo n't get any connection because your machine wo n't authenticate .
But i 'll know exactly that you did so .
And i 'll call you out for it.In all the places i 've worked , WebSense etc .
only worked in the VLANs for the office workers .
All IT networks ( as did the Exec 's networks ) had unrestricted internet access ( they still went through a malware filtering proxy , but not content filtering ) .
This might be different in larger organizations.In the place i work right now , we only have a malware filter .
No content filtering at all .
I think it 's pointless .
If someone does not do his job properly , fire him .
If someone does his job properly , but uses 10 minutes a day for masturbating to gay furry porn , he 's still more productive than someone who takes a 10 minute smoke break every 20 minutes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Policy is made by management.
I don't care if you watch gay furry porn for all the three hours you spend in the Office.I do care about the security of the network - so if you plug your private Laptop into the Office LAN, you won't get any connection because your machine won't authenticate.
But i'll know exactly that you did so.
And i'll call you out for it.In all the places i've worked, WebSense etc.
only worked in the VLANs for the office workers.
All IT networks (as did the Exec's networks) had unrestricted internet access (they still went through a malware filtering proxy, but not content filtering).
This might be different in larger organizations.In the place i work right now, we only have a malware filter.
No content filtering at all.
I think it's pointless.
If someone does not do his job properly, fire him.
If someone does his job properly, but uses 10 minutes a day for masturbating to gay furry porn, he's still more productive than someone who takes a 10 minute smoke break every 20 minutes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632482</id>
	<title>YES YES YES</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262542740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
&nbsp; It comes with the work.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>  It comes with the work .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>
  It comes with the work.
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30638936</id>
	<title>Dilbert....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262603760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dilbert: Do you think you might be abusing your power?<br>Wally: Would would be the other reasons to have power?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dilbert : Do you think you might be abusing your power ? Wally : Would would be the other reasons to have power ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dilbert: Do you think you might be abusing your power?Wally: Would would be the other reasons to have power?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632868</id>
	<title>Re:Since when..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262545260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Technical Culture" = ranting about Ron Paul on the internet because you have zero influence in real life</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Technical Culture " = ranting about Ron Paul on the internet because you have zero influence in real life</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Technical Culture" = ranting about Ron Paul on the internet because you have zero influence in real life</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632854</id>
	<title>We do NOT abuse our supervisory powers ...</title>
	<author>VitaminB52</author>
	<datestamp>1262545140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>... and if you don't believe me I will delete your account</htmltext>
<tokenext>... and if you do n't believe me I will delete your account</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... and if you don't believe me I will delete your account</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633244</id>
	<title>Re:Do power users abuse their IT knowledge?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262547480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I can use SSL(I don't believe there are many IT departments blocking SSL), then it's easy to get SSH tunnel outside. As far as I know, SSL can't be intercepted, otherwise the whole protocol would be useless. I can just put an SSH-server to port 443 on home server and use whatever company proxy the network requires.<br>If you have nazi IIS-proxy that requires NTLM authentication then I could use this: http://ntlmaps.sourceforge.net/<br>Also look at stunnel: http://stunnel.mirt.net/ which is standard SSL and should always pass through a proxy if SSL is allowed. Impossible to tell whether SSL connection is carrying HTTPS or SSH inside it.<br>Also DNS-tunneling can pass through pretty much everything and even get me free WiFi access on hotspots that require payment http://code.kryo.se/iodine/<br>You think you have everything blocked, trust me, you don't. I spent hours at my last place of employment finding a way to tunnel out and get my freedom/IRC fix/bash scripting access (all while getting paid) and finally succeeded to pass the IIS proxy that<br>a) Required NTLM authentication and worked only with Internet Explorer which I subverted with local install of ntlmaps as a NTLM-stripping proxy for the NTLM-proxy itself.<br>b) Only allowed GET method for HTTP proxying and CONNECT-proxy method for SSL only to port 443 -&gt; solution: home server SSH to port 443.</p><p>Only way this can be prevented is to block SSL, which probably wouldn't be allowed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I can use SSL ( I do n't believe there are many IT departments blocking SSL ) , then it 's easy to get SSH tunnel outside .
As far as I know , SSL ca n't be intercepted , otherwise the whole protocol would be useless .
I can just put an SSH-server to port 443 on home server and use whatever company proxy the network requires.If you have nazi IIS-proxy that requires NTLM authentication then I could use this : http : //ntlmaps.sourceforge.net/Also look at stunnel : http : //stunnel.mirt.net/ which is standard SSL and should always pass through a proxy if SSL is allowed .
Impossible to tell whether SSL connection is carrying HTTPS or SSH inside it.Also DNS-tunneling can pass through pretty much everything and even get me free WiFi access on hotspots that require payment http : //code.kryo.se/iodine/You think you have everything blocked , trust me , you do n't .
I spent hours at my last place of employment finding a way to tunnel out and get my freedom/IRC fix/bash scripting access ( all while getting paid ) and finally succeeded to pass the IIS proxy thata ) Required NTLM authentication and worked only with Internet Explorer which I subverted with local install of ntlmaps as a NTLM-stripping proxy for the NTLM-proxy itself.b ) Only allowed GET method for HTTP proxying and CONNECT-proxy method for SSL only to port 443 - &gt; solution : home server SSH to port 443.Only way this can be prevented is to block SSL , which probably would n't be allowed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I can use SSL(I don't believe there are many IT departments blocking SSL), then it's easy to get SSH tunnel outside.
As far as I know, SSL can't be intercepted, otherwise the whole protocol would be useless.
I can just put an SSH-server to port 443 on home server and use whatever company proxy the network requires.If you have nazi IIS-proxy that requires NTLM authentication then I could use this: http://ntlmaps.sourceforge.net/Also look at stunnel: http://stunnel.mirt.net/ which is standard SSL and should always pass through a proxy if SSL is allowed.
Impossible to tell whether SSL connection is carrying HTTPS or SSH inside it.Also DNS-tunneling can pass through pretty much everything and even get me free WiFi access on hotspots that require payment http://code.kryo.se/iodine/You think you have everything blocked, trust me, you don't.
I spent hours at my last place of employment finding a way to tunnel out and get my freedom/IRC fix/bash scripting access (all while getting paid) and finally succeeded to pass the IIS proxy thata) Required NTLM authentication and worked only with Internet Explorer which I subverted with local install of ntlmaps as a NTLM-stripping proxy for the NTLM-proxy itself.b) Only allowed GET method for HTTP proxying and CONNECT-proxy method for SSL only to port 443 -&gt; solution: home server SSH to port 443.Only way this can be prevented is to block SSL, which probably wouldn't be allowed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632492</id>
	<title>Power Corrupts...</title>
	<author>PCGod</author>
	<datestamp>1262542860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Absolute power, is even more fun!&lt;/bofh&gt;</p><p>Yes, we did have something like this happen where I work. Our IT group ended up blocking all social networking sites. Our marketing department raised a fit because they use Facebook for business purposes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Absolute power , is even more fun ! Yes , we did have something like this happen where I work .
Our IT group ended up blocking all social networking sites .
Our marketing department raised a fit because they use Facebook for business purposes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Absolute power, is even more fun!Yes, we did have something like this happen where I work.
Our IT group ended up blocking all social networking sites.
Our marketing department raised a fit because they use Facebook for business purposes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30634354</id>
	<title>Re:Answer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262514180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Likewise, at the college I work at, law enforcement students are provided classes on online threats, sexual predators, and human trafficing - they require access to websites and services that we would normally block</p></div><p>Well.. i won't be hearing about your collage on any top 100 lists..</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Likewise , at the college I work at , law enforcement students are provided classes on online threats , sexual predators , and human trafficing - they require access to websites and services that we would normally blockWell.. i wo n't be hearing about your collage on any top 100 lists. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Likewise, at the college I work at, law enforcement students are provided classes on online threats, sexual predators, and human trafficing - they require access to websites and services that we would normally blockWell.. i won't be hearing about your collage on any top 100 lists..
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30643560</id>
	<title>Probably but then again...  not</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262632140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've never seen the list of sites that are blocked in a corporate environment originate with IT.  Generally we just get dictated to about what gets blocked.  Would we then go "Hmmm, the Information Security nazis want facebook blocked.  Well, to be fair let's block<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. as well."  Yeah right.</p><p>My pet peeve on this subject is I've never heard of anybody thinking it's a good idea to block sites like the Wall Street Journal or stock market sites.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've never seen the list of sites that are blocked in a corporate environment originate with IT .
Generally we just get dictated to about what gets blocked .
Would we then go " Hmmm , the Information Security nazis want facebook blocked .
Well , to be fair let 's block / .
as well .
" Yeah right.My pet peeve on this subject is I 've never heard of anybody thinking it 's a good idea to block sites like the Wall Street Journal or stock market sites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've never seen the list of sites that are blocked in a corporate environment originate with IT.
Generally we just get dictated to about what gets blocked.
Would we then go "Hmmm, the Information Security nazis want facebook blocked.
Well, to be fair let's block /.
as well.
"  Yeah right.My pet peeve on this subject is I've never heard of anybody thinking it's a good idea to block sites like the Wall Street Journal or stock market sites.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30639398</id>
	<title>Re:New around here?</title>
	<author>Dan541</author>
	<datestamp>1262611020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A BOFH might find it more fun to manipulate data from certain websites, rather than block sites.</p></div><p>Modifying data entry forms is always fun.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A BOFH might find it more fun to manipulate data from certain websites , rather than block sites.Modifying data entry forms is always fun .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A BOFH might find it more fun to manipulate data from certain websites, rather than block sites.Modifying data entry forms is always fun.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632968</id>
	<title>Re:Do power users abuse their IT knowledge?</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1262545860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Besides, SSH tunnels won't work on my network. I've got all protocols being intercepted by the proxy (including encrypted).</i></p><p>How does that work without breaking SSH? Or does it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Besides , SSH tunnels wo n't work on my network .
I 've got all protocols being intercepted by the proxy ( including encrypted ) .How does that work without breaking SSH ?
Or does it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Besides, SSH tunnels won't work on my network.
I've got all protocols being intercepted by the proxy (including encrypted).How does that work without breaking SSH?
Or does it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30634274</id>
	<title>Re:New around here?</title>
	<author>Tranzistors</author>
	<datestamp>1262513580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>e.g. the BOFH substitutes some images, and/or inserts a rather loud audioclip.</p></div><p>Anything else is Bastard Annoyance From Dentist</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>e.g .
the BOFH substitutes some images , and/or inserts a rather loud audioclip.Anything else is Bastard Annoyance From Dentist</tokentext>
<sentencetext>e.g.
the BOFH substitutes some images, and/or inserts a rather loud audioclip.Anything else is Bastard Annoyance From Dentist
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30635330</id>
	<title>Simple, easy explanation</title>
	<author>bruns</author>
	<datestamp>1262520900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because, unlike the rest of the employees I don't visit Anime sites during business hours, saturating the T1 on a deadline, install 'codecs' which are actually viruses, and then lie to the boss and IT that I got a malware virus while using juno webmail and that I was just checking during my lunch hour.</p><p>Nothing impresses the boss more then lying to his face when he's got the logs of your web browsing from the past month sitting in front of him and he knows about your interests in tentacle porn.</p><p>That, my friend, is the difference between IT and regular employees.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because , unlike the rest of the employees I do n't visit Anime sites during business hours , saturating the T1 on a deadline , install 'codecs ' which are actually viruses , and then lie to the boss and IT that I got a malware virus while using juno webmail and that I was just checking during my lunch hour.Nothing impresses the boss more then lying to his face when he 's got the logs of your web browsing from the past month sitting in front of him and he knows about your interests in tentacle porn.That , my friend , is the difference between IT and regular employees .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because, unlike the rest of the employees I don't visit Anime sites during business hours, saturating the T1 on a deadline, install 'codecs' which are actually viruses, and then lie to the boss and IT that I got a malware virus while using juno webmail and that I was just checking during my lunch hour.Nothing impresses the boss more then lying to his face when he's got the logs of your web browsing from the past month sitting in front of him and he knows about your interests in tentacle porn.That, my friend, is the difference between IT and regular employees.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633042</id>
	<title>Not just IT folks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262546220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wouldn't restrict the "abuse of power" to only IT personnel... As a consultant I've noticed that the trend is to grant "exceptions" to senior management in quite a large number of environments. The watchers often don't like to be watched themselves. It's very much a "do as I say not as I do" attitude.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't restrict the " abuse of power " to only IT personnel... As a consultant I 've noticed that the trend is to grant " exceptions " to senior management in quite a large number of environments .
The watchers often do n't like to be watched themselves .
It 's very much a " do as I say not as I do " attitude .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't restrict the "abuse of power" to only IT personnel... As a consultant I've noticed that the trend is to grant "exceptions" to senior management in quite a large number of environments.
The watchers often don't like to be watched themselves.
It's very much a "do as I say not as I do" attitude.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632964</id>
	<title>It's not abuse when it's your responsibility</title>
	<author>holophrastic</author>
	<datestamp>1262545860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IT blocks users from things that cause more IT work.  Consider the user who goes to a forum, gets hit by some malware, doesn't know, it causes problems, and then IT has to fix it.<br>The IT guy doesn't have that problem.  It's his responsibility so if it happens to him, he just fixes it.</p><p>It's not illegal to go to those sites.  It just causes work for someone else.  The "else" part is key.  It's the opposite of "at your own risk".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IT blocks users from things that cause more IT work .
Consider the user who goes to a forum , gets hit by some malware , does n't know , it causes problems , and then IT has to fix it.The IT guy does n't have that problem .
It 's his responsibility so if it happens to him , he just fixes it.It 's not illegal to go to those sites .
It just causes work for someone else .
The " else " part is key .
It 's the opposite of " at your own risk " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IT blocks users from things that cause more IT work.
Consider the user who goes to a forum, gets hit by some malware, doesn't know, it causes problems, and then IT has to fix it.The IT guy doesn't have that problem.
It's his responsibility so if it happens to him, he just fixes it.It's not illegal to go to those sites.
It just causes work for someone else.
The "else" part is key.
It's the opposite of "at your own risk".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633536</id>
	<title>At our workplace</title>
	<author>David Gerard</author>
	<datestamp>1262550300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... they blocked blogs. All blogs, of any sort. All the developers hit the roof - 'cos guess where developers learn new tricks and find solutions to tricky problems?</p><p>Things came to a head when we trumpeted our new advances in outreach, getting our content in several prominent newspaper site blogs! Which were then blocked.</p><p> <b>Q.</b> Could you please explain the business case for blocking us from reviewing our own content?<br>
&nbsp; <b>A.</b> Blogs have now been unblocked for the technology team.</p><p>I can see the point - keeping the workers from being <a href="http://newstechnica.com/2009/09/17/millions-made-redundant-as-facebook-automated/" title="newstechnica.com">F5-pressing robots</a> [newstechnica.com] is the sort of thing management considers a good idea. It just needs a modicum of sanity applied. This mostly requires time, patience and <i>a solid business case</i>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... they blocked blogs .
All blogs , of any sort .
All the developers hit the roof - 'cos guess where developers learn new tricks and find solutions to tricky problems ? Things came to a head when we trumpeted our new advances in outreach , getting our content in several prominent newspaper site blogs !
Which were then blocked .
Q. Could you please explain the business case for blocking us from reviewing our own content ?
  A. Blogs have now been unblocked for the technology team.I can see the point - keeping the workers from being F5-pressing robots [ newstechnica.com ] is the sort of thing management considers a good idea .
It just needs a modicum of sanity applied .
This mostly requires time , patience and a solid business case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... they blocked blogs.
All blogs, of any sort.
All the developers hit the roof - 'cos guess where developers learn new tricks and find solutions to tricky problems?Things came to a head when we trumpeted our new advances in outreach, getting our content in several prominent newspaper site blogs!
Which were then blocked.
Q. Could you please explain the business case for blocking us from reviewing our own content?
  A. Blogs have now been unblocked for the technology team.I can see the point - keeping the workers from being F5-pressing robots [newstechnica.com] is the sort of thing management considers a good idea.
It just needs a modicum of sanity applied.
This mostly requires time, patience and a solid business case.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633146</id>
	<title>Smartphones and netbooks bypass the office network</title>
	<author>ewg</author>
	<datestamp>1262546940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Smartphones and netbooks are getting more capable by the day. Before long, employees will be surfing whatever they want on them without involving the company network. That will relieve the pressure on IT and put it back on managers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Smartphones and netbooks are getting more capable by the day .
Before long , employees will be surfing whatever they want on them without involving the company network .
That will relieve the pressure on IT and put it back on managers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Smartphones and netbooks are getting more capable by the day.
Before long, employees will be surfing whatever they want on them without involving the company network.
That will relieve the pressure on IT and put it back on managers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30637760</id>
	<title>SYSTEM or NETWORK SERVICE internet access</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262543280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Blacklists are useless in security.<br>Even if a user collects malicious JPGs or malware non Windows Administrator can't infect the machine.</p><p>Global Blocked filters for everyone INCLUDING IT Administrators<br>Binary Attachments, Scripting attachments,  Compressed Attachments. Office Document Files, exe files<br>Block Ports other than 80 or 443<br>Whitelist sites for specific say download.microsoft.com Compressed Attachments. Office Document Files, exe files</p><p>The further divided the better</p><p>The windows SYSTEM or NETWORK SERVICE in most cases does not need internet access Block it.<br>Allow authenticated user accounts to pass through web filter.<br>If for whatever reason a computer does become vulnerable to MS sloppy services the malicious code cannot deploy without SYSTEM or NETWORK SERVICE internet access</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Blacklists are useless in security.Even if a user collects malicious JPGs or malware non Windows Administrator ca n't infect the machine.Global Blocked filters for everyone INCLUDING IT AdministratorsBinary Attachments , Scripting attachments , Compressed Attachments .
Office Document Files , exe filesBlock Ports other than 80 or 443Whitelist sites for specific say download.microsoft.com Compressed Attachments .
Office Document Files , exe filesThe further divided the betterThe windows SYSTEM or NETWORK SERVICE in most cases does not need internet access Block it.Allow authenticated user accounts to pass through web filter.If for whatever reason a computer does become vulnerable to MS sloppy services the malicious code can not deploy without SYSTEM or NETWORK SERVICE internet access</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Blacklists are useless in security.Even if a user collects malicious JPGs or malware non Windows Administrator can't infect the machine.Global Blocked filters for everyone INCLUDING IT AdministratorsBinary Attachments, Scripting attachments,  Compressed Attachments.
Office Document Files, exe filesBlock Ports other than 80 or 443Whitelist sites for specific say download.microsoft.com Compressed Attachments.
Office Document Files, exe filesThe further divided the betterThe windows SYSTEM or NETWORK SERVICE in most cases does not need internet access Block it.Allow authenticated user accounts to pass through web filter.If for whatever reason a computer does become vulnerable to MS sloppy services the malicious code cannot deploy without SYSTEM or NETWORK SERVICE internet access</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632714</id>
	<title>Hanlon</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1262544060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Try explaining people using his razor, changes a lot how you see the world.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Try explaining people using his razor , changes a lot how you see the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Try explaining people using his razor, changes a lot how you see the world.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632988</id>
	<title>Re:Do power users abuse their IT knowledge?</title>
	<author>pla</author>
	<datestamp>1262545980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Want to screw off at work? Get an smartphone and do it on your own device.</i> <br>
<br>
Unfortunately, the "block everything" attitude you express <b>does</b> result in this exact solution... Except,
people don't want to browse the web on a smartphone, so they use it as a WiFi or Bluetooth proxy for their
(work-issued) PC.<br>
<br>
Meaning, in your attempt to block people from surfing the web on their breaks/lunch/"need a few minutes of
downtime", you have in effect lost control of <b>real</b> threats such as viruses, spyware, P2P, etc.<br>
<br>
Most people will behave if you trust them.  And five minutes per week spent analyzing your Squid logs will
quickly identify those who abuse your trust.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Want to screw off at work ?
Get an smartphone and do it on your own device .
Unfortunately , the " block everything " attitude you express does result in this exact solution... Except , people do n't want to browse the web on a smartphone , so they use it as a WiFi or Bluetooth proxy for their ( work-issued ) PC .
Meaning , in your attempt to block people from surfing the web on their breaks/lunch/ " need a few minutes of downtime " , you have in effect lost control of real threats such as viruses , spyware , P2P , etc .
Most people will behave if you trust them .
And five minutes per week spent analyzing your Squid logs will quickly identify those who abuse your trust .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Want to screw off at work?
Get an smartphone and do it on your own device.
Unfortunately, the "block everything" attitude you express does result in this exact solution... Except,
people don't want to browse the web on a smartphone, so they use it as a WiFi or Bluetooth proxy for their
(work-issued) PC.
Meaning, in your attempt to block people from surfing the web on their breaks/lunch/"need a few minutes of
downtime", you have in effect lost control of real threats such as viruses, spyware, P2P, etc.
Most people will behave if you trust them.
And five minutes per week spent analyzing your Squid logs will
quickly identify those who abuse your trust.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30659538</id>
	<title>There is a reason why these are made...</title>
	<author>NerveGas</author>
	<datestamp>1262725140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.thinkgeek.com/tshirts-apparel/unisex/frustrations/31fb/" title="thinkgeek.com">Here you go.</a> [thinkgeek.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here you go .
[ thinkgeek.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here you go.
[thinkgeek.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632710</id>
	<title>Why blocking websites is bad for your company</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262544060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>an interesting blog describing why blocking websites is actually more expensive than letting people browse them freely.<br>http://uiorean.ro/world/security/why-blocking-websites-is-bad-for-your-company/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>an interesting blog describing why blocking websites is actually more expensive than letting people browse them freely.http : //uiorean.ro/world/security/why-blocking-websites-is-bad-for-your-company/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>an interesting blog describing why blocking websites is actually more expensive than letting people browse them freely.http://uiorean.ro/world/security/why-blocking-websites-is-bad-for-your-company/</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633378</id>
	<title>This is how our company does it (50k+ employees)</title>
	<author>Sikmaz</author>
	<datestamp>1262548560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The categories that are blocked should come from the "Business" side and not from IT except maybe sites that cause operational impact.   What we do is assign owners for the block categories and act as the liaison to them when someone wants something unblocked.   For example:<br>Pornography - Human Resources<br>Social Networking - Human Resources<br>Guns and Violence - Corporate Security</p><p>etc...</p><p>In our case IT only owns the sites flagged as malware and excessive bandwidth.</p><p>So when someone sends in an email asking for access to Facebook we ask them to complete a form, we then take this form to HR for review.   The reason we take it and don't tell them to take it to HR is to allow the block owner to make the decision outside of the scope of politics and without the anger many employees sling.   You have NO IDEA how angry people get when something they want to get to is blocked even if the block is completely reasonable.</p><p>IT is there to enable the business to operate so they need to tell us what they want to give people access to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The categories that are blocked should come from the " Business " side and not from IT except maybe sites that cause operational impact .
What we do is assign owners for the block categories and act as the liaison to them when someone wants something unblocked .
For example : Pornography - Human ResourcesSocial Networking - Human ResourcesGuns and Violence - Corporate Securityetc...In our case IT only owns the sites flagged as malware and excessive bandwidth.So when someone sends in an email asking for access to Facebook we ask them to complete a form , we then take this form to HR for review .
The reason we take it and do n't tell them to take it to HR is to allow the block owner to make the decision outside of the scope of politics and without the anger many employees sling .
You have NO IDEA how angry people get when something they want to get to is blocked even if the block is completely reasonable.IT is there to enable the business to operate so they need to tell us what they want to give people access to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The categories that are blocked should come from the "Business" side and not from IT except maybe sites that cause operational impact.
What we do is assign owners for the block categories and act as the liaison to them when someone wants something unblocked.
For example:Pornography - Human ResourcesSocial Networking - Human ResourcesGuns and Violence - Corporate Securityetc...In our case IT only owns the sites flagged as malware and excessive bandwidth.So when someone sends in an email asking for access to Facebook we ask them to complete a form, we then take this form to HR for review.
The reason we take it and don't tell them to take it to HR is to allow the block owner to make the decision outside of the scope of politics and without the anger many employees sling.
You have NO IDEA how angry people get when something they want to get to is blocked even if the block is completely reasonable.IT is there to enable the business to operate so they need to tell us what they want to give people access to.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633306</id>
	<title>Re:Power Corrupts...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262547840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>When I worked for the Sec State's office in RI we were utilizing Squidproxy. Reviewing logs came to a head when the policy went out the window. It went out the window because two of we systems people noted a high administration figure surfing the web for Big, Black Beautiful Women and hotels where he could take said women.
<br>
<br>
We brought it the the IT Director and were told we do nothing about it. So we then told him we'd no longer view the proxy logs.
<br> <br>
A little while later we also installed DansGuardian. That is a content filter. But the decision was made to exempt all administration and IT. It caused a few issues but nothing we couldn't handle.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When I worked for the Sec State 's office in RI we were utilizing Squidproxy .
Reviewing logs came to a head when the policy went out the window .
It went out the window because two of we systems people noted a high administration figure surfing the web for Big , Black Beautiful Women and hotels where he could take said women .
We brought it the the IT Director and were told we do nothing about it .
So we then told him we 'd no longer view the proxy logs .
A little while later we also installed DansGuardian .
That is a content filter .
But the decision was made to exempt all administration and IT .
It caused a few issues but nothing we could n't handle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I worked for the Sec State's office in RI we were utilizing Squidproxy.
Reviewing logs came to a head when the policy went out the window.
It went out the window because two of we systems people noted a high administration figure surfing the web for Big, Black Beautiful Women and hotels where he could take said women.
We brought it the the IT Director and were told we do nothing about it.
So we then told him we'd no longer view the proxy logs.
A little while later we also installed DansGuardian.
That is a content filter.
But the decision was made to exempt all administration and IT.
It caused a few issues but nothing we couldn't handle.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632734</id>
	<title>Easy answer</title>
	<author>NocturnHimtatagon</author>
	<datestamp>1262544180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yes</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yes</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yes</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632748</id>
	<title>Of course they do...</title>
	<author>will\_die</author>
	<datestamp>1262544300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Of course they do, and network people are the worse of the lot.  I have yet to be in a network shop where they did not have their computer configured so the corporate site blocker was ignored or they had another easy method of surfing any site.  <br>
Better question is how many people use that root/admin permissions to install unauthorized software or ignored corporate policy and installed software themselves.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course they do , and network people are the worse of the lot .
I have yet to be in a network shop where they did not have their computer configured so the corporate site blocker was ignored or they had another easy method of surfing any site .
Better question is how many people use that root/admin permissions to install unauthorized software or ignored corporate policy and installed software themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course they do, and network people are the worse of the lot.
I have yet to be in a network shop where they did not have their computer configured so the corporate site blocker was ignored or they had another easy method of surfing any site.
Better question is how many people use that root/admin permissions to install unauthorized software or ignored corporate policy and installed software themselves.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632758</id>
	<title>Re:Do power users abuse their IT knowledge?</title>
	<author>2stein</author>
	<datestamp>1262544420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't understand why people always try to "get around" these restrictions. If there is a legitimate business need, then get it approved. These preventions are put in place for a reason. The more open the network, the more risk. The more risk means more virus, trojans, botnets, data leakage, etc. IT then has to cleanup your mess.</p>  </div><p>Partially right. The problem is, that in many larger organisations the 'legitimate business need --&gt; approval' process does not scale well with regard to the time required to get the approval. So even if you do have a legitimate business need, waiting for the approval might still keep you from getting your job done. Multiply this by say<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... 2,000 people waiting 10 days to get an approval for something. This will cost you real money.</p><p>It seems to be difficult to balance these things. But having a good zoning concept at hand might be of great help. It keeps the wrong people from tampering with critical resources, but it also allows employees to use necessary services e.g. SFTP. Yes, I've come across a situation were I was not allowed to get a patch from a vendor using SFTP. The idea was: SFTP may be used for stealing data. Use FTP, this is far more secure, as we can scan it with deep packet inspection.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand why people always try to " get around " these restrictions .
If there is a legitimate business need , then get it approved .
These preventions are put in place for a reason .
The more open the network , the more risk .
The more risk means more virus , trojans , botnets , data leakage , etc .
IT then has to cleanup your mess .
Partially right .
The problem is , that in many larger organisations the 'legitimate business need -- &gt; approval ' process does not scale well with regard to the time required to get the approval .
So even if you do have a legitimate business need , waiting for the approval might still keep you from getting your job done .
Multiply this by say ... 2,000 people waiting 10 days to get an approval for something .
This will cost you real money.It seems to be difficult to balance these things .
But having a good zoning concept at hand might be of great help .
It keeps the wrong people from tampering with critical resources , but it also allows employees to use necessary services e.g .
SFTP. Yes , I 've come across a situation were I was not allowed to get a patch from a vendor using SFTP .
The idea was : SFTP may be used for stealing data .
Use FTP , this is far more secure , as we can scan it with deep packet inspection .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't understand why people always try to "get around" these restrictions.
If there is a legitimate business need, then get it approved.
These preventions are put in place for a reason.
The more open the network, the more risk.
The more risk means more virus, trojans, botnets, data leakage, etc.
IT then has to cleanup your mess.
Partially right.
The problem is, that in many larger organisations the 'legitimate business need --&gt; approval' process does not scale well with regard to the time required to get the approval.
So even if you do have a legitimate business need, waiting for the approval might still keep you from getting your job done.
Multiply this by say ... 2,000 people waiting 10 days to get an approval for something.
This will cost you real money.It seems to be difficult to balance these things.
But having a good zoning concept at hand might be of great help.
It keeps the wrong people from tampering with critical resources, but it also allows employees to use necessary services e.g.
SFTP. Yes, I've come across a situation were I was not allowed to get a patch from a vendor using SFTP.
The idea was: SFTP may be used for stealing data.
Use FTP, this is far more secure, as we can scan it with deep packet inspection.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30634472</id>
	<title>Never</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262515380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Worked in banking, insurance, telecomms, government, (all the nice people,) and I have never abused my power except (1) where tedious restrictions were in place and (2) to actually do my job (like setting up accounts for automated processes and the like because the outsource provider would take forever and charge a lot). So not for the gain of anyone except my employer.</p><p>Even when NDAs and secrecy agreements were not signed, but implied, I would never betray that confidence. And not just until the money ran out and then jump to a competitor: my skills and experiences would make me profitable to a new employer - not a collection of trade secrets.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Worked in banking , insurance , telecomms , government , ( all the nice people , ) and I have never abused my power except ( 1 ) where tedious restrictions were in place and ( 2 ) to actually do my job ( like setting up accounts for automated processes and the like because the outsource provider would take forever and charge a lot ) .
So not for the gain of anyone except my employer.Even when NDAs and secrecy agreements were not signed , but implied , I would never betray that confidence .
And not just until the money ran out and then jump to a competitor : my skills and experiences would make me profitable to a new employer - not a collection of trade secrets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Worked in banking, insurance, telecomms, government, (all the nice people,) and I have never abused my power except (1) where tedious restrictions were in place and (2) to actually do my job (like setting up accounts for automated processes and the like because the outsource provider would take forever and charge a lot).
So not for the gain of anyone except my employer.Even when NDAs and secrecy agreements were not signed, but implied, I would never betray that confidence.
And not just until the money ran out and then jump to a competitor: my skills and experiences would make me profitable to a new employer - not a collection of trade secrets.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632462</id>
	<title>Of course</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262542620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Of course we do. Get over it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course we do .
Get over it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course we do.
Get over it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632564</id>
	<title>Re:Do power users abuse their IT knowledge?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262543220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Aye. I run our network, restrict what the bosses tell me to, but ignore the restrictions when it comes to myself. SSH tunnel to my home network, route all DNS requests through there as well, and turn on FoxyProxy in Firefox. Yes, I use it to do a little slacking off here and there, but in my defense it's also the easiest way to create exceptions when our restrictions get in the way of me getting work done.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Aye .
I run our network , restrict what the bosses tell me to , but ignore the restrictions when it comes to myself .
SSH tunnel to my home network , route all DNS requests through there as well , and turn on FoxyProxy in Firefox .
Yes , I use it to do a little slacking off here and there , but in my defense it 's also the easiest way to create exceptions when our restrictions get in the way of me getting work done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aye.
I run our network, restrict what the bosses tell me to, but ignore the restrictions when it comes to myself.
SSH tunnel to my home network, route all DNS requests through there as well, and turn on FoxyProxy in Firefox.
Yes, I use it to do a little slacking off here and there, but in my defense it's also the easiest way to create exceptions when our restrictions get in the way of me getting work done.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30652318</id>
	<title>Re:Power Corrupts...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262724840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Absolute power, is even more fun!&lt;/bofh&gt;</p><p>Yes, we did have something like this happen where I work. Our IT group ended up blocking all social networking sites. Our marketing department raised a fit because they use Facebook for business purposes.</p></div><p>.... you must be selling condoms,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... I guess!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Absolute power , is even more fun ! Yes , we did have something like this happen where I work .
Our IT group ended up blocking all social networking sites .
Our marketing department raised a fit because they use Facebook for business purposes..... you must be selling condoms , ... I guess !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Absolute power, is even more fun!Yes, we did have something like this happen where I work.
Our IT group ended up blocking all social networking sites.
Our marketing department raised a fit because they use Facebook for business purposes..... you must be selling condoms, ... I guess!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30634336</id>
	<title>Re:Since when..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262514000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>...are Fark and Digg considered 'technical culture' sites.  Seriously, this isn't 2001.  Last time I checked, the Internet had sort of entered the mainstream and 'slacking off at work' isn't really considered exclusively IT.</p></div><p>those site are well known and safe.. as well as pretty popular souce of information..</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...are Fark and Digg considered 'technical culture ' sites .
Seriously , this is n't 2001 .
Last time I checked , the Internet had sort of entered the mainstream and 'slacking off at work ' is n't really considered exclusively IT.those site are well known and safe.. as well as pretty popular souce of information. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...are Fark and Digg considered 'technical culture' sites.
Seriously, this isn't 2001.
Last time I checked, the Internet had sort of entered the mainstream and 'slacking off at work' isn't really considered exclusively IT.those site are well known and safe.. as well as pretty popular souce of information..
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30636160</id>
	<title>Re:When my company's Websense blocked Slashdot</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1262526780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Exactly... It's hard to quantify the damage done by a-priori blocking.
</p><p>
They should instead have a person whose job is to review once a month, just the domain names of sites being accessed frequently.
</p><p>
And submit a list of anomolies like 'poke mon'  forums to be blocked.
</p><p>
Otherwise, the assumption should be the sites are accessed for a business reason, until proven otherwise.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly... It 's hard to quantify the damage done by a-priori blocking .
They should instead have a person whose job is to review once a month , just the domain names of sites being accessed frequently .
And submit a list of anomolies like 'poke mon ' forums to be blocked .
Otherwise , the assumption should be the sites are accessed for a business reason , until proven otherwise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Exactly... It's hard to quantify the damage done by a-priori blocking.
They should instead have a person whose job is to review once a month, just the domain names of sites being accessed frequently.
And submit a list of anomolies like 'poke mon'  forums to be blocked.
Otherwise, the assumption should be the sites are accessed for a business reason, until proven otherwise.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632912</id>
	<title>Never ever ever</title>
	<author>Yfrwlf</author>
	<datestamp>1262545500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>do IT employees do anything they aren't supposed to, like <a href="http://www.thewebsiteisdown.com/" title="thewebsiteisdown.com">playing Halo when they're supposed to be working</a> [thewebsiteisdown.com] for instance.  Geez, how insulting.</htmltext>
<tokenext>do IT employees do anything they are n't supposed to , like playing Halo when they 're supposed to be working [ thewebsiteisdown.com ] for instance .
Geez , how insulting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>do IT employees do anything they aren't supposed to, like playing Halo when they're supposed to be working [thewebsiteisdown.com] for instance.
Geez, how insulting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633588</id>
	<title>Re:Of course</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262550720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find it generally more plausible that management dictates that blocking happen for "productivity reasons".  Those in IT that run the blocker might white list a few sites for key management, a few more for themselves, but I don't IT to be nearly as likely as management to impose web site blocking on the rest of the corporation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it generally more plausible that management dictates that blocking happen for " productivity reasons " .
Those in IT that run the blocker might white list a few sites for key management , a few more for themselves , but I do n't IT to be nearly as likely as management to impose web site blocking on the rest of the corporation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it generally more plausible that management dictates that blocking happen for "productivity reasons".
Those in IT that run the blocker might white list a few sites for key management, a few more for themselves, but I don't IT to be nearly as likely as management to impose web site blocking on the rest of the corporation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632496</id>
	<title>Do power users abuse their IT knowledge?</title>
	<author>Wonko the Sane</author>
	<datestamp>1262542860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How many people here get around their workplace's blocking software by running an SSH tunnel to a proxy server on their home network?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How many people here get around their workplace 's blocking software by running an SSH tunnel to a proxy server on their home network ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many people here get around their workplace's blocking software by running an SSH tunnel to a proxy server on their home network?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633090</id>
	<title>Fark, Slashdot, Digg, etc.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262546520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>but not 4chan.</p><p>We have standards.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>but not 4chan.We have standards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but not 4chan.We have standards.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30636054</id>
	<title>Business need</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1262526240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Technical sites such as Slashdot and Digg help IT workers do their jobs, by keeping them up-to-date in respect to matters of concern to their field, and may contain information they are looking for with Google.
</p><p>
There is a good business case for allowing technical access to these forums.
So I don't think it's an "abuse of power" that they may have been whitelisted.
</p><p>
A common IT tool to solve a technical problem is a google search, and a Technical forum often contains the answer.
</p><p>
When other workers in the Enterprise can make a similar case, then forums in regards to that subject should be open as well.
</p><p>
For example, there could be a business case that medical workers should be allowed to access professional medicine-related forums in a Hospital.
</p><p>
Airports could have a business case for allowing their workers to access news/airline professional-related forums.
</p><p>
As a <b>guest</b> at the airport/hotel, you may be restricted in other ways,  for other security reasons.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Technical sites such as Slashdot and Digg help IT workers do their jobs , by keeping them up-to-date in respect to matters of concern to their field , and may contain information they are looking for with Google .
There is a good business case for allowing technical access to these forums .
So I do n't think it 's an " abuse of power " that they may have been whitelisted .
A common IT tool to solve a technical problem is a google search , and a Technical forum often contains the answer .
When other workers in the Enterprise can make a similar case , then forums in regards to that subject should be open as well .
For example , there could be a business case that medical workers should be allowed to access professional medicine-related forums in a Hospital .
Airports could have a business case for allowing their workers to access news/airline professional-related forums .
As a guest at the airport/hotel , you may be restricted in other ways , for other security reasons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Technical sites such as Slashdot and Digg help IT workers do their jobs, by keeping them up-to-date in respect to matters of concern to their field, and may contain information they are looking for with Google.
There is a good business case for allowing technical access to these forums.
So I don't think it's an "abuse of power" that they may have been whitelisted.
A common IT tool to solve a technical problem is a google search, and a Technical forum often contains the answer.
When other workers in the Enterprise can make a similar case, then forums in regards to that subject should be open as well.
For example, there could be a business case that medical workers should be allowed to access professional medicine-related forums in a Hospital.
Airports could have a business case for allowing their workers to access news/airline professional-related forums.
As a guest at the airport/hotel, you may be restricted in other ways,  for other security reasons.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30637526</id>
	<title>Re:Who cares? Really?</title>
	<author>lordlod</author>
	<datestamp>1262540160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You have job environments where people browse porn or view images which make others uncomfortable.</p><p>
While personally I think this is a deeper cultural issue that needs to be addressed I do accept that blocking porn is an acceptable short term measure.  One persons desire to look at boobies is vastly outweighed by the right of other's to feel comfortable in their work environment.  Especially in an open plan office.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have job environments where people browse porn or view images which make others uncomfortable .
While personally I think this is a deeper cultural issue that needs to be addressed I do accept that blocking porn is an acceptable short term measure .
One persons desire to look at boobies is vastly outweighed by the right of other 's to feel comfortable in their work environment .
Especially in an open plan office .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have job environments where people browse porn or view images which make others uncomfortable.
While personally I think this is a deeper cultural issue that needs to be addressed I do accept that blocking porn is an acceptable short term measure.
One persons desire to look at boobies is vastly outweighed by the right of other's to feel comfortable in their work environment.
Especially in an open plan office.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632722</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633598</id>
	<title>Re:New around here?</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1262550840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>A BOFH might find it more fun to manipulate data from certain websites, rather than block sites.</p></div>

</blockquote><p>Oh, you mean something like <a href="http://www.ex-parrot.com/pete/upside-down-ternet.html" title="ex-parrot.com">blurring or mirroring images on websites</a> [ex-parrot.com] viewed over an open WiFi access point?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A BOFH might find it more fun to manipulate data from certain websites , rather than block sites .
Oh , you mean something like blurring or mirroring images on websites [ ex-parrot.com ] viewed over an open WiFi access point ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A BOFH might find it more fun to manipulate data from certain websites, rather than block sites.
Oh, you mean something like blurring or mirroring images on websites [ex-parrot.com] viewed over an open WiFi access point?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30634100</id>
	<title>Re:Since when..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262512320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fark and Digg are categorized as "News and Media", not "Message Boards and Forums" in the Websense URL database.</p><p>Also, Websense allows you to re-categorize URLs if you so desire, or even permit and block individual URLs on a case-by-case basis if that serves your needs better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fark and Digg are categorized as " News and Media " , not " Message Boards and Forums " in the Websense URL database.Also , Websense allows you to re-categorize URLs if you so desire , or even permit and block individual URLs on a case-by-case basis if that serves your needs better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fark and Digg are categorized as "News and Media", not "Message Boards and Forums" in the Websense URL database.Also, Websense allows you to re-categorize URLs if you so desire, or even permit and block individual URLs on a case-by-case basis if that serves your needs better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30634124</id>
	<title>Re:thats business</title>
	<author>spire3661</author>
	<datestamp>1262512440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>And management gets fancy catered lunches, and warehouse gets free shipping, Marketing gets free swag, Sales gets to wine and dine people on the company credit card, etc so on and so forth</htmltext>
<tokenext>And management gets fancy catered lunches , and warehouse gets free shipping , Marketing gets free swag , Sales gets to wine and dine people on the company credit card , etc so on and so forth</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And management gets fancy catered lunches, and warehouse gets free shipping, Marketing gets free swag, Sales gets to wine and dine people on the company credit card, etc so on and so forth</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633768</id>
	<title>Re:thats business</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262509440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In my experience the IT dept generally has rules for other people and rules for themselves.</p></div><p>Different responsibilities, different rules. nothing abnormal. Every department has different rules for itself and for others.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>They "know what they are doing" while everybody else "can't be trusted"</p></div><p>And this is why. And it is true, not because other people are idiots, but simply as a matter of policy. Again, the same thing goes for other departments. (ever tried to get the same access to the corporate funds that the finance department has ?)</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Their login for general usage is full administrator</p> </div><p>If that is true they are idiots.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>while I am barred from sites "listed as general business" (only sites pre-approved by IT are allowed, which they make very clear they do not do because they don't want people asking them all the time)</p></div><p>Typically this happens because <b>management</b> demands a system that makes sure people do not waste time on non work related websites. IT say's that is only possible by using a very labor intensive white-list setup for which they do not have to manpower to mange. Management forces it anyway. IT gives change requests for the white list the lowest priority. solution. don't complain to IT. Tell your management what you need to do your work and let them take care of it. After all, they caused the problem.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>They install whatever they like, including such productivity tools as BBC news sports tickers</p></div><p>yep, the job comes with some advantages. Of course the everybody else "can't be trusted" rule is the major cause for this.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>When another member of staff requires a new PC, they get an IT staff's PC and IT get a new PC. Despite the general staff doing work where screen real estate is highly productive, their monitors are 15" and 17" while IT and managers have 19" (although they were quite savvy and gave the partners 21"; monitors are the new bigger desk and chair). In my job where we do quite a lot of printing, speed and quality are important, IT also have the best printer - yet it took a week for them to notice when I unplugged it one Friday night.</p></div><p>Typically this has to do with budgets.<br>Business: I need a new PC/printer/whatever.<br>IT: ok, which budget can we charge.<br>Business: charge ? budget ? well, I taught you probably have something laying around.</p><p>And of course IT needs new stuff first to gain experience with it.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>IT is all about convenience for IT. All our productivity stuff, which at any given moment 99\% of staff is running at any given moment, is quite server intensive. They're all on the same server, while low-intensity stuff rarely used has three idle servers all to itself. I spend a significant portion of my time waiting for the server to respond.</p></div><p>Budgets again. everyone wants new, faster servers, nobody wants to pay for it. It has probably advised to upgrade/replace them years ago.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I pointed out once that the servers could be rebalanced to distribute the load but was told "that would be too much hassle".</p></div><p>From the mind of the IT department: "Yeah, right you fucking cheap ass. not willing to spend some money for a decent server, even though we warned you for years, and now you want US to do a lot of risky work to alleviate your problem, at the expense of others who did take appropriate action when we warned them. f*ck you."</p><p><div class="quote"><p>All the procedures are laughable. Despite almost completely phasing paper filing out, all staff's basic logins can delete data files and all the backups are kept on a shelf on site. I could obliterate the lot in one minute of madness (probably induced by dealing with IT). It would take me longer to copy it all to a couple of USB sticks, but nobody would notice until they got the blackmail letters or it was on the news.</p></div><p>Likely management again. IT does not decide who gets what kind of access. The owner of the data usually does. It just implements (and advises against it id they dont like it)<br>Backup procedures are always a risk versus costs analysis. Any decent IT department would provide management with a risk analysis of the current situation, together with a improvement proposal, including the costs. Most likely Management decided to "take the risk". I doubt you would be included in these discussions.</p><p>On the other hand, your IT department could really be a bunch of douche bags<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In my experience the IT dept generally has rules for other people and rules for themselves.Different responsibilities , different rules .
nothing abnormal .
Every department has different rules for itself and for others.They " know what they are doing " while everybody else " ca n't be trusted " And this is why .
And it is true , not because other people are idiots , but simply as a matter of policy .
Again , the same thing goes for other departments .
( ever tried to get the same access to the corporate funds that the finance department has ?
) Their login for general usage is full administrator If that is true they are idiots.while I am barred from sites " listed as general business " ( only sites pre-approved by IT are allowed , which they make very clear they do not do because they do n't want people asking them all the time ) Typically this happens because management demands a system that makes sure people do not waste time on non work related websites .
IT say 's that is only possible by using a very labor intensive white-list setup for which they do not have to manpower to mange .
Management forces it anyway .
IT gives change requests for the white list the lowest priority .
solution. do n't complain to IT .
Tell your management what you need to do your work and let them take care of it .
After all , they caused the problem.They install whatever they like , including such productivity tools as BBC news sports tickersyep , the job comes with some advantages .
Of course the everybody else " ca n't be trusted " rule is the major cause for this.When another member of staff requires a new PC , they get an IT staff 's PC and IT get a new PC .
Despite the general staff doing work where screen real estate is highly productive , their monitors are 15 " and 17 " while IT and managers have 19 " ( although they were quite savvy and gave the partners 21 " ; monitors are the new bigger desk and chair ) .
In my job where we do quite a lot of printing , speed and quality are important , IT also have the best printer - yet it took a week for them to notice when I unplugged it one Friday night.Typically this has to do with budgets.Business : I need a new PC/printer/whatever.IT : ok , which budget can we charge.Business : charge ?
budget ?
well , I taught you probably have something laying around.And of course IT needs new stuff first to gain experience with it.IT is all about convenience for IT .
All our productivity stuff , which at any given moment 99 \ % of staff is running at any given moment , is quite server intensive .
They 're all on the same server , while low-intensity stuff rarely used has three idle servers all to itself .
I spend a significant portion of my time waiting for the server to respond.Budgets again .
everyone wants new , faster servers , nobody wants to pay for it .
It has probably advised to upgrade/replace them years ago.I pointed out once that the servers could be rebalanced to distribute the load but was told " that would be too much hassle " .From the mind of the IT department : " Yeah , right you fucking cheap ass .
not willing to spend some money for a decent server , even though we warned you for years , and now you want US to do a lot of risky work to alleviate your problem , at the expense of others who did take appropriate action when we warned them .
f * ck you .
" All the procedures are laughable .
Despite almost completely phasing paper filing out , all staff 's basic logins can delete data files and all the backups are kept on a shelf on site .
I could obliterate the lot in one minute of madness ( probably induced by dealing with IT ) .
It would take me longer to copy it all to a couple of USB sticks , but nobody would notice until they got the blackmail letters or it was on the news.Likely management again .
IT does not decide who gets what kind of access .
The owner of the data usually does .
It just implements ( and advises against it id they dont like it ) Backup procedures are always a risk versus costs analysis .
Any decent IT department would provide management with a risk analysis of the current situation , together with a improvement proposal , including the costs .
Most likely Management decided to " take the risk " .
I doubt you would be included in these discussions.On the other hand , your IT department could really be a bunch of douche bags : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my experience the IT dept generally has rules for other people and rules for themselves.Different responsibilities, different rules.
nothing abnormal.
Every department has different rules for itself and for others.They "know what they are doing" while everybody else "can't be trusted"And this is why.
And it is true, not because other people are idiots, but simply as a matter of policy.
Again, the same thing goes for other departments.
(ever tried to get the same access to the corporate funds that the finance department has ?
)Their login for general usage is full administrator If that is true they are idiots.while I am barred from sites "listed as general business" (only sites pre-approved by IT are allowed, which they make very clear they do not do because they don't want people asking them all the time)Typically this happens because management demands a system that makes sure people do not waste time on non work related websites.
IT say's that is only possible by using a very labor intensive white-list setup for which they do not have to manpower to mange.
Management forces it anyway.
IT gives change requests for the white list the lowest priority.
solution. don't complain to IT.
Tell your management what you need to do your work and let them take care of it.
After all, they caused the problem.They install whatever they like, including such productivity tools as BBC news sports tickersyep, the job comes with some advantages.
Of course the everybody else "can't be trusted" rule is the major cause for this.When another member of staff requires a new PC, they get an IT staff's PC and IT get a new PC.
Despite the general staff doing work where screen real estate is highly productive, their monitors are 15" and 17" while IT and managers have 19" (although they were quite savvy and gave the partners 21"; monitors are the new bigger desk and chair).
In my job where we do quite a lot of printing, speed and quality are important, IT also have the best printer - yet it took a week for them to notice when I unplugged it one Friday night.Typically this has to do with budgets.Business: I need a new PC/printer/whatever.IT: ok, which budget can we charge.Business: charge ?
budget ?
well, I taught you probably have something laying around.And of course IT needs new stuff first to gain experience with it.IT is all about convenience for IT.
All our productivity stuff, which at any given moment 99\% of staff is running at any given moment, is quite server intensive.
They're all on the same server, while low-intensity stuff rarely used has three idle servers all to itself.
I spend a significant portion of my time waiting for the server to respond.Budgets again.
everyone wants new, faster servers, nobody wants to pay for it.
It has probably advised to upgrade/replace them years ago.I pointed out once that the servers could be rebalanced to distribute the load but was told "that would be too much hassle".From the mind of the IT department: "Yeah, right you fucking cheap ass.
not willing to spend some money for a decent server, even though we warned you for years, and now you want US to do a lot of risky work to alleviate your problem, at the expense of others who did take appropriate action when we warned them.
f*ck you.
"All the procedures are laughable.
Despite almost completely phasing paper filing out, all staff's basic logins can delete data files and all the backups are kept on a shelf on site.
I could obliterate the lot in one minute of madness (probably induced by dealing with IT).
It would take me longer to copy it all to a couple of USB sticks, but nobody would notice until they got the blackmail letters or it was on the news.Likely management again.
IT does not decide who gets what kind of access.
The owner of the data usually does.
It just implements (and advises against it id they dont like it)Backup procedures are always a risk versus costs analysis.
Any decent IT department would provide management with a risk analysis of the current situation, together with a improvement proposal, including the costs.
Most likely Management decided to "take the risk".
I doubt you would be included in these discussions.On the other hand, your IT department could really be a bunch of douche bags :)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632606</id>
	<title>It's not IT-vs-other, it's business-vs-non</title>
	<author>rbrander</author>
	<datestamp>1262543520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Generally, they'll whitelist any site that a user can come defend as needed for work.</p><p>If there is abuse of "IT power", it's that IT passes judgment on their own staff's claim that tech-sites are needed for asking questions and finding tech solutions.   But, frankly, even a very lame claim that "I need access to localchat.com to check on how other local accountants are handling the new sales tax" will get a pass, too.  IT staff aren't exactly Sam Spade.  So any extra blind-eyes they get to their favourite sites is pretty marginal.</p><p>The big difference is that IT staff aren't shy of asking.   Other users imagine some omniscient IT that will just know they really want to chat about their cats.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Generally , they 'll whitelist any site that a user can come defend as needed for work.If there is abuse of " IT power " , it 's that IT passes judgment on their own staff 's claim that tech-sites are needed for asking questions and finding tech solutions .
But , frankly , even a very lame claim that " I need access to localchat.com to check on how other local accountants are handling the new sales tax " will get a pass , too .
IT staff are n't exactly Sam Spade .
So any extra blind-eyes they get to their favourite sites is pretty marginal.The big difference is that IT staff are n't shy of asking .
Other users imagine some omniscient IT that will just know they really want to chat about their cats .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Generally, they'll whitelist any site that a user can come defend as needed for work.If there is abuse of "IT power", it's that IT passes judgment on their own staff's claim that tech-sites are needed for asking questions and finding tech solutions.
But, frankly, even a very lame claim that "I need access to localchat.com to check on how other local accountants are handling the new sales tax" will get a pass, too.
IT staff aren't exactly Sam Spade.
So any extra blind-eyes they get to their favourite sites is pretty marginal.The big difference is that IT staff aren't shy of asking.
Other users imagine some omniscient IT that will just know they really want to chat about their cats.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632536</id>
	<title>Upset because...</title>
	<author>visualight</author>
	<datestamp>1262543040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He can go to slashdot but myspace is blocked?  I can spend all day listing reasons why someone might want to block myspace.  I could also spend all day listing reasons why people at work should be allowed to browser slashdot.</p><p>The submitter places \_all\_ interactive websites into a single category, and then complains that IT Admins are abusing their powers when some are allowed and some are not.</p><p>They are \_not\_ all the same and the submitter is just looking for someone here to validate the idea that he(she?) is being picked on by IT bullies.  This is so obvious I can't help but wonder why it made it to the front page.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He can go to slashdot but myspace is blocked ?
I can spend all day listing reasons why someone might want to block myspace .
I could also spend all day listing reasons why people at work should be allowed to browser slashdot.The submitter places \ _all \ _ interactive websites into a single category , and then complains that IT Admins are abusing their powers when some are allowed and some are not.They are \ _not \ _ all the same and the submitter is just looking for someone here to validate the idea that he ( she ?
) is being picked on by IT bullies .
This is so obvious I ca n't help but wonder why it made it to the front page .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He can go to slashdot but myspace is blocked?
I can spend all day listing reasons why someone might want to block myspace.
I could also spend all day listing reasons why people at work should be allowed to browser slashdot.The submitter places \_all\_ interactive websites into a single category, and then complains that IT Admins are abusing their powers when some are allowed and some are not.They are \_not\_ all the same and the submitter is just looking for someone here to validate the idea that he(she?
) is being picked on by IT bullies.
This is so obvious I can't help but wonder why it made it to the front page.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633422</id>
	<title>I have a L shape on my forehead</title>
	<author>k00laid</author>
	<datestamp>1262548980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ahh, users.  Would you care to be a little more passive aggressive?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ahh , users .
Would you care to be a little more passive aggressive ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ahh, users.
Would you care to be a little more passive aggressive?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633330</id>
	<title>Another possibility...</title>
	<author>plankrwf</author>
	<datestamp>1262548080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, taking some chances here, certainly in a crowd that does read sites like slashdot:</p><p>I think there is another reason: Slashdot isn't well known enough.<br>I know that Slashdot &#237;s a popular site (I read it myself!), but perhaps "slightly more" with "geeks-with-a-crush-on-linux/apple/BSD/fill-in-other-non-M$ OS", and less with IT managers.</p><p>Put another way: in Microsoft-office-support-environments (with operators that manage Windows machines), the fraction of IT-managers (and other people that determine which sites should be BLACKlisted) that know Slashdot may be marginally small.</p><p>When a blacklist is put together, sites like Facebook &amp; Youtube would therefore be mentioned much earlier in that 'blacklisting brainstormsession', than would be Slashdot or Digg... (Besides, blocking Youtube would mean more in freeing resources than blocking Slashdot would). So nobody even thinks about blocking Slashdot.</p><p>Now, when sites like Slashdot were to appear on WHITElists, now, THAT would be a reason to think of something like 'misuse of power'.<br>But not putting it on a BLACKlist...</p><p>Kind regards (and no insult intended),</p><p>Roel</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , taking some chances here , certainly in a crowd that does read sites like slashdot : I think there is another reason : Slashdot is n't well known enough.I know that Slashdot   s a popular site ( I read it myself !
) , but perhaps " slightly more " with " geeks-with-a-crush-on-linux/apple/BSD/fill-in-other-non-M $ OS " , and less with IT managers.Put another way : in Microsoft-office-support-environments ( with operators that manage Windows machines ) , the fraction of IT-managers ( and other people that determine which sites should be BLACKlisted ) that know Slashdot may be marginally small.When a blacklist is put together , sites like Facebook &amp; Youtube would therefore be mentioned much earlier in that 'blacklisting brainstormsession ' , than would be Slashdot or Digg... ( Besides , blocking Youtube would mean more in freeing resources than blocking Slashdot would ) .
So nobody even thinks about blocking Slashdot.Now , when sites like Slashdot were to appear on WHITElists , now , THAT would be a reason to think of something like 'misuse of power'.But not putting it on a BLACKlist...Kind regards ( and no insult intended ) ,Roel</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, taking some chances here, certainly in a crowd that does read sites like slashdot:I think there is another reason: Slashdot isn't well known enough.I know that Slashdot ís a popular site (I read it myself!
), but perhaps "slightly more" with "geeks-with-a-crush-on-linux/apple/BSD/fill-in-other-non-M$ OS", and less with IT managers.Put another way: in Microsoft-office-support-environments (with operators that manage Windows machines), the fraction of IT-managers (and other people that determine which sites should be BLACKlisted) that know Slashdot may be marginally small.When a blacklist is put together, sites like Facebook &amp; Youtube would therefore be mentioned much earlier in that 'blacklisting brainstormsession', than would be Slashdot or Digg... (Besides, blocking Youtube would mean more in freeing resources than blocking Slashdot would).
So nobody even thinks about blocking Slashdot.Now, when sites like Slashdot were to appear on WHITElists, now, THAT would be a reason to think of something like 'misuse of power'.But not putting it on a BLACKlist...Kind regards (and no insult intended),Roel</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30634532</id>
	<title>Re:Who cares? Really?</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1262515860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Does it matter, as long as they get their work done?</i> </p><p>It matters when your conduct is inappropriate or unprofessional.</p><p>When "the right to surf" becomes a geek entitlement. The fringe benefit denied other workers.</p><p> It matters when you are <b>not</b> as reliable and productive as you think you are.</p><p>It matters when you break the law.</p><p> It matters when you violate company policy.</p><p>It matters when exposure of your activity is likely to become a major headache for your employer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does it matter , as long as they get their work done ?
It matters when your conduct is inappropriate or unprofessional.When " the right to surf " becomes a geek entitlement .
The fringe benefit denied other workers .
It matters when you are not as reliable and productive as you think you are.It matters when you break the law .
It matters when you violate company policy.It matters when exposure of your activity is likely to become a major headache for your employer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does it matter, as long as they get their work done?
It matters when your conduct is inappropriate or unprofessional.When "the right to surf" becomes a geek entitlement.
The fringe benefit denied other workers.
It matters when you are not as reliable and productive as you think you are.It matters when you break the law.
It matters when you violate company policy.It matters when exposure of your activity is likely to become a major headache for your employer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632722</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632616</id>
	<title>we're human after all....</title>
	<author>jmad777</author>
	<datestamp>1262543580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Whats the point of having all that power if you can't abuse it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Whats the point of having all that power if you ca n't abuse it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whats the point of having all that power if you can't abuse it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30636508</id>
	<title>Re:New around here?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262529960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To save anyone else from having to Google, BOFH means 'bastard operator from Hell'.</p><p>Actually that should read, 'to boost my karma'<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-P</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To save anyone else from having to Google , BOFH means 'bastard operator from Hell'.Actually that should read , 'to boost my karma ' : -P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To save anyone else from having to Google, BOFH means 'bastard operator from Hell'.Actually that should read, 'to boost my karma' :-P</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30640870</id>
	<title>Here, they do:</title>
	<author>Ranma-sensei</author>
	<datestamp>1262621520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Where I work, sites like eBay get blocked, but Slashdot, thinkgeek and Battle.Net are open?<br>
<br>
Gee, how <i>very</i> impartial...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Where I work , sites like eBay get blocked , but Slashdot , thinkgeek and Battle.Net are open ?
Gee , how very impartial.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where I work, sites like eBay get blocked, but Slashdot, thinkgeek and Battle.Net are open?
Gee, how very impartial...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632978</id>
	<title>Re:IT Pros don't make policy.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262545920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>All IT networks (as did the Exec's networks) had unrestricted internet access (they still went through a malware filtering proxy, but not content filtering). This might be different in larger organizations. This might be different in larger organizations.</p></div><p>Yeah it can be.</p><p>

Where <i>I</i> work, filter categories like "Computing" (eclipe.org, sourceforge), "Reference" (OK, Wikipedia can be a horrible time-waster), "Education" (any<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.edu) are all blocked, <i>while financial sites load just fine</i> (nope, nothing even remotely looking like stock options at <i>our</i> levels). I could understand that if we were actually working in finance, but we are not, we're thrice-damned <i>IT subcontractors</i> who are supposed to be pissing out code day in, day out.</p><p>

So, good luck getting development tools or libraries, there are none in the standard workstation image and no central repository we can access. We ended up downloading tools from home (with all the attending risk of bringing back viruses and the like) and setting up our own repository in a shared Windows folder.</p><p>

It doesn't look like we're going to be abusing any power anytime soon...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>All IT networks ( as did the Exec 's networks ) had unrestricted internet access ( they still went through a malware filtering proxy , but not content filtering ) .
This might be different in larger organizations .
This might be different in larger organizations.Yeah it can be .
Where I work , filter categories like " Computing " ( eclipe.org , sourceforge ) , " Reference " ( OK , Wikipedia can be a horrible time-waster ) , " Education " ( any .edu ) are all blocked , while financial sites load just fine ( nope , nothing even remotely looking like stock options at our levels ) .
I could understand that if we were actually working in finance , but we are not , we 're thrice-damned IT subcontractors who are supposed to be pissing out code day in , day out .
So , good luck getting development tools or libraries , there are none in the standard workstation image and no central repository we can access .
We ended up downloading tools from home ( with all the attending risk of bringing back viruses and the like ) and setting up our own repository in a shared Windows folder .
It does n't look like we 're going to be abusing any power anytime soon.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All IT networks (as did the Exec's networks) had unrestricted internet access (they still went through a malware filtering proxy, but not content filtering).
This might be different in larger organizations.
This might be different in larger organizations.Yeah it can be.
Where I work, filter categories like "Computing" (eclipe.org, sourceforge), "Reference" (OK, Wikipedia can be a horrible time-waster), "Education" (any .edu) are all blocked, while financial sites load just fine (nope, nothing even remotely looking like stock options at our levels).
I could understand that if we were actually working in finance, but we are not, we're thrice-damned IT subcontractors who are supposed to be pissing out code day in, day out.
So, good luck getting development tools or libraries, there are none in the standard workstation image and no central repository we can access.
We ended up downloading tools from home (with all the attending risk of bringing back viruses and the like) and setting up our own repository in a shared Windows folder.
It doesn't look like we're going to be abusing any power anytime soon...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30641352</id>
	<title>Mcafee crashes</title>
	<author>geek2k5</author>
	<datestamp>1262623320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember installing Mcafee on my wife's computer and having it trash the operating system.  Thankfully I had backed it up before the installation.</p><p>After restoring the system I tried it again, thinking that it might have been a fluke.</p><p>I had to restore everything a second time.  I went with Symantec and have avoided Mcafee ever since.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember installing Mcafee on my wife 's computer and having it trash the operating system .
Thankfully I had backed it up before the installation.After restoring the system I tried it again , thinking that it might have been a fluke.I had to restore everything a second time .
I went with Symantec and have avoided Mcafee ever since .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember installing Mcafee on my wife's computer and having it trash the operating system.
Thankfully I had backed it up before the installation.After restoring the system I tried it again, thinking that it might have been a fluke.I had to restore everything a second time.
I went with Symantec and have avoided Mcafee ever since.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633616</id>
	<title>Re:IT Pros don't make policy.</title>
	<author>JustShootMe</author>
	<datestamp>1262551020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... and probably more relaxed too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... and probably more relaxed too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... and probably more relaxed too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632646</id>
	<title>No point blocking the tech sites</title>
	<author>petes\_PoV</author>
	<datestamp>1262543760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Any admin worth their pay can run rings around a net-blocker. So why piss-off the talent?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Any admin worth their pay can run rings around a net-blocker .
So why piss-off the talent ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any admin worth their pay can run rings around a net-blocker.
So why piss-off the talent?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633052</id>
	<title>The admins have to read something</title>
	<author>Com2Kid</author>
	<datestamp>1262546280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The admins have to read something.</p><p>Besides, how else are they going to keep informed of important IT news, if not for<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The admins have to read something.Besides , how else are they going to keep informed of important IT news , if not for /. ?
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The admins have to read something.Besides, how else are they going to keep informed of important IT news, if not for /.?
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632974</id>
	<title>Guess what</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262545920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yeah</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yeah</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yeah</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632454</id>
	<title>New around here?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262542500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>You must be new here. All members of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. are (or want to be) a <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/odds/bofh/" title="theregister.co.uk">BOFH</a> [theregister.co.uk]!</htmltext>
<tokenext>You must be new here .
All members of / .
are ( or want to be ) a BOFH [ theregister.co.uk ] !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You must be new here.
All members of /.
are (or want to be) a BOFH [theregister.co.uk]!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633532</id>
	<title>Re:Do power users abuse their IT knowledge?</title>
	<author>russotto</author>
	<datestamp>1262550300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I don't understand why people always try to "get around" these restrictions. If there is a legitimate business need, then get it approved.</p></div></blockquote><p>If you really don't understand, then delete "geek" from your username.  Geeks, as a rule, simply don't think that way.  A businessperson sees a policy restriction and thinks "Who do I have to contact to get around it?".  A geek sees a technical barrier and thinks "What do I have to do to get around it?".  Make it a firing offense to do things the geeks way, and you'll have few geeks working for you (most of them won't be fired; they'll just find the environment oppressive and leave).</p><p>Further, in my experience, "get it approved" is a heck of  a lot easier said than done.  Lots of hoops to jump through.  Justifications, forms, signatures from people in management.  Or worse, no approval process at all and a flat refusal from IT.  More than once I've had to force things along by telling my boss or his boss that I couldn't do what they asked because IT refused to allow it.  In one case IT refused even my boss's boss, and the job had to be done by literally bypassing them -- he had an employee of his run an Ethernet cable to the outgoing switch when IT wasn't looking.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand why people always try to " get around " these restrictions .
If there is a legitimate business need , then get it approved.If you really do n't understand , then delete " geek " from your username .
Geeks , as a rule , simply do n't think that way .
A businessperson sees a policy restriction and thinks " Who do I have to contact to get around it ? " .
A geek sees a technical barrier and thinks " What do I have to do to get around it ? " .
Make it a firing offense to do things the geeks way , and you 'll have few geeks working for you ( most of them wo n't be fired ; they 'll just find the environment oppressive and leave ) .Further , in my experience , " get it approved " is a heck of a lot easier said than done .
Lots of hoops to jump through .
Justifications , forms , signatures from people in management .
Or worse , no approval process at all and a flat refusal from IT .
More than once I 've had to force things along by telling my boss or his boss that I could n't do what they asked because IT refused to allow it .
In one case IT refused even my boss 's boss , and the job had to be done by literally bypassing them -- he had an employee of his run an Ethernet cable to the outgoing switch when IT was n't looking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't understand why people always try to "get around" these restrictions.
If there is a legitimate business need, then get it approved.If you really don't understand, then delete "geek" from your username.
Geeks, as a rule, simply don't think that way.
A businessperson sees a policy restriction and thinks "Who do I have to contact to get around it?".
A geek sees a technical barrier and thinks "What do I have to do to get around it?".
Make it a firing offense to do things the geeks way, and you'll have few geeks working for you (most of them won't be fired; they'll just find the environment oppressive and leave).Further, in my experience, "get it approved" is a heck of  a lot easier said than done.
Lots of hoops to jump through.
Justifications, forms, signatures from people in management.
Or worse, no approval process at all and a flat refusal from IT.
More than once I've had to force things along by telling my boss or his boss that I couldn't do what they asked because IT refused to allow it.
In one case IT refused even my boss's boss, and the job had to be done by literally bypassing them -- he had an employee of his run an Ethernet cable to the outgoing switch when IT wasn't looking.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30634958</id>
	<title>yes</title>
	<author>Quiet\_Desperation</author>
	<datestamp>1262518620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Has there ever been a backlash from users or management for doing so?</p></div><p>The head of our former IT manager is still on a pike outside the front door as a warning to others.</p><p>When you work for our company, and have everyone use Exceed On Demand with a fixed IP address, and then change the IP address over the holiday shutdown without informing anyone, it *will* be noticed, and steps *will* be taken.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Has there ever been a backlash from users or management for doing so ? The head of our former IT manager is still on a pike outside the front door as a warning to others.When you work for our company , and have everyone use Exceed On Demand with a fixed IP address , and then change the IP address over the holiday shutdown without informing anyone , it * will * be noticed , and steps * will * be taken .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has there ever been a backlash from users or management for doing so?The head of our former IT manager is still on a pike outside the front door as a warning to others.When you work for our company, and have everyone use Exceed On Demand with a fixed IP address, and then change the IP address over the holiday shutdown without informing anyone, it *will* be noticed, and steps *will* be taken.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632802</id>
	<title>Answer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262544780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext> <p><div class="quote"><p>In your experience, do IT administrators abuse their supervisory powers?</p></div><p>No. I want to be able to read about the latest threats, vulnerabilities, and news applicable to my job. I don't want an end user seeing that there is a new hack or proxy available for making my job harder. Likewise, at the college I work at, law enforcement students are provided classes on online threats, sexual predators, and human trafficing - they require access to websites and services that we would normally block - having a web proxy/web scanning solution that allows for group based access lists is an absolute requirement.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Has there ever been a backlash from users or management for doing so?</p></div><p>No. Typically if an IT admin is in charge of the web proxy, he's white listed his laptop/workstation's static IP (or DHCP reserved IP) so that the relaxed rules are only applicable to him/her.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In your experience , do IT administrators abuse their supervisory powers ? No .
I want to be able to read about the latest threats , vulnerabilities , and news applicable to my job .
I do n't want an end user seeing that there is a new hack or proxy available for making my job harder .
Likewise , at the college I work at , law enforcement students are provided classes on online threats , sexual predators , and human trafficing - they require access to websites and services that we would normally block - having a web proxy/web scanning solution that allows for group based access lists is an absolute requirement.Has there ever been a backlash from users or management for doing so ? No .
Typically if an IT admin is in charge of the web proxy , he 's white listed his laptop/workstation 's static IP ( or DHCP reserved IP ) so that the relaxed rules are only applicable to him/her .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> In your experience, do IT administrators abuse their supervisory powers?No.
I want to be able to read about the latest threats, vulnerabilities, and news applicable to my job.
I don't want an end user seeing that there is a new hack or proxy available for making my job harder.
Likewise, at the college I work at, law enforcement students are provided classes on online threats, sexual predators, and human trafficing - they require access to websites and services that we would normally block - having a web proxy/web scanning solution that allows for group based access lists is an absolute requirement.Has there ever been a backlash from users or management for doing so?No.
Typically if an IT admin is in charge of the web proxy, he's white listed his laptop/workstation's static IP (or DHCP reserved IP) so that the relaxed rules are only applicable to him/her.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633202</id>
	<title>If you have time ......</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262547240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>............to idly browse forums when you should be working, IT staff or not, then you are not being managed effectively and not giving your employer value for money.</p><p>Stop arsing around on the internet and get some work done you lazy sods, i'd fire you all....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>............to idly browse forums when you should be working , IT staff or not , then you are not being managed effectively and not giving your employer value for money.Stop arsing around on the internet and get some work done you lazy sods , i 'd fire you all... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>............to idly browse forums when you should be working, IT staff or not, then you are not being managed effectively and not giving your employer value for money.Stop arsing around on the internet and get some work done you lazy sods, i'd fire you all....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30636346</id>
	<title>Re:Of course</title>
	<author>shentino</author>
	<datestamp>1262528280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>EVERYONE with power will abuse it.</p><p>That's why america is based on a system of checks and balances.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>EVERYONE with power will abuse it.That 's why america is based on a system of checks and balances .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>EVERYONE with power will abuse it.That's why america is based on a system of checks and balances.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633726</id>
	<title>Re:thats business</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262552280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IT Department?</p><p>Where the most common password is "fred"?</p><p>(Take a look at your keyboard (So long as it is not a Dvorak))</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IT Department ? Where the most common password is " fred " ?
( Take a look at your keyboard ( So long as it is not a Dvorak ) )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IT Department?Where the most common password is "fred"?
(Take a look at your keyboard (So long as it is not a Dvorak))</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633096</id>
	<title>The point of power is to abuse it</title>
	<author>jjh37997</author>
	<datestamp>1262546640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everyone abuses their power, that's the point in acquiring power in the first place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone abuses their power , that 's the point in acquiring power in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone abuses their power, that's the point in acquiring power in the first place.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632730</id>
	<title>websense astroturf alert!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262544180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is it just the eggnog making you do crazy shit or are you people who replied really too dumb to recognize astroturfing on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it just the eggnog making you do crazy shit or are you people who replied really too dumb to recognize astroturfing on / .
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it just the eggnog making you do crazy shit or are you people who replied really too dumb to recognize astroturfing on /.
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633874</id>
	<title>If you don't like it...</title>
	<author>TheRecklessWanderer</author>
	<datestamp>1262510520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you don't like the internet policy given freely by the airport or hospital...then don't use it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you do n't like the internet policy given freely by the airport or hospital...then do n't use it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you don't like the internet policy given freely by the airport or hospital...then don't use it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633860</id>
	<title>Re:thats business</title>
	<author>ModernGeek</author>
	<datestamp>1262510460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>So on a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rate your satisfaction with your IT Department? 1 being extremely satisfied, 10 being extraordinarily satisfied.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So on a scale of 1 to 10 , how would you rate your satisfaction with your IT Department ?
1 being extremely satisfied , 10 being extraordinarily satisfied .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So on a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rate your satisfaction with your IT Department?
1 being extremely satisfied, 10 being extraordinarily satisfied.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633372</id>
	<title>Yes</title>
	<author>mikes.song</author>
	<datestamp>1262548500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I worked at a place where the system administrator blocked only liberal websites, like the Daily Kos, and marked them as propaganda.  I told one of the VPs that I would bitch about the war with, and the block was gone in about five minutes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I worked at a place where the system administrator blocked only liberal websites , like the Daily Kos , and marked them as propaganda .
I told one of the VPs that I would bitch about the war with , and the block was gone in about five minutes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I worked at a place where the system administrator blocked only liberal websites, like the Daily Kos, and marked them as propaganda.
I told one of the VPs that I would bitch about the war with, and the block was gone in about five minutes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632766</id>
	<title>No</title>
	<author>dholowiski</author>
	<datestamp>1262544420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Um, most IT pros are too busy to abuse their power.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Um , most IT pros are too busy to abuse their power .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um, most IT pros are too busy to abuse their power.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632508</id>
	<title>It's all about porn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262542860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The people who put these filtering policies in place are usually morbidly obsessed with how other people jack off, in a sort of proxy-voyeur kind of way. They don't want to admit that they look at porn, but they are 100\% focused on what other people *do* want to look at in their spare time.</p><p>I often felt like saying, "If you want some good links, just ask me". You really don't need to monitor / block my URLs, while keeping a copy of the log file for your own pleasure later".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The people who put these filtering policies in place are usually morbidly obsessed with how other people jack off , in a sort of proxy-voyeur kind of way .
They do n't want to admit that they look at porn , but they are 100 \ % focused on what other people * do * want to look at in their spare time.I often felt like saying , " If you want some good links , just ask me " .
You really do n't need to monitor / block my URLs , while keeping a copy of the log file for your own pleasure later " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The people who put these filtering policies in place are usually morbidly obsessed with how other people jack off, in a sort of proxy-voyeur kind of way.
They don't want to admit that they look at porn, but they are 100\% focused on what other people *do* want to look at in their spare time.I often felt like saying, "If you want some good links, just ask me".
You really don't need to monitor / block my URLs, while keeping a copy of the log file for your own pleasure later".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632832</id>
	<title>is work getting done</title>
	<author>fermion</author>
	<datestamp>1262544960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are clearly a couple different levels to this questions. The first, as might come from the worker bees, is why do they get to do things that we do not?  Why does this employee get flexible hours and I do not? Why does this group get new computers and we get hand me downs.  It usually involves a fairness argument and usually involves the assumption that everyone will be as undisciplined in the usage of the resources as the person asking the question. In terms of certain sites, it might be a matter of distraction.  An employer might not want a data entry clerk on facebook.  The IT staff on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.may not be seem to be such a big issue.  It isn't far.  Grow up.
<p>
Second is a matter of information.  IT lives on information.  Much of the information is useful, if only in a peripheral manner. Right now we see a bug that has hit payment processing, a law suit for uclaimed minutes, an review of the nexus one, a article on censorship,amd an article on plant gene mutation.  First we see that there is not a whole lot here for people who just want to waste an hour with mindless junk. Even the stuff that is not directly related to work does help a person become educated. IT staff should be educated, as their purpose shoudl be problem solving, not just working through an algorithm to solve common issues.  And the education is not what is happening on One Life to Live, or who did well in a sports event, or what star is sleeping with who.  All these things are vital entertainment to be sure, but not to the employer who is paying for 8 hours of paper pushing or answering the phone or direct customer service.
</p><p>
Third is the nature of power.   Just because one applies rightfully acquired power does not mean one is abusing the power.  As long as we have an hierarchal management system, those at certain levels with certain job responsibilities are going to be assumed to be the best at managing the related resources.  On can imagine in an IT department of one person significant abuse going on, but in larger departments, such as stated in the example, it is likely just a management issue.  For instance, I block many sites because these sites encourage the installation of software that will break the machine. The user will not fix the machine, but will use it as an excuse to take the day off. Other sites are blocked as the users have shown a lack of discipline when using the sites. It is all a matter of productivity.  I imagine that if the IT staff starting spending all their time on fark, it might get blocked.
</p><p>
And fourth is simple exposure.  Everyone knows what facebook it and therefore it is a target. How many people really know what fark or digg or<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. is.  If the PHB don't know what something is, then they won't know to do anything about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are clearly a couple different levels to this questions .
The first , as might come from the worker bees , is why do they get to do things that we do not ?
Why does this employee get flexible hours and I do not ?
Why does this group get new computers and we get hand me downs .
It usually involves a fairness argument and usually involves the assumption that everyone will be as undisciplined in the usage of the resources as the person asking the question .
In terms of certain sites , it might be a matter of distraction .
An employer might not want a data entry clerk on facebook .
The IT staff on /.may not be seem to be such a big issue .
It is n't far .
Grow up .
Second is a matter of information .
IT lives on information .
Much of the information is useful , if only in a peripheral manner .
Right now we see a bug that has hit payment processing , a law suit for uclaimed minutes , an review of the nexus one , a article on censorship,amd an article on plant gene mutation .
First we see that there is not a whole lot here for people who just want to waste an hour with mindless junk .
Even the stuff that is not directly related to work does help a person become educated .
IT staff should be educated , as their purpose shoudl be problem solving , not just working through an algorithm to solve common issues .
And the education is not what is happening on One Life to Live , or who did well in a sports event , or what star is sleeping with who .
All these things are vital entertainment to be sure , but not to the employer who is paying for 8 hours of paper pushing or answering the phone or direct customer service .
Third is the nature of power .
Just because one applies rightfully acquired power does not mean one is abusing the power .
As long as we have an hierarchal management system , those at certain levels with certain job responsibilities are going to be assumed to be the best at managing the related resources .
On can imagine in an IT department of one person significant abuse going on , but in larger departments , such as stated in the example , it is likely just a management issue .
For instance , I block many sites because these sites encourage the installation of software that will break the machine .
The user will not fix the machine , but will use it as an excuse to take the day off .
Other sites are blocked as the users have shown a lack of discipline when using the sites .
It is all a matter of productivity .
I imagine that if the IT staff starting spending all their time on fark , it might get blocked .
And fourth is simple exposure .
Everyone knows what facebook it and therefore it is a target .
How many people really know what fark or digg or / .
is. If the PHB do n't know what something is , then they wo n't know to do anything about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are clearly a couple different levels to this questions.
The first, as might come from the worker bees, is why do they get to do things that we do not?
Why does this employee get flexible hours and I do not?
Why does this group get new computers and we get hand me downs.
It usually involves a fairness argument and usually involves the assumption that everyone will be as undisciplined in the usage of the resources as the person asking the question.
In terms of certain sites, it might be a matter of distraction.
An employer might not want a data entry clerk on facebook.
The IT staff on /.may not be seem to be such a big issue.
It isn't far.
Grow up.
Second is a matter of information.
IT lives on information.
Much of the information is useful, if only in a peripheral manner.
Right now we see a bug that has hit payment processing, a law suit for uclaimed minutes, an review of the nexus one, a article on censorship,amd an article on plant gene mutation.
First we see that there is not a whole lot here for people who just want to waste an hour with mindless junk.
Even the stuff that is not directly related to work does help a person become educated.
IT staff should be educated, as their purpose shoudl be problem solving, not just working through an algorithm to solve common issues.
And the education is not what is happening on One Life to Live, or who did well in a sports event, or what star is sleeping with who.
All these things are vital entertainment to be sure, but not to the employer who is paying for 8 hours of paper pushing or answering the phone or direct customer service.
Third is the nature of power.
Just because one applies rightfully acquired power does not mean one is abusing the power.
As long as we have an hierarchal management system, those at certain levels with certain job responsibilities are going to be assumed to be the best at managing the related resources.
On can imagine in an IT department of one person significant abuse going on, but in larger departments, such as stated in the example, it is likely just a management issue.
For instance, I block many sites because these sites encourage the installation of software that will break the machine.
The user will not fix the machine, but will use it as an excuse to take the day off.
Other sites are blocked as the users have shown a lack of discipline when using the sites.
It is all a matter of productivity.
I imagine that if the IT staff starting spending all their time on fark, it might get blocked.
And fourth is simple exposure.
Everyone knows what facebook it and therefore it is a target.
How many people really know what fark or digg or /.
is.  If the PHB don't know what something is, then they won't know to do anything about it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632740</id>
	<title>Re:New around here?</title>
	<author>TheLink</author>
	<datestamp>1262544240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>A BOFH might find it more fun to manipulate data from certain websites, rather than block sites.<br><br>e.g. the BOFH substitutes some images, and/or inserts a rather loud audioclip.<br><br>Go figure out the details yourself.<br><br>Even if you use SSL, the BOFH probably controls what CA certs are installed in your browser<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;).</htmltext>
<tokenext>A BOFH might find it more fun to manipulate data from certain websites , rather than block sites.e.g .
the BOFH substitutes some images , and/or inserts a rather loud audioclip.Go figure out the details yourself.Even if you use SSL , the BOFH probably controls what CA certs are installed in your browser ; ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A BOFH might find it more fun to manipulate data from certain websites, rather than block sites.e.g.
the BOFH substitutes some images, and/or inserts a rather loud audioclip.Go figure out the details yourself.Even if you use SSL, the BOFH probably controls what CA certs are installed in your browser ;).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633000</id>
	<title>thats business</title>
	<author>DaveGod</author>
	<datestamp>1262545980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In my experience the IT dept generally has rules for other people and rules for themselves. They "know what they are doing" while everybody else "can't be trusted". Their login for general usage is full administrator and bypasses websense, while I am barred from sites "listed as general business" (only sites pre-approved by IT are allowed, which they make very clear they do not do because they don't want people asking them all the time). Our email attachment limits are 2mb ("it takes up space on the server") and FTP is outright barred - even though one time it was the only way for a client to send me files IT wouldn't do it, so I went home and put it onto a USB stick.</p><p>They install whatever they like, including such productivity tools as BBC news sports tickers. Despite pretty much being able to do everything on their work-paid cell phone, not having to multi-task or whatever they have brand-new machines. When another member of staff requires a new PC, they get an IT staff's PC and IT get a new PC. Despite the general staff doing work where screen real estate is highly productive, their monitors are 15" and 17" while IT and managers have 19" (although they were quite savvy and gave the partners 21"; monitors are the new bigger desk and chair). In my job where we do quite a lot of printing, speed and quality are important, IT also have the best printer - yet it took a week for them to notice when I unplugged it one Friday night.</p><p>IT is all about convenience for IT. All our productivity stuff, which at any given moment 99\% of staff is running at any given moment, is quite server intensive. They're all on the same server, while low-intensity stuff rarely used has three idle servers all to itself. I spend a significant portion of my time waiting for the server to respond. It's quite embarrassing when a client turns up asking for a simple copy of a report in a hurry and it takes me 10 minutes, they think I must have forgotten so they ask reception to call up and remind me they're late for their meeting. I pointed out once that the servers could be rebalanced to distribute the load but was told "that would be too much hassle". </p><p>All the procedures are laughable. Despite almost completely phasing paper filing out, all staff's basic logins can delete data files and all the backups are kept on a shelf on site. I could obliterate the lot in one minute of madness (probably induced by dealing with IT). It would take me longer to copy it all to a couple of USB sticks, but nobody would notice until they got the blackmail letters or it was on the news. </p><p>But let's not get all confused and think I'm bashing IT here. I can say pretty much the same thing about every single department. Like how the time it takes me to obtain new propellant pencil leads costs the firm 16x the price of the leads. If I kept one carton for work then stole the rest of the box it would be cheaper for the firm than following procedure. </p><p>As regards other managers, few have the slightest clue about IT. Those that do just work it to their advantage - they get preferential treatment so it makes them look good.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In my experience the IT dept generally has rules for other people and rules for themselves .
They " know what they are doing " while everybody else " ca n't be trusted " .
Their login for general usage is full administrator and bypasses websense , while I am barred from sites " listed as general business " ( only sites pre-approved by IT are allowed , which they make very clear they do not do because they do n't want people asking them all the time ) .
Our email attachment limits are 2mb ( " it takes up space on the server " ) and FTP is outright barred - even though one time it was the only way for a client to send me files IT would n't do it , so I went home and put it onto a USB stick.They install whatever they like , including such productivity tools as BBC news sports tickers .
Despite pretty much being able to do everything on their work-paid cell phone , not having to multi-task or whatever they have brand-new machines .
When another member of staff requires a new PC , they get an IT staff 's PC and IT get a new PC .
Despite the general staff doing work where screen real estate is highly productive , their monitors are 15 " and 17 " while IT and managers have 19 " ( although they were quite savvy and gave the partners 21 " ; monitors are the new bigger desk and chair ) .
In my job where we do quite a lot of printing , speed and quality are important , IT also have the best printer - yet it took a week for them to notice when I unplugged it one Friday night.IT is all about convenience for IT .
All our productivity stuff , which at any given moment 99 \ % of staff is running at any given moment , is quite server intensive .
They 're all on the same server , while low-intensity stuff rarely used has three idle servers all to itself .
I spend a significant portion of my time waiting for the server to respond .
It 's quite embarrassing when a client turns up asking for a simple copy of a report in a hurry and it takes me 10 minutes , they think I must have forgotten so they ask reception to call up and remind me they 're late for their meeting .
I pointed out once that the servers could be rebalanced to distribute the load but was told " that would be too much hassle " .
All the procedures are laughable .
Despite almost completely phasing paper filing out , all staff 's basic logins can delete data files and all the backups are kept on a shelf on site .
I could obliterate the lot in one minute of madness ( probably induced by dealing with IT ) .
It would take me longer to copy it all to a couple of USB sticks , but nobody would notice until they got the blackmail letters or it was on the news .
But let 's not get all confused and think I 'm bashing IT here .
I can say pretty much the same thing about every single department .
Like how the time it takes me to obtain new propellant pencil leads costs the firm 16x the price of the leads .
If I kept one carton for work then stole the rest of the box it would be cheaper for the firm than following procedure .
As regards other managers , few have the slightest clue about IT .
Those that do just work it to their advantage - they get preferential treatment so it makes them look good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my experience the IT dept generally has rules for other people and rules for themselves.
They "know what they are doing" while everybody else "can't be trusted".
Their login for general usage is full administrator and bypasses websense, while I am barred from sites "listed as general business" (only sites pre-approved by IT are allowed, which they make very clear they do not do because they don't want people asking them all the time).
Our email attachment limits are 2mb ("it takes up space on the server") and FTP is outright barred - even though one time it was the only way for a client to send me files IT wouldn't do it, so I went home and put it onto a USB stick.They install whatever they like, including such productivity tools as BBC news sports tickers.
Despite pretty much being able to do everything on their work-paid cell phone, not having to multi-task or whatever they have brand-new machines.
When another member of staff requires a new PC, they get an IT staff's PC and IT get a new PC.
Despite the general staff doing work where screen real estate is highly productive, their monitors are 15" and 17" while IT and managers have 19" (although they were quite savvy and gave the partners 21"; monitors are the new bigger desk and chair).
In my job where we do quite a lot of printing, speed and quality are important, IT also have the best printer - yet it took a week for them to notice when I unplugged it one Friday night.IT is all about convenience for IT.
All our productivity stuff, which at any given moment 99\% of staff is running at any given moment, is quite server intensive.
They're all on the same server, while low-intensity stuff rarely used has three idle servers all to itself.
I spend a significant portion of my time waiting for the server to respond.
It's quite embarrassing when a client turns up asking for a simple copy of a report in a hurry and it takes me 10 minutes, they think I must have forgotten so they ask reception to call up and remind me they're late for their meeting.
I pointed out once that the servers could be rebalanced to distribute the load but was told "that would be too much hassle".
All the procedures are laughable.
Despite almost completely phasing paper filing out, all staff's basic logins can delete data files and all the backups are kept on a shelf on site.
I could obliterate the lot in one minute of madness (probably induced by dealing with IT).
It would take me longer to copy it all to a couple of USB sticks, but nobody would notice until they got the blackmail letters or it was on the news.
But let's not get all confused and think I'm bashing IT here.
I can say pretty much the same thing about every single department.
Like how the time it takes me to obtain new propellant pencil leads costs the firm 16x the price of the leads.
If I kept one carton for work then stole the rest of the box it would be cheaper for the firm than following procedure.
As regards other managers, few have the slightest clue about IT.
Those that do just work it to their advantage - they get preferential treatment so it makes them look good.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633428</id>
	<title>They were unblocked for work</title>
	<author>Fallen Kell</author>
	<datestamp>1262549040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Most of the sites you are mentioning that were not blocked were unblocked for work related uses. In IT, a good 80-90\% of the job is keeping up with the technology that is out there and the uses others may have found for it. The sites you mentioned have a lot of related information about new technology and how others are trying to use it, so, for IT, that is directly relevant to their job and they have made the business case to management to unblock those sites.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of the sites you are mentioning that were not blocked were unblocked for work related uses .
In IT , a good 80-90 \ % of the job is keeping up with the technology that is out there and the uses others may have found for it .
The sites you mentioned have a lot of related information about new technology and how others are trying to use it , so , for IT , that is directly relevant to their job and they have made the business case to management to unblock those sites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of the sites you are mentioning that were not blocked were unblocked for work related uses.
In IT, a good 80-90\% of the job is keeping up with the technology that is out there and the uses others may have found for it.
The sites you mentioned have a lot of related information about new technology and how others are trying to use it, so, for IT, that is directly relevant to their job and they have made the business case to management to unblock those sites.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633916</id>
	<title>Trying to ruin a presentation</title>
	<author>EmperorOfCanada</author>
	<datestamp>1262511000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Once when presenting a web based product to the senior management the IT people at a huge company tried to block the IP address of the server in the middle of the presentation. Without missing a beat I switched over to a copy of the product that was hosted on the laptop itself. The IT guy typed furiously and then interrupted and asked what port/ IP address I was using. I told him that I had switched from TCP to UDP as something was blocking the TCP packets. He typed even more furiously trying to figure out why blocking a single IP wouldn't also block UDP. I am not sure he ever figured out what went wrong. For weeks after the presentation the IT group threw up roadblock after roadblock. We weren't compatible with their PKI, etc (we didn't use anything that would work with PKI). Even though the top people(CEO, CFO, President, and the VP of Marketing) really wanted what we were offering they simply admitted that a battle with their IT department wasn't something they could handle at this time.

This was not the first IT department that tried to crap all over our product for "Technical" reasons. Even if our product were to have sucked crap that was never the reason given. It was always "bandwidth" or something not relating at all to any possible problem that our product had.
I think it all boils down to IT departments being driven by fear. If all goes well the IT department risks downsizing. If anything goes wrong the IT department gets the blame. Then to top it all off the typical IT head might be around 50 years old in the average large organization and they fear the new guy who just was hired who could single handedly bring the entire department out of the depths of Novell and into the 21st century.

I would recommend that any large company regularly get an outside organization to audit their IT departments and make sure that the technologies and practices are up to a reasonable standard. Best to learn now that your backups suck instead of when the good data still exists. I would be willing to venture that most organizations have a head of IT who should be replaced by one of his far younger underlings.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Once when presenting a web based product to the senior management the IT people at a huge company tried to block the IP address of the server in the middle of the presentation .
Without missing a beat I switched over to a copy of the product that was hosted on the laptop itself .
The IT guy typed furiously and then interrupted and asked what port/ IP address I was using .
I told him that I had switched from TCP to UDP as something was blocking the TCP packets .
He typed even more furiously trying to figure out why blocking a single IP would n't also block UDP .
I am not sure he ever figured out what went wrong .
For weeks after the presentation the IT group threw up roadblock after roadblock .
We were n't compatible with their PKI , etc ( we did n't use anything that would work with PKI ) .
Even though the top people ( CEO , CFO , President , and the VP of Marketing ) really wanted what we were offering they simply admitted that a battle with their IT department was n't something they could handle at this time .
This was not the first IT department that tried to crap all over our product for " Technical " reasons .
Even if our product were to have sucked crap that was never the reason given .
It was always " bandwidth " or something not relating at all to any possible problem that our product had .
I think it all boils down to IT departments being driven by fear .
If all goes well the IT department risks downsizing .
If anything goes wrong the IT department gets the blame .
Then to top it all off the typical IT head might be around 50 years old in the average large organization and they fear the new guy who just was hired who could single handedly bring the entire department out of the depths of Novell and into the 21st century .
I would recommend that any large company regularly get an outside organization to audit their IT departments and make sure that the technologies and practices are up to a reasonable standard .
Best to learn now that your backups suck instead of when the good data still exists .
I would be willing to venture that most organizations have a head of IT who should be replaced by one of his far younger underlings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once when presenting a web based product to the senior management the IT people at a huge company tried to block the IP address of the server in the middle of the presentation.
Without missing a beat I switched over to a copy of the product that was hosted on the laptop itself.
The IT guy typed furiously and then interrupted and asked what port/ IP address I was using.
I told him that I had switched from TCP to UDP as something was blocking the TCP packets.
He typed even more furiously trying to figure out why blocking a single IP wouldn't also block UDP.
I am not sure he ever figured out what went wrong.
For weeks after the presentation the IT group threw up roadblock after roadblock.
We weren't compatible with their PKI, etc (we didn't use anything that would work with PKI).
Even though the top people(CEO, CFO, President, and the VP of Marketing) really wanted what we were offering they simply admitted that a battle with their IT department wasn't something they could handle at this time.
This was not the first IT department that tried to crap all over our product for "Technical" reasons.
Even if our product were to have sucked crap that was never the reason given.
It was always "bandwidth" or something not relating at all to any possible problem that our product had.
I think it all boils down to IT departments being driven by fear.
If all goes well the IT department risks downsizing.
If anything goes wrong the IT department gets the blame.
Then to top it all off the typical IT head might be around 50 years old in the average large organization and they fear the new guy who just was hired who could single handedly bring the entire department out of the depths of Novell and into the 21st century.
I would recommend that any large company regularly get an outside organization to audit their IT departments and make sure that the technologies and practices are up to a reasonable standard.
Best to learn now that your backups suck instead of when the good data still exists.
I would be willing to venture that most organizations have a head of IT who should be replaced by one of his far younger underlings.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30660632</id>
	<title>Blocked != Blocked</title>
	<author>Mekkah</author>
	<datestamp>1262686020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does it really matter if these sites are blocked or not blocked by the IT guys?  Most of the time, they can get around it anyway.  <br> <br> I used to browse the net on a junk Windows FTP server all the time because it fell in a different DMZ without the restrictions.  This was sometimes legit, because we block a lot of file downloads that I needed for work anyway... but I might've snuck in some Penny Arcade..  MAYBE.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does it really matter if these sites are blocked or not blocked by the IT guys ?
Most of the time , they can get around it anyway .
I used to browse the net on a junk Windows FTP server all the time because it fell in a different DMZ without the restrictions .
This was sometimes legit , because we block a lot of file downloads that I needed for work anyway... but I might 've snuck in some Penny Arcade.. MAYBE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does it really matter if these sites are blocked or not blocked by the IT guys?
Most of the time, they can get around it anyway.
I used to browse the net on a junk Windows FTP server all the time because it fell in a different DMZ without the restrictions.
This was sometimes legit, because we block a lot of file downloads that I needed for work anyway... but I might've snuck in some Penny Arcade..  MAYBE.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633346</id>
	<title>Can only speak for myself.</title>
	<author>miffo.swe</author>
	<datestamp>1262548200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I manage a large network of computers and servers. I have never even considered blocking access except where it make sense from a technical standpoint. Its really QOS i want but since i have never gotten it to work reliably id rather throttle specific sites like youtube, snotr, facebook and the like because thats the real bandwidth hogs.</p><p>All of the demands for power has come from upstairs. The management likes to be ontop of everything but since security (real security) is so hard to grasp they go for something they almost understand instead. Like crazy policies that nor add anything nor kills any real problems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I manage a large network of computers and servers .
I have never even considered blocking access except where it make sense from a technical standpoint .
Its really QOS i want but since i have never gotten it to work reliably id rather throttle specific sites like youtube , snotr , facebook and the like because thats the real bandwidth hogs.All of the demands for power has come from upstairs .
The management likes to be ontop of everything but since security ( real security ) is so hard to grasp they go for something they almost understand instead .
Like crazy policies that nor add anything nor kills any real problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I manage a large network of computers and servers.
I have never even considered blocking access except where it make sense from a technical standpoint.
Its really QOS i want but since i have never gotten it to work reliably id rather throttle specific sites like youtube, snotr, facebook and the like because thats the real bandwidth hogs.All of the demands for power has come from upstairs.
The management likes to be ontop of everything but since security (real security) is so hard to grasp they go for something they almost understand instead.
Like crazy policies that nor add anything nor kills any real problems.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633994</id>
	<title>Just work for Websense development instead</title>
	<author>MarkR42</author>
	<datestamp>1262511480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I doubt it very much. Not if they're any good.

I have found one way of bypassing Websense however - simply work for Websense's development team, we require unfiltered access in order to test new releases of our software so our customers can block all your porn/facebook etc. Stop slacking and do some work.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I doubt it very much .
Not if they 're any good .
I have found one way of bypassing Websense however - simply work for Websense 's development team , we require unfiltered access in order to test new releases of our software so our customers can block all your porn/facebook etc .
Stop slacking and do some work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I doubt it very much.
Not if they're any good.
I have found one way of bypassing Websense however - simply work for Websense's development team, we require unfiltered access in order to test new releases of our software so our customers can block all your porn/facebook etc.
Stop slacking and do some work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633500</id>
	<title>Re:Do power users abuse their IT knowledge?</title>
	<author>tarsi210</author>
	<datestamp>1262550000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While I certainly agree with a lot of your philosophies (protecting your network, avoiding having to clean up the mess, etc.) as I work in IT myself and am on the sysadmin AND helpdesk side (we're a jack-of-all sort of department), besides obvious issues like viruses, spyware, and the like, it comes down to two main philosophies:   Is managing your users' time on the network an IT issue or an HR issue?

At our site, it's split but definitely in favor of HR.   If there is someone abusing the bandwidth and clearly doing things other than their work, we'll notice and often we get requests from HR to investigate a particular user here or there.   It's easy enough to handle.     But most of the time we don't bother and we really don't care if people take a few minutes during their day to catch up on FB, read the latest scores, check the weather, etc.    We figure it's no different than allowing them some watercooler time, a bathroom break, or a chat in the hallway.   We want everyone to feel that we trust them to do what they've been hired to do and if they're not -- well, that's an issue for HR to work out with them, not IT.

Perhaps your site is less trustworthy and you get far more abuse of work time than we do, but I would estimate that out of 200+ employees we probably have a 0.25\% abuse rate, if that.   Coupled with a far, far more simple IT infrastructure that doesn't require hardly any of my time to manage and I think our solution is working very nicely by simply assuming that most people we hire are going to do their jobs and we only need a few things in place to catch the ones who insist on not doing so.

YMMV, naturally.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While I certainly agree with a lot of your philosophies ( protecting your network , avoiding having to clean up the mess , etc .
) as I work in IT myself and am on the sysadmin AND helpdesk side ( we 're a jack-of-all sort of department ) , besides obvious issues like viruses , spyware , and the like , it comes down to two main philosophies : Is managing your users ' time on the network an IT issue or an HR issue ?
At our site , it 's split but definitely in favor of HR .
If there is someone abusing the bandwidth and clearly doing things other than their work , we 'll notice and often we get requests from HR to investigate a particular user here or there .
It 's easy enough to handle .
But most of the time we do n't bother and we really do n't care if people take a few minutes during their day to catch up on FB , read the latest scores , check the weather , etc .
We figure it 's no different than allowing them some watercooler time , a bathroom break , or a chat in the hallway .
We want everyone to feel that we trust them to do what they 've been hired to do and if they 're not -- well , that 's an issue for HR to work out with them , not IT .
Perhaps your site is less trustworthy and you get far more abuse of work time than we do , but I would estimate that out of 200 + employees we probably have a 0.25 \ % abuse rate , if that .
Coupled with a far , far more simple IT infrastructure that does n't require hardly any of my time to manage and I think our solution is working very nicely by simply assuming that most people we hire are going to do their jobs and we only need a few things in place to catch the ones who insist on not doing so .
YMMV , naturally .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I certainly agree with a lot of your philosophies (protecting your network, avoiding having to clean up the mess, etc.
) as I work in IT myself and am on the sysadmin AND helpdesk side (we're a jack-of-all sort of department), besides obvious issues like viruses, spyware, and the like, it comes down to two main philosophies:   Is managing your users' time on the network an IT issue or an HR issue?
At our site, it's split but definitely in favor of HR.
If there is someone abusing the bandwidth and clearly doing things other than their work, we'll notice and often we get requests from HR to investigate a particular user here or there.
It's easy enough to handle.
But most of the time we don't bother and we really don't care if people take a few minutes during their day to catch up on FB, read the latest scores, check the weather, etc.
We figure it's no different than allowing them some watercooler time, a bathroom break, or a chat in the hallway.
We want everyone to feel that we trust them to do what they've been hired to do and if they're not -- well, that's an issue for HR to work out with them, not IT.
Perhaps your site is less trustworthy and you get far more abuse of work time than we do, but I would estimate that out of 200+ employees we probably have a 0.25\% abuse rate, if that.
Coupled with a far, far more simple IT infrastructure that doesn't require hardly any of my time to manage and I think our solution is working very nicely by simply assuming that most people we hire are going to do their jobs and we only need a few things in place to catch the ones who insist on not doing so.
YMMV, naturally.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633134</id>
	<title>Re:Do power users abuse their IT knowledge?</title>
	<author>jon3k</author>
	<datestamp>1262546820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>I don't understand why people always try to "get around" these restrictions. </i> <br>
To slack off?  Shop online, etc.
<br> <br>
<i>If there is a legitimate business need, then get it approved. </i> <br>
There isn't one.
<br> <br>
<i>These preventions are put in place for a reason. The more open the network, the more risk. The more risk means more virus, trojans, botnets, data leakage, etc. IT then has to cleanup your mess.</i> <br>
They don't care.  Your problem, not theirs.
<br> <br>
How long have you worked in IT?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand why people always try to " get around " these restrictions .
To slack off ?
Shop online , etc .
If there is a legitimate business need , then get it approved .
There is n't one .
These preventions are put in place for a reason .
The more open the network , the more risk .
The more risk means more virus , trojans , botnets , data leakage , etc .
IT then has to cleanup your mess .
They do n't care .
Your problem , not theirs .
How long have you worked in IT ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't understand why people always try to "get around" these restrictions.
To slack off?
Shop online, etc.
If there is a legitimate business need, then get it approved.
There isn't one.
These preventions are put in place for a reason.
The more open the network, the more risk.
The more risk means more virus, trojans, botnets, data leakage, etc.
IT then has to cleanup your mess.
They don't care.
Your problem, not theirs.
How long have you worked in IT?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30638348</id>
	<title>Re:New around here?</title>
	<author>the\_womble</author>
	<datestamp>1262638020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>BOFH is funny, but in real life stupidity and CYA are bigger problems than malice.</p><p>People very often simply do not think. For example, the guy who set a filter to block "alcohol and tobacco related sites" probably did not realise that I needed to to reach the corporate sites of the major companies in the sectors for work related reasons. I sent them a request and it was unblocked, but it wasted time.</p><p>The other problem is that it is a lot safer for the admin to block everything, than, for example, risking having the management getting annoyed because someone failed to black porn sites and the company is being sued for sexual harassment by someone who saw a port site of a colleagues shoulder.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>BOFH is funny , but in real life stupidity and CYA are bigger problems than malice.People very often simply do not think .
For example , the guy who set a filter to block " alcohol and tobacco related sites " probably did not realise that I needed to to reach the corporate sites of the major companies in the sectors for work related reasons .
I sent them a request and it was unblocked , but it wasted time.The other problem is that it is a lot safer for the admin to block everything , than , for example , risking having the management getting annoyed because someone failed to black porn sites and the company is being sued for sexual harassment by someone who saw a port site of a colleagues shoulder .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BOFH is funny, but in real life stupidity and CYA are bigger problems than malice.People very often simply do not think.
For example, the guy who set a filter to block "alcohol and tobacco related sites" probably did not realise that I needed to to reach the corporate sites of the major companies in the sectors for work related reasons.
I sent them a request and it was unblocked, but it wasted time.The other problem is that it is a lot safer for the admin to block everything, than, for example, risking having the management getting annoyed because someone failed to black porn sites and the company is being sued for sexual harassment by someone who saw a port site of a colleagues shoulder.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30634288</id>
	<title>But we're missing a great deal</title>
	<author>SnarfQuest</author>
	<datestamp>1262513700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>An important site is being blocked that could earn my company $40,000,000 million dollars (thats fourty million dollars) from the crown prince of Nigeria. We only need to send a small processing fee, to help him transfer the money to us, and all out financial worries would be over. But no, those stupic IT jerks will not remove their stupid ban on nigerian web sites.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>An important site is being blocked that could earn my company $ 40,000,000 million dollars ( thats fourty million dollars ) from the crown prince of Nigeria .
We only need to send a small processing fee , to help him transfer the money to us , and all out financial worries would be over .
But no , those stupic IT jerks will not remove their stupid ban on nigerian web sites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An important site is being blocked that could earn my company $40,000,000 million dollars (thats fourty million dollars) from the crown prince of Nigeria.
We only need to send a small processing fee, to help him transfer the money to us, and all out financial worries would be over.
But no, those stupic IT jerks will not remove their stupid ban on nigerian web sites.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633056</id>
	<title>Re:Power Corrupts...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262546280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Absolute power, is even more fun!&lt;/bofh&gt;</p><p>Yes, we did have something like this happen where I work. Our IT group ended up blocking all social networking sites. Our marketing department raised a fit because they use Facebook for business purposes.</p></div><p>Was the IT group given a business direction to block the social networking sites before doing so? I'm just curious what grounds on which it was censored.</p><p>The OP's question kind of points at this as well: do IT dept's extend their mandates beyond that which is given them?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Absolute power , is even more fun ! Yes , we did have something like this happen where I work .
Our IT group ended up blocking all social networking sites .
Our marketing department raised a fit because they use Facebook for business purposes.Was the IT group given a business direction to block the social networking sites before doing so ?
I 'm just curious what grounds on which it was censored.The OP 's question kind of points at this as well : do IT dept 's extend their mandates beyond that which is given them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Absolute power, is even more fun!Yes, we did have something like this happen where I work.
Our IT group ended up blocking all social networking sites.
Our marketing department raised a fit because they use Facebook for business purposes.Was the IT group given a business direction to block the social networking sites before doing so?
I'm just curious what grounds on which it was censored.The OP's question kind of points at this as well: do IT dept's extend their mandates beyond that which is given them?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30637772</id>
	<title>Yes.</title>
	<author>Polo</author>
	<datestamp>1262543340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes.</p><p>Next question.</p><p>(Please don't ask "Do cops speed?" "Do restaurant workers get free food?" "Do Real Estate Agents get cheaper houses?" etc...)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes.Next question .
( Please do n't ask " Do cops speed ?
" " Do restaurant workers get free food ?
" " Do Real Estate Agents get cheaper houses ?
" etc... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes.Next question.
(Please don't ask "Do cops speed?
" "Do restaurant workers get free food?
" "Do Real Estate Agents get cheaper houses?
" etc...)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633842</id>
	<title>When my company's Websense blocked Slashdot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262510280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I just submitted a Helpdesk ticket to get it whitelisted, since this is one of many news sources I read to stay current. It was available in a day. Most companies with halfway decent management <i>want</i> their nerds to read about technology, but don't want us chatting about Pokemon.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just submitted a Helpdesk ticket to get it whitelisted , since this is one of many news sources I read to stay current .
It was available in a day .
Most companies with halfway decent management want their nerds to read about technology , but do n't want us chatting about Pokemon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just submitted a Helpdesk ticket to get it whitelisted, since this is one of many news sources I read to stay current.
It was available in a day.
Most companies with halfway decent management want their nerds to read about technology, but don't want us chatting about Pokemon.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30634766</id>
	<title>DMZ, subnetting, and complete access.</title>
	<author>axor1337</author>
	<datestamp>1262517300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Considering that it is the IT dept that sets the policies and managed the network they can do what they want. At the IT dept. I work for we have all of our machines running dual NIC&rsquo;s  with one on a separate subnet from the rest of the infrastructure. We have that subnet set as a DMZ so we have full access. No firewall, filtering, or monitoring. As the tech support for the whole company if they don&rsquo;t like it we can slow down our support and lower our quality of service. For now management doesn&rsquo;t bother us because we are very good at what we do.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Considering that it is the IT dept that sets the policies and managed the network they can do what they want .
At the IT dept .
I work for we have all of our machines running dual NIC    s with one on a separate subnet from the rest of the infrastructure .
We have that subnet set as a DMZ so we have full access .
No firewall , filtering , or monitoring .
As the tech support for the whole company if they don    t like it we can slow down our support and lower our quality of service .
For now management doesn    t bother us because we are very good at what we do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Considering that it is the IT dept that sets the policies and managed the network they can do what they want.
At the IT dept.
I work for we have all of our machines running dual NIC’s  with one on a separate subnet from the rest of the infrastructure.
We have that subnet set as a DMZ so we have full access.
No firewall, filtering, or monitoring.
As the tech support for the whole company if they don’t like it we can slow down our support and lower our quality of service.
For now management doesn’t bother us because we are very good at what we do.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632532</id>
	<title>IT Pros - Never!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262543040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IT professionals would never abuse the position of responsibility with which they are entrusted. They would never use their positions to retaliate against the unthinking, uncaring, ungrateful wretches that make their lives a living, seething hell each and every day those worthless pieces of crap continue to suck air.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IT professionals would never abuse the position of responsibility with which they are entrusted .
They would never use their positions to retaliate against the unthinking , uncaring , ungrateful wretches that make their lives a living , seething hell each and every day those worthless pieces of crap continue to suck air .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IT professionals would never abuse the position of responsibility with which they are entrusted.
They would never use their positions to retaliate against the unthinking, uncaring, ungrateful wretches that make their lives a living, seething hell each and every day those worthless pieces of crap continue to suck air.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632590</id>
	<title>Re:IT Pros don't make policy.</title>
	<author>daveime</author>
	<datestamp>1262543460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>If someone does his job properly, but uses 10 minutes a day for masturbating to gay furry porn, he's still more productive than someone who takes a 10 minute smoke break every 20 minutes</i></p><p>I guess that depends on *where* he masturbated to gay furry porn. If it was in the smoking room, then it's understandable that the smoker needs 10 minutes<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... jizz covered Marlboros are a bitch to light.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If someone does his job properly , but uses 10 minutes a day for masturbating to gay furry porn , he 's still more productive than someone who takes a 10 minute smoke break every 20 minutesI guess that depends on * where * he masturbated to gay furry porn .
If it was in the smoking room , then it 's understandable that the smoker needs 10 minutes ... jizz covered Marlboros are a bitch to light .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If someone does his job properly, but uses 10 minutes a day for masturbating to gay furry porn, he's still more productive than someone who takes a 10 minute smoke break every 20 minutesI guess that depends on *where* he masturbated to gay furry porn.
If it was in the smoking room, then it's understandable that the smoker needs 10 minutes ... jizz covered Marlboros are a bitch to light.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30635532</id>
	<title>Generally...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262522220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its not usually the IT admins that cause what others see as abuse...IT admins seldome determine policy.  It the upper management that sets the perceived abuse.  I say perceived abuse, because you are there to use the computer to get your work done.  You are not there to surf the internet.  If you need internet access to do your job, you should have it.  If not you should only have access to the internal company email.</p><p>And yes, I subscribe to the philosophy of giving people the minimum access needed to get their job done effectively.  That means that ONLY the IT folks get to install software, and to decide what software will be installed.  Obviously, there would be a procedure to ask for increased privileges/access, but the IT person has the final say as to whether that person really needs increased privileges/access or not (or needs a particular program or not)..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its not usually the IT admins that cause what others see as abuse...IT admins seldome determine policy .
It the upper management that sets the perceived abuse .
I say perceived abuse , because you are there to use the computer to get your work done .
You are not there to surf the internet .
If you need internet access to do your job , you should have it .
If not you should only have access to the internal company email.And yes , I subscribe to the philosophy of giving people the minimum access needed to get their job done effectively .
That means that ONLY the IT folks get to install software , and to decide what software will be installed .
Obviously , there would be a procedure to ask for increased privileges/access , but the IT person has the final say as to whether that person really needs increased privileges/access or not ( or needs a particular program or not ) . .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its not usually the IT admins that cause what others see as abuse...IT admins seldome determine policy.
It the upper management that sets the perceived abuse.
I say perceived abuse, because you are there to use the computer to get your work done.
You are not there to surf the internet.
If you need internet access to do your job, you should have it.
If not you should only have access to the internal company email.And yes, I subscribe to the philosophy of giving people the minimum access needed to get their job done effectively.
That means that ONLY the IT folks get to install software, and to decide what software will be installed.
Obviously, there would be a procedure to ask for increased privileges/access, but the IT person has the final say as to whether that person really needs increased privileges/access or not (or needs a particular program or not)..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632722</id>
	<title>Who cares? Really?</title>
	<author>ZorinLynx</author>
	<datestamp>1262544120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does it matter, as long as they get their work done?</p><p>Really, some people are too uptight about things. The only metric should be if an employee does their job. If they do their job and do it well, who cares if they visit an amusing website for a laugh to break up an otherwise dull day?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does it matter , as long as they get their work done ? Really , some people are too uptight about things .
The only metric should be if an employee does their job .
If they do their job and do it well , who cares if they visit an amusing website for a laugh to break up an otherwise dull day ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does it matter, as long as they get their work done?Really, some people are too uptight about things.
The only metric should be if an employee does their job.
If they do their job and do it well, who cares if they visit an amusing website for a laugh to break up an otherwise dull day?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632556</id>
	<title>liability</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262543160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Employees from posting on random forums might expose their companies to liability for fraud ("Company X's products are pieces of junk assembled by slave labor in the Far East"), sexual predation, etc.  What the do on their home computers is their own business.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Employees from posting on random forums might expose their companies to liability for fraud ( " Company X 's products are pieces of junk assembled by slave labor in the Far East " ) , sexual predation , etc .
What the do on their home computers is their own business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Employees from posting on random forums might expose their companies to liability for fraud ("Company X's products are pieces of junk assembled by slave labor in the Far East"), sexual predation, etc.
What the do on their home computers is their own business.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30636844</id>
	<title>It's not an IT problem (most of the time)</title>
	<author>castadream</author>
	<datestamp>1262533080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why are they blocking sites in the first place? Is it about IT power and control? Is it an HR issue? Typically IT is concerned about blocking sites that are likely to be harmful. But the reality is, IT started being concerned with stuff other groups should be concerned with and Web blocking software became an IT-tool rather than a line of business tool. I could care less for example that an employee spends all day at Slashdot, ESPN, Facebook, etc... are they getting their work done? IT is not a substitute for HR or management.

What is the IT-related reason for blocking a Web site? Bandwidth reasons; security reasons? The idea of blocking a bunch of sites, that really shouldn't be blocked is typically a result of default-policies, and not based upon sound judgement.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why are they blocking sites in the first place ?
Is it about IT power and control ?
Is it an HR issue ?
Typically IT is concerned about blocking sites that are likely to be harmful .
But the reality is , IT started being concerned with stuff other groups should be concerned with and Web blocking software became an IT-tool rather than a line of business tool .
I could care less for example that an employee spends all day at Slashdot , ESPN , Facebook , etc... are they getting their work done ?
IT is not a substitute for HR or management .
What is the IT-related reason for blocking a Web site ?
Bandwidth reasons ; security reasons ?
The idea of blocking a bunch of sites , that really should n't be blocked is typically a result of default-policies , and not based upon sound judgement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why are they blocking sites in the first place?
Is it about IT power and control?
Is it an HR issue?
Typically IT is concerned about blocking sites that are likely to be harmful.
But the reality is, IT started being concerned with stuff other groups should be concerned with and Web blocking software became an IT-tool rather than a line of business tool.
I could care less for example that an employee spends all day at Slashdot, ESPN, Facebook, etc... are they getting their work done?
IT is not a substitute for HR or management.
What is the IT-related reason for blocking a Web site?
Bandwidth reasons; security reasons?
The idea of blocking a bunch of sites, that really shouldn't be blocked is typically a result of default-policies, and not based upon sound judgement.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30646106</id>
	<title>Yes, unfortunately</title>
	<author>stanjam</author>
	<datestamp>1262599320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I fear it is a common occurrence. The problem is not so much risk, as the IT professionals are generally safer about where they go on the web. The problem is one of perception, and of policy.

When IT professionals ignore stated policy and do what they like, it tends to do several things. One is resentment, and it helps degenerate the relationships between It and the users, which hurts the company. The second problem is it creates problems amonst policy. If IT doesn't follow policy, then users may feel free to ignore or go around policy as well. In addition it makes policy harder to enforce, when some people get away with ignoring policy while others are punished for the same.

If you have a good security department, they will make sure policy is enforced equally for all users, otherwise your policy is as bad as never haven been written at all.

I am sure I will get slammed by some here for saying it, but it is true. IT needs to foster better relationships with its users. One way to do that is not to ignore policy, and pretend it doesn't apply to you. Your security is at stake here, and the bottom line of the company.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I fear it is a common occurrence .
The problem is not so much risk , as the IT professionals are generally safer about where they go on the web .
The problem is one of perception , and of policy .
When IT professionals ignore stated policy and do what they like , it tends to do several things .
One is resentment , and it helps degenerate the relationships between It and the users , which hurts the company .
The second problem is it creates problems amonst policy .
If IT does n't follow policy , then users may feel free to ignore or go around policy as well .
In addition it makes policy harder to enforce , when some people get away with ignoring policy while others are punished for the same .
If you have a good security department , they will make sure policy is enforced equally for all users , otherwise your policy is as bad as never haven been written at all .
I am sure I will get slammed by some here for saying it , but it is true .
IT needs to foster better relationships with its users .
One way to do that is not to ignore policy , and pretend it does n't apply to you .
Your security is at stake here , and the bottom line of the company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I fear it is a common occurrence.
The problem is not so much risk, as the IT professionals are generally safer about where they go on the web.
The problem is one of perception, and of policy.
When IT professionals ignore stated policy and do what they like, it tends to do several things.
One is resentment, and it helps degenerate the relationships between It and the users, which hurts the company.
The second problem is it creates problems amonst policy.
If IT doesn't follow policy, then users may feel free to ignore or go around policy as well.
In addition it makes policy harder to enforce, when some people get away with ignoring policy while others are punished for the same.
If you have a good security department, they will make sure policy is enforced equally for all users, otherwise your policy is as bad as never haven been written at all.
I am sure I will get slammed by some here for saying it, but it is true.
IT needs to foster better relationships with its users.
One way to do that is not to ignore policy, and pretend it doesn't apply to you.
Your security is at stake here, and the bottom line of the company.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632622</id>
	<title>Dealing with Blocked Websites...</title>
	<author>xmundt</author>
	<datestamp>1262543580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>      Greetings and Salutations.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Perhaps the better questions are "why ARE some websites blocked? and WHO makes that decision?"   I administer web access for a client or two, and, the decision to block given websites comes from upper level management, usually NOT the IT command structure.    In a business, there is an almost paranoid fear that the employees are sitting around surfing the Net instead of doing work to make money for the company.  Any blocking seems focused at keeping that from happening.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Alternatively, I go and sit at Panera Bread (a great place for good pastries, and excellent, light lunch sandwiches and such by the by...) on occasion, and have found a few websites that would not come up because they were blocked.   However, it appeared that this was because the company providing the blocking had mis-catagorized them, and, once I sent a note in about the site, they ended up being unblocked.   But then, If I were going to surf porn sites I would NOT be doing it in a public place like that....<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; So, I suppose there are cases where IT admins abuse their powers and block sites that should be available...but I have not run into them.   Amazingly enough BOFHs are human too, and, some of them ARE little Herberts....control freaks and generally annoying people.  The rest of us are all genial and fun folks with a slightly twisted sense of humor.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Regards<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Dave Mundt</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Greetings and Salutations .
            Perhaps the better questions are " why ARE some websites blocked ?
and WHO makes that decision ?
" I administer web access for a client or two , and , the decision to block given websites comes from upper level management , usually NOT the IT command structure .
In a business , there is an almost paranoid fear that the employees are sitting around surfing the Net instead of doing work to make money for the company .
Any blocking seems focused at keeping that from happening .
            Alternatively , I go and sit at Panera Bread ( a great place for good pastries , and excellent , light lunch sandwiches and such by the by... ) on occasion , and have found a few websites that would not come up because they were blocked .
However , it appeared that this was because the company providing the blocking had mis-catagorized them , and , once I sent a note in about the site , they ended up being unblocked .
But then , If I were going to surf porn sites I would NOT be doing it in a public place like that... .             So , I suppose there are cases where IT admins abuse their powers and block sites that should be available...but I have not run into them .
Amazingly enough BOFHs are human too , and , some of them ARE little Herberts....control freaks and generally annoying people .
The rest of us are all genial and fun folks with a slightly twisted sense of humor .
          Regards           Dave Mundt</tokentext>
<sentencetext>      Greetings and Salutations.
            Perhaps the better questions are "why ARE some websites blocked?
and WHO makes that decision?
"   I administer web access for a client or two, and, the decision to block given websites comes from upper level management, usually NOT the IT command structure.
In a business, there is an almost paranoid fear that the employees are sitting around surfing the Net instead of doing work to make money for the company.
Any blocking seems focused at keeping that from happening.
            Alternatively, I go and sit at Panera Bread (a great place for good pastries, and excellent, light lunch sandwiches and such by the by...) on occasion, and have found a few websites that would not come up because they were blocked.
However, it appeared that this was because the company providing the blocking had mis-catagorized them, and, once I sent a note in about the site, they ended up being unblocked.
But then, If I were going to surf porn sites I would NOT be doing it in a public place like that....
            So, I suppose there are cases where IT admins abuse their powers and block sites that should be available...but I have not run into them.
Amazingly enough BOFHs are human too, and, some of them ARE little Herberts....control freaks and generally annoying people.
The rest of us are all genial and fun folks with a slightly twisted sense of humor.
          Regards
          Dave Mundt</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633166</id>
	<title>The question is blasphemy</title>
	<author>couchslug</author>
	<datestamp>1262547060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gods cannot "abuse" their power since they make the rules.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gods can not " abuse " their power since they make the rules .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gods cannot "abuse" their power since they make the rules.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633466</id>
	<title>Blunt Instrument</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1262549460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's largely just laziness. If you plug in a dumb robot, then you don't have to manage things one by one. My company blocks entire websites. Once I found a promising link to fix a graphics problem we were having with our PCs, but it was blocked because it belonged to a forum on gamer site. Just because it was a gamer site doesn't mean it has no useful info. I complained, but the complaint went into a black hole.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's largely just laziness .
If you plug in a dumb robot , then you do n't have to manage things one by one .
My company blocks entire websites .
Once I found a promising link to fix a graphics problem we were having with our PCs , but it was blocked because it belonged to a forum on gamer site .
Just because it was a gamer site does n't mean it has no useful info .
I complained , but the complaint went into a black hole .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's largely just laziness.
If you plug in a dumb robot, then you don't have to manage things one by one.
My company blocks entire websites.
Once I found a promising link to fix a graphics problem we were having with our PCs, but it was blocked because it belonged to a forum on gamer site.
Just because it was a gamer site doesn't mean it has no useful info.
I complained, but the complaint went into a black hole.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632642</id>
	<title>yes.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262543700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What typically happens is some muppet somewhere in some department spends most of his day on facebook or whatever. Their manager who is pissed off with them already complains to HR that they're slacking, HR wanting a quiet life has a chat with a director who tells I.T to block the site and while they're at it block everything else that's like it too. The director, who has never used facebook or any site like it doesn't know anything has changed, the I.T department will have long ago setup private proxies/gateways to the net so that a) their usage can't be logged and b) they don't have to worry about sites being blocked. For the rest of the users it's tough luck talk to directors.</p><p>If your I.T dept has left sites like fark and digg open then they're doing it wrong basically. Is this an abuse of power? Perhaps, but that's the way it works.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What typically happens is some muppet somewhere in some department spends most of his day on facebook or whatever .
Their manager who is pissed off with them already complains to HR that they 're slacking , HR wanting a quiet life has a chat with a director who tells I.T to block the site and while they 're at it block everything else that 's like it too .
The director , who has never used facebook or any site like it does n't know anything has changed , the I.T department will have long ago setup private proxies/gateways to the net so that a ) their usage ca n't be logged and b ) they do n't have to worry about sites being blocked .
For the rest of the users it 's tough luck talk to directors.If your I.T dept has left sites like fark and digg open then they 're doing it wrong basically .
Is this an abuse of power ?
Perhaps , but that 's the way it works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What typically happens is some muppet somewhere in some department spends most of his day on facebook or whatever.
Their manager who is pissed off with them already complains to HR that they're slacking, HR wanting a quiet life has a chat with a director who tells I.T to block the site and while they're at it block everything else that's like it too.
The director, who has never used facebook or any site like it doesn't know anything has changed, the I.T department will have long ago setup private proxies/gateways to the net so that a) their usage can't be logged and b) they don't have to worry about sites being blocked.
For the rest of the users it's tough luck talk to directors.If your I.T dept has left sites like fark and digg open then they're doing it wrong basically.
Is this an abuse of power?
Perhaps, but that's the way it works.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30637916</id>
	<title>Re:thats business</title>
	<author>dbIII</author>
	<datestamp>1262545980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Despite the general staff doing work where screen real estate is highly productive, their monitors are 15" and 17" while IT and managers have 19" (although they were quite savvy and gave the partners 21"; monitors are the new bigger desk and chair)</p></div></blockquote><p>It's not always like that. I'm the last one on a single CRT and one of the slowest desktops in the place and I'm the one that orders the dual 1920x1080 screens for the temps.  You can only fix a disfunctional workplace one issue at a time - removing a policy that requires things like websense sounds like a good start but it's probably only going to happen if management become painfully aware of how restrictive it is.  A problem is that once anger sets in it becomes very difficult to discuss removing the filtering even with IT people that agree with you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Despite the general staff doing work where screen real estate is highly productive , their monitors are 15 " and 17 " while IT and managers have 19 " ( although they were quite savvy and gave the partners 21 " ; monitors are the new bigger desk and chair ) It 's not always like that .
I 'm the last one on a single CRT and one of the slowest desktops in the place and I 'm the one that orders the dual 1920x1080 screens for the temps .
You can only fix a disfunctional workplace one issue at a time - removing a policy that requires things like websense sounds like a good start but it 's probably only going to happen if management become painfully aware of how restrictive it is .
A problem is that once anger sets in it becomes very difficult to discuss removing the filtering even with IT people that agree with you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Despite the general staff doing work where screen real estate is highly productive, their monitors are 15" and 17" while IT and managers have 19" (although they were quite savvy and gave the partners 21"; monitors are the new bigger desk and chair)It's not always like that.
I'm the last one on a single CRT and one of the slowest desktops in the place and I'm the one that orders the dual 1920x1080 screens for the temps.
You can only fix a disfunctional workplace one issue at a time - removing a policy that requires things like websense sounds like a good start but it's probably only going to happen if management become painfully aware of how restrictive it is.
A problem is that once anger sets in it becomes very difficult to discuss removing the filtering even with IT people that agree with you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633164</id>
	<title>Hell yeah we do..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262547000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>..and if you don't like it I will delete your mailbox. Don't make me do it! You know I will!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>..and if you do n't like it I will delete your mailbox .
Do n't make me do it !
You know I will !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>..and if you don't like it I will delete your mailbox.
Don't make me do it!
You know I will!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632488</id>
	<title>Since when..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262542800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...are Fark and Digg considered 'technical culture' sites.  Seriously, this isn't 2001.  Last time I checked, the Internet had sort of entered the mainstream and 'slacking off at work' isn't really considered exclusively IT.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...are Fark and Digg considered 'technical culture ' sites .
Seriously , this is n't 2001 .
Last time I checked , the Internet had sort of entered the mainstream and 'slacking off at work ' is n't really considered exclusively IT .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...are Fark and Digg considered 'technical culture' sites.
Seriously, this isn't 2001.
Last time I checked, the Internet had sort of entered the mainstream and 'slacking off at work' isn't really considered exclusively IT.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632900</id>
	<title>Re:New around here?</title>
	<author>jftitan</author>
	<datestamp>1262545440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and I don't believe any backlash will ever occur because the users/management don't know how the network works.  So its a win win situation for the IT Pros.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Management "I can't access facebook, however I noticed you can access that slashdot website of yours."<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Me "Yep, because I get news about IT related stuff...  facebook is just a waste of productivity time... its your policy!"<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Management "oh, yeah. your right...  could you add me to the list of allowed users..."<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Me "Nope...  policy"</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Users "aaawwwwwhhh we can't access myspace!"<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Me "suck it!"<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Users "grumble grumble"</p><p>Either way, neither of the other two groups outside of the IT Admin team should be allowed to do anything.... extreme with the network access... and by extreme, social networking.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and I do n't believe any backlash will ever occur because the users/management do n't know how the network works .
So its a win win situation for the IT Pros .
      Management " I ca n't access facebook , however I noticed you can access that slashdot website of yours .
"     Me " Yep , because I get news about IT related stuff... facebook is just a waste of productivity time... its your policy !
"       Management " oh , yeah .
your right... could you add me to the list of allowed users... "     Me " Nope... policy "       Users " aaawwwwwhhh we ca n't access myspace !
"     Me " suck it !
"       Users " grumble grumble " Either way , neither of the other two groups outside of the IT Admin team should be allowed to do anything.... extreme with the network access... and by extreme , social networking .
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and I don't believe any backlash will ever occur because the users/management don't know how the network works.
So its a win win situation for the IT Pros.
      Management "I can't access facebook, however I noticed you can access that slashdot website of yours.
"
    Me "Yep, because I get news about IT related stuff...  facebook is just a waste of productivity time... its your policy!
"
      Management "oh, yeah.
your right...  could you add me to the list of allowed users..."
    Me "Nope...  policy"
      Users "aaawwwwwhhh we can't access myspace!
"
    Me "suck it!
"
      Users "grumble grumble"Either way, neither of the other two groups outside of the IT Admin team should be allowed to do anything.... extreme with the network access... and by extreme, social networking.
:-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633486</id>
	<title>power corrupts</title>
	<author>sunfly</author>
	<datestamp>1262549760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Power Corrupts.... What was the question?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Power Corrupts.... What was the question ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Power Corrupts.... What was the question?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_160220_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30637526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_160220_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30636508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_160220_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_160220_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30636034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_160220_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30638348
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_160220_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30637464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_160220_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633860
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_160220_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_160220_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632868
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_160220_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_160220_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_160220_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30634590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_160220_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30634354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_160220_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30636666
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_160220_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30634672
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_160220_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633360
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_160220_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30634336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_160220_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_160220_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30635790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_160220_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30634334
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_160220_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_160220_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30635004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_160220_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30634274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_160220_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_160220_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30636346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_160220_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633598
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_160220_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633134
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_160220_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30637600
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_160220_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_160220_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_160220_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632968
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_160220_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_160220_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30639398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_160220_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30634532
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_160220_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30652318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_160220_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30637916
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_160220_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633650
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_160220_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633244
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_160220_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_160220_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633768
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_160220_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_160220_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30637940
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_160220_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30634100
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_160220_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30641352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_160220_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633532
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_160220_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_160220_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_160220_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_160220_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30634124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_160220_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30636160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_160220_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_160220_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_03_160220.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633000
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633860
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633768
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633360
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30636666
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30635004
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30634124
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30635790
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633726
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30637916
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_03_160220.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633378
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_03_160220.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30634102
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_03_160220.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30635330
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_03_160220.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632782
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_03_160220.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632516
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632590
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30634672
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632630
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30636034
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633616
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632978
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_03_160220.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632462
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30636346
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633588
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632838
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633496
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_03_160220.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632558
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633660
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_03_160220.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632710
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_03_160220.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632532
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_03_160220.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632508
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_03_160220.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632524
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_03_160220.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632642
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_03_160220.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632722
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30634532
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30637526
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30637940
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_03_160220.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30634344
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_03_160220.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632454
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632740
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633598
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30637464
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30639398
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30634274
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30634590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632900
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633848
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30636508
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632696
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30638348
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_03_160220.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632802
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30634354
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_03_160220.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632730
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_03_160220.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632488
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30634100
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632786
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30641352
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30634336
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632868
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_03_160220.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632492
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633056
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30652318
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30634334
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_03_160220.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633842
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30636160
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_03_160220.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632646
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_03_160220.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632496
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632564
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632598
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633244
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632988
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632764
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632968
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633500
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633134
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632758
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632796
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633650
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633532
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_03_160220.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632556
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30637600
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_03_160220.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632734
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_03_160220.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633090
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_03_160220.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633536
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_03_160220.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632854
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_03_160220.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632814
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_03_160220.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30633916
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_03_160220.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_160220.30632482
</commentlist>
</conversation>
