<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_04_1432223</id>
	<title>You Won't Recognize the Internet in 2020</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1262617860000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>alphadogg writes <i>"As they imagine the Internet of 2020, computer scientists across the country are <a href="http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/010410-outlook-vision.html">starting from scratch and re-thinking everything</a>: from IP addresses to DNS to routing tables to Internet security in general. They're envisioning how the Internet might work without some of the most fundamental features of today's ISP and enterprise networks. Their goal is audacious: To create an Internet without so many security breaches, with better trust and built-in identity management. Researchers are trying to build an Internet that's more reliable, higher performing and better able to manage exabytes of content. And they're hoping to build an Internet that extends connectivity to the most remote regions of the world, perhaps to other planets. This high-risk, long-range Internet research will kick into high gear in 2010, as the US federal government ramps up funding to allow a handful of projects to move out of the lab and into prototype. Indeed, the United States is building the world's largest virtual network lab across 14 college campuses and two nationwide backbone networks so that it can engage thousands &ndash; perhaps millions &ndash; of end users in its experiments."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>alphadogg writes " As they imagine the Internet of 2020 , computer scientists across the country are starting from scratch and re-thinking everything : from IP addresses to DNS to routing tables to Internet security in general .
They 're envisioning how the Internet might work without some of the most fundamental features of today 's ISP and enterprise networks .
Their goal is audacious : To create an Internet without so many security breaches , with better trust and built-in identity management .
Researchers are trying to build an Internet that 's more reliable , higher performing and better able to manage exabytes of content .
And they 're hoping to build an Internet that extends connectivity to the most remote regions of the world , perhaps to other planets .
This high-risk , long-range Internet research will kick into high gear in 2010 , as the US federal government ramps up funding to allow a handful of projects to move out of the lab and into prototype .
Indeed , the United States is building the world 's largest virtual network lab across 14 college campuses and two nationwide backbone networks so that it can engage thousands    perhaps millions    of end users in its experiments .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>alphadogg writes "As they imagine the Internet of 2020, computer scientists across the country are starting from scratch and re-thinking everything: from IP addresses to DNS to routing tables to Internet security in general.
They're envisioning how the Internet might work without some of the most fundamental features of today's ISP and enterprise networks.
Their goal is audacious: To create an Internet without so many security breaches, with better trust and built-in identity management.
Researchers are trying to build an Internet that's more reliable, higher performing and better able to manage exabytes of content.
And they're hoping to build an Internet that extends connectivity to the most remote regions of the world, perhaps to other planets.
This high-risk, long-range Internet research will kick into high gear in 2010, as the US federal government ramps up funding to allow a handful of projects to move out of the lab and into prototype.
Indeed, the United States is building the world's largest virtual network lab across 14 college campuses and two nationwide backbone networks so that it can engage thousands – perhaps millions – of end users in its experiments.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30651342</id>
	<title>NewArch Project?</title>
	<author>tukia</author>
	<datestamp>1262627700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This sounds similar to the goals of the NewArch project, <a href="http://www.isi.edu/newarch/" title="isi.edu" rel="nofollow">http://www.isi.edu/newarch/</a> [isi.edu]  back in 2003? The original idea seems to have died with the funding?</htmltext>
<tokenext>This sounds similar to the goals of the NewArch project , http : //www.isi.edu/newarch/ [ isi.edu ] back in 2003 ?
The original idea seems to have died with the funding ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This sounds similar to the goals of the NewArch project, http://www.isi.edu/newarch/ [isi.edu]  back in 2003?
The original idea seems to have died with the funding?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30643124</id>
	<title>Re:How about some digital cash?</title>
	<author>Eli Gottlieb</author>
	<datestamp>1262630040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not like e-cash is a technologically hard issue.  It's just a matter of issuing a cryptographically-signed capability redeemable for monetary value.  The problem is that, with the amount of data that users discard and destroy regularly on the internet, we'd more likely have to use "e-checks": cryptographically-signed capabilities redeemable for monetary value <i>from a specific bank account</i>.  Of course, that would allow someone to start an "e-bank" that holds the backing account themselves and issues e-checks backed by that account in exchange for the equivalent in actual money (cash or credit or whatever).  You would pay for it like a real checking account and checkbook, so that to get the right to $100 of e-cash you might pay $105 or something.  The neat bit is that once they issue you the capability they don't need to know what account backs it; when you withdraw $25 e-cash they would just subtract $25 from your account and issue you a capability valued at $25 backed by that bank.  You could then pass that capability all across the network willy-nilly without anyone ever being able to trace it back to its original owner.</p><p>Excuse me, I need to go pitch a start-up idea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not like e-cash is a technologically hard issue .
It 's just a matter of issuing a cryptographically-signed capability redeemable for monetary value .
The problem is that , with the amount of data that users discard and destroy regularly on the internet , we 'd more likely have to use " e-checks " : cryptographically-signed capabilities redeemable for monetary value from a specific bank account .
Of course , that would allow someone to start an " e-bank " that holds the backing account themselves and issues e-checks backed by that account in exchange for the equivalent in actual money ( cash or credit or whatever ) .
You would pay for it like a real checking account and checkbook , so that to get the right to $ 100 of e-cash you might pay $ 105 or something .
The neat bit is that once they issue you the capability they do n't need to know what account backs it ; when you withdraw $ 25 e-cash they would just subtract $ 25 from your account and issue you a capability valued at $ 25 backed by that bank .
You could then pass that capability all across the network willy-nilly without anyone ever being able to trace it back to its original owner.Excuse me , I need to go pitch a start-up idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not like e-cash is a technologically hard issue.
It's just a matter of issuing a cryptographically-signed capability redeemable for monetary value.
The problem is that, with the amount of data that users discard and destroy regularly on the internet, we'd more likely have to use "e-checks": cryptographically-signed capabilities redeemable for monetary value from a specific bank account.
Of course, that would allow someone to start an "e-bank" that holds the backing account themselves and issues e-checks backed by that account in exchange for the equivalent in actual money (cash or credit or whatever).
You would pay for it like a real checking account and checkbook, so that to get the right to $100 of e-cash you might pay $105 or something.
The neat bit is that once they issue you the capability they don't need to know what account backs it; when you withdraw $25 e-cash they would just subtract $25 from your account and issue you a capability valued at $25 backed by that bank.
You could then pass that capability all across the network willy-nilly without anyone ever being able to trace it back to its original owner.Excuse me, I need to go pitch a start-up idea.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30645214</id>
	<title>well</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262596140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>we'll just get back to Fidonet....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>we 'll just get back to Fidonet... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we'll just get back to Fidonet....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30643110</id>
	<title>Fix SMTP</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262629920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As far as I can tell, SMTP has, as an emergent property of its definition, spam.  Spam arises from STMP the same way that the strong nuclear force and electromagnetism indirectly imply helium.  Whatever the "new net" will look like, it needs attention from people who love to see out cracks in the structure and find flaws in the most pristine crystal.</p><p>There will be an authoritarian urge, a desire to top-down the whole process, that will make for a sucky internet ripe for abuse by elected officials.  If not anonymity, at least pseudonymity, need to be part of the structure.  Perhaps anonymity costs more money.  "Common Sense" was printed anonymously, but not for free.  We need a solid micropayment system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As far as I can tell , SMTP has , as an emergent property of its definition , spam .
Spam arises from STMP the same way that the strong nuclear force and electromagnetism indirectly imply helium .
Whatever the " new net " will look like , it needs attention from people who love to see out cracks in the structure and find flaws in the most pristine crystal.There will be an authoritarian urge , a desire to top-down the whole process , that will make for a sucky internet ripe for abuse by elected officials .
If not anonymity , at least pseudonymity , need to be part of the structure .
Perhaps anonymity costs more money .
" Common Sense " was printed anonymously , but not for free .
We need a solid micropayment system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As far as I can tell, SMTP has, as an emergent property of its definition, spam.
Spam arises from STMP the same way that the strong nuclear force and electromagnetism indirectly imply helium.
Whatever the "new net" will look like, it needs attention from people who love to see out cracks in the structure and find flaws in the most pristine crystal.There will be an authoritarian urge, a desire to top-down the whole process, that will make for a sucky internet ripe for abuse by elected officials.
If not anonymity, at least pseudonymity, need to be part of the structure.
Perhaps anonymity costs more money.
"Common Sense" was printed anonymously, but not for free.
We need a solid micropayment system.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641446</id>
	<title>It's all fun and games...</title>
	<author>Ranma-sensei</author>
	<datestamp>1262623800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>All concerns regarding free speech aside:<br>
Innovation doesn't work that way. You can't take a decentralized network like the web and make it "a saver place". That's bogus, and in my opinion a huge waste of money.<br>
<br>
Needless to say, they'll try anyways.<br>
<br>
Ja ne,<br>
Ranma-sensei</htmltext>
<tokenext>All concerns regarding free speech aside : Innovation does n't work that way .
You ca n't take a decentralized network like the web and make it " a saver place " .
That 's bogus , and in my opinion a huge waste of money .
Needless to say , they 'll try anyways .
Ja ne , Ranma-sensei</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All concerns regarding free speech aside:
Innovation doesn't work that way.
You can't take a decentralized network like the web and make it "a saver place".
That's bogus, and in my opinion a huge waste of money.
Needless to say, they'll try anyways.
Ja ne,
Ranma-sensei</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30640902</id>
	<title>yes I will, it still has fp's</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262621640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>first post</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>first post</tokentext>
<sentencetext>first post</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641766</id>
	<title>Use what IETF originally recommended</title>
	<author>theoldwizard</author>
	<datestamp>1262624940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Most have forgotten that the Internet Engineering Task Force originally recommend OSI with full implementation of all 7 layers of the ISO model.  Of course, no one wanted that<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...

You got what you asked for !</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most have forgotten that the Internet Engineering Task Force originally recommend OSI with full implementation of all 7 layers of the ISO model .
Of course , no one wanted that .. . You got what you asked for !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most have forgotten that the Internet Engineering Task Force originally recommend OSI with full implementation of all 7 layers of the ISO model.
Of course, no one wanted that ...

You got what you asked for !</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641340</id>
	<title>already unrecognizable</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262623320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I never see anybody I know when watching porn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I never see anybody I know when watching porn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I never see anybody I know when watching porn.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30643780</id>
	<title>Re:But...</title>
	<author>frank\_adrian314159</author>
	<datestamp>1262632980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It'll be more like a truck...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 'll be more like a truck.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It'll be more like a truck...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30643882</id>
	<title>Re:And not even that imaginative.</title>
	<author>mr\_da3m0n</author>
	<datestamp>1262633280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>What they are proposing sounds an awful lot like <a href="http://freenetproject.org/whatis.html" title="freenetproject.org">freenet</a> [freenetproject.org], in practice.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What they are proposing sounds an awful lot like freenet [ freenetproject.org ] , in practice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What they are proposing sounds an awful lot like freenet [freenetproject.org], in practice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30646272</id>
	<title>Re:But...</title>
	<author>Steauengeglase</author>
	<datestamp>1262599920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think that would make it a series of tubs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that would make it a series of tubs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that would make it a series of tubs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30644712</id>
	<title>Design by committee?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262637180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am really enthusiastically looking forward to it! The New Internet(tm) will be so beautiful!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am really enthusiastically looking forward to it !
The New Internet ( tm ) will be so beautiful !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am really enthusiastically looking forward to it!
The New Internet(tm) will be so beautiful!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641920</id>
	<title>Weren't we warned enough times about Skynet?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262625540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously now...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously now.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously now...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641866</id>
	<title>Re:What other planets?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262625300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ahem. Who said you'd be communicating with a <em>human</em>?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ahem .
Who said you 'd be communicating with a human ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ahem.
Who said you'd be communicating with a human?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30649246</id>
	<title>Re:Their goal is audacious?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262613060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Finding a new source of money of such dimensions will be challenging.</p></div><p>Free porn doesn't pay any money, and paid for porn can't be browsed anonymously (without a name and credit card number), unless they've invented a type of cash that can travel over the web.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Finding a new source of money of such dimensions will be challenging.Free porn does n't pay any money , and paid for porn ca n't be browsed anonymously ( without a name and credit card number ) , unless they 've invented a type of cash that can travel over the web .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Finding a new source of money of such dimensions will be challenging.Free porn doesn't pay any money, and paid for porn can't be browsed anonymously (without a name and credit card number), unless they've invented a type of cash that can travel over the web.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641132</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30644976</id>
	<title>Re:Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>moeinvt</author>
	<datestamp>1262638440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Sigh . . . you use gov funded things everyday"</p><p>sigh . . . we use TAXPAYER funded things every day.  Government has no ability to fund anything unless they first confiscate wealth from someone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Sigh .
. .
you use gov funded things everyday " sigh .
. .
we use TAXPAYER funded things every day .
Government has no ability to fund anything unless they first confiscate wealth from someone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Sigh .
. .
you use gov funded things everyday"sigh .
. .
we use TAXPAYER funded things every day.
Government has no ability to fund anything unless they first confiscate wealth from someone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30642680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30644354</id>
	<title>Re:What other planets?</title>
	<author>Grishnakh</author>
	<datestamp>1262635560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Being at another planet doesn't necessarily require landing on its surface, though this might be hard to imagine for surface-dwellers.  There's been lots of speculation about building floating cities on Venus: the city would float on the dense atmosphere.  Something similar could be done for gas giants; at a certain altitude, the gravity would probably equal Earth's.  Human habitats could also exist in orbit around other planets or moons.  And even on Mercury, people could live underground.</p><p>But yes, in the near term, Mars is the only really viable planet for landing on with our current technology.  However, the Moon is probably an even better bet, since it's so close, and would be more useful for things like mining or solar energy collection, and has more gravity than probably most other moons and dwarf planets (like Ceres) in our system.  Plus, as long as we're constrained by lightspeed, surfing the net from the Moon wouldn't be that bad, with a lag time of only a few seconds or so, compared with Mars with a lag time of 30 minutes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Being at another planet does n't necessarily require landing on its surface , though this might be hard to imagine for surface-dwellers .
There 's been lots of speculation about building floating cities on Venus : the city would float on the dense atmosphere .
Something similar could be done for gas giants ; at a certain altitude , the gravity would probably equal Earth 's .
Human habitats could also exist in orbit around other planets or moons .
And even on Mercury , people could live underground.But yes , in the near term , Mars is the only really viable planet for landing on with our current technology .
However , the Moon is probably an even better bet , since it 's so close , and would be more useful for things like mining or solar energy collection , and has more gravity than probably most other moons and dwarf planets ( like Ceres ) in our system .
Plus , as long as we 're constrained by lightspeed , surfing the net from the Moon would n't be that bad , with a lag time of only a few seconds or so , compared with Mars with a lag time of 30 minutes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Being at another planet doesn't necessarily require landing on its surface, though this might be hard to imagine for surface-dwellers.
There's been lots of speculation about building floating cities on Venus: the city would float on the dense atmosphere.
Something similar could be done for gas giants; at a certain altitude, the gravity would probably equal Earth's.
Human habitats could also exist in orbit around other planets or moons.
And even on Mercury, people could live underground.But yes, in the near term, Mars is the only really viable planet for landing on with our current technology.
However, the Moon is probably an even better bet, since it's so close, and would be more useful for things like mining or solar energy collection, and has more gravity than probably most other moons and dwarf planets (like Ceres) in our system.
Plus, as long as we're constrained by lightspeed, surfing the net from the Moon wouldn't be that bad, with a lag time of only a few seconds or so, compared with Mars with a lag time of 30 minutes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30646668</id>
	<title>Re:Get real</title>
	<author>Deluge</author>
	<datestamp>1262601600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yay, IPV6.  Unfortunately, as a Canadian, for the 1st 10 years of having broadband, I had no limits and paid $30/month.  2 years ago I started paying $40 for unlimited.  Now, for the same price, suddenly I have a 50GB/month cap.  So I would assume that to coincide with a protocol upgrade, I'll get to pay $60/month and get a 10GB cap.  By the time I hit retirement age I'll be paying $300/month for having an active connection, plus $5/MB starting from the first byte transferred.  Thank you Bell/Rogers/Telus and their chums at the CRTC.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yay , IPV6 .
Unfortunately , as a Canadian , for the 1st 10 years of having broadband , I had no limits and paid $ 30/month .
2 years ago I started paying $ 40 for unlimited .
Now , for the same price , suddenly I have a 50GB/month cap .
So I would assume that to coincide with a protocol upgrade , I 'll get to pay $ 60/month and get a 10GB cap .
By the time I hit retirement age I 'll be paying $ 300/month for having an active connection , plus $ 5/MB starting from the first byte transferred .
Thank you Bell/Rogers/Telus and their chums at the CRTC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yay, IPV6.
Unfortunately, as a Canadian, for the 1st 10 years of having broadband, I had no limits and paid $30/month.
2 years ago I started paying $40 for unlimited.
Now, for the same price, suddenly I have a 50GB/month cap.
So I would assume that to coincide with a protocol upgrade, I'll get to pay $60/month and get a 10GB cap.
By the time I hit retirement age I'll be paying $300/month for having an active connection, plus $5/MB starting from the first byte transferred.
Thank you Bell/Rogers/Telus and their chums at the CRTC.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30640908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641460</id>
	<title>Re:Their goal is audacious?</title>
	<author>Thanshin</author>
	<datestamp>1262623860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And when the database is stolen...</p><p>And when the card is stolen...</p><p>And when the user misuses the card...</p><p>And when the user uses his card on a compromised machine...</p><p>And when the two later happen a hundred thousand times per day...</p><p>Such a system needs to have an answer to all those situations and some more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And when the database is stolen...And when the card is stolen...And when the user misuses the card...And when the user uses his card on a compromised machine...And when the two later happen a hundred thousand times per day...Such a system needs to have an answer to all those situations and some more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And when the database is stolen...And when the card is stolen...And when the user misuses the card...And when the user uses his card on a compromised machine...And when the two later happen a hundred thousand times per day...Such a system needs to have an answer to all those situations and some more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641190</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30656436</id>
	<title>2012</title>
	<author>binaryartist</author>
	<datestamp>1262713380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You think there will be internet in 2020?</htmltext>
<tokenext>You think there will be internet in 2020 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You think there will be internet in 2020?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30645278</id>
	<title>Re:Security Theatre</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262596320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>sure, from citizen to consumers. I'd go one step further and say from consumers to serfs.</p><p>And it all comes full circle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>sure , from citizen to consumers .
I 'd go one step further and say from consumers to serfs.And it all comes full circle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>sure, from citizen to consumers.
I'd go one step further and say from consumers to serfs.And it all comes full circle.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30642000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30644378</id>
	<title>ET can phone my home finally</title>
	<author>starwarsfans</author>
	<datestamp>1262635680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is the only part I liked:

"And they're hoping to build an Internet that extends connectivity to the most remote regions of the world, perhaps to other planets."

Extend connectivity, improve performance for all the content, and make it easy to access information with no restrictions, even if you live in another galaxy.  It'll be nice to know that when I move to AlphaCentauri, the cable company has the jacks hot-wired with the Internet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the only part I liked : " And they 're hoping to build an Internet that extends connectivity to the most remote regions of the world , perhaps to other planets .
" Extend connectivity , improve performance for all the content , and make it easy to access information with no restrictions , even if you live in another galaxy .
It 'll be nice to know that when I move to AlphaCentauri , the cable company has the jacks hot-wired with the Internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the only part I liked:

"And they're hoping to build an Internet that extends connectivity to the most remote regions of the world, perhaps to other planets.
"

Extend connectivity, improve performance for all the content, and make it easy to access information with no restrictions, even if you live in another galaxy.
It'll be nice to know that when I move to AlphaCentauri, the cable company has the jacks hot-wired with the Internet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30643608</id>
	<title>Re:Get real</title>
	<author>Bengie</author>
	<datestamp>1262632380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>like a central cert that uses a crazy large public key system to communicate a symmetric key and they require proof of residence and you use this system to say "I refuse to connect to anyone that doesn't use one of these signed certs".</p><p>Add a 3 strikes clause to having your cert revoked and a 5 year renewal. Your ISP catches you as part of a bot-net 3 times, you cert gets deactivated. In order to reactivate your cert, you must pay a certified company like "Best Buy" or any one willing to get certified, to clean your computer and sign off saying it's bot-net-free.</p><p>While a host like facebook/your bank/etc may not care about you having a valid cert, I may care that you got your cert deactivated and I don't want you connecting to my computer directly or some email system saying, "Hey, your cert is deactivated for bot-netting, I'm going to refuse all your emails for possible spam reasons; get your computer cleaned"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>like a central cert that uses a crazy large public key system to communicate a symmetric key and they require proof of residence and you use this system to say " I refuse to connect to anyone that does n't use one of these signed certs " .Add a 3 strikes clause to having your cert revoked and a 5 year renewal .
Your ISP catches you as part of a bot-net 3 times , you cert gets deactivated .
In order to reactivate your cert , you must pay a certified company like " Best Buy " or any one willing to get certified , to clean your computer and sign off saying it 's bot-net-free.While a host like facebook/your bank/etc may not care about you having a valid cert , I may care that you got your cert deactivated and I do n't want you connecting to my computer directly or some email system saying , " Hey , your cert is deactivated for bot-netting , I 'm going to refuse all your emails for possible spam reasons ; get your computer cleaned "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>like a central cert that uses a crazy large public key system to communicate a symmetric key and they require proof of residence and you use this system to say "I refuse to connect to anyone that doesn't use one of these signed certs".Add a 3 strikes clause to having your cert revoked and a 5 year renewal.
Your ISP catches you as part of a bot-net 3 times, you cert gets deactivated.
In order to reactivate your cert, you must pay a certified company like "Best Buy" or any one willing to get certified, to clean your computer and sign off saying it's bot-net-free.While a host like facebook/your bank/etc may not care about you having a valid cert, I may care that you got your cert deactivated and I don't want you connecting to my computer directly or some email system saying, "Hey, your cert is deactivated for bot-netting, I'm going to refuse all your emails for possible spam reasons; get your computer cleaned"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30644364</id>
	<title>Re:Security Theatre</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262635620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Heres a thought<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Americans used to be "citizens".  Now we're merely "consumers".  Maybe with the new internet we'll get a new name like "surfers".</p></div><p>Shortened to "serfs..."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Heres a thought ... Americans used to be " citizens " .
Now we 're merely " consumers " .
Maybe with the new internet we 'll get a new name like " surfers " .Shortened to " serfs... "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Heres a thought ... Americans used to be "citizens".
Now we're merely "consumers".
Maybe with the new internet we'll get a new name like "surfers".Shortened to "serfs..."
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30642000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641290</id>
	<title>Re:Their goal is audacious?</title>
	<author>rtb61</author>
	<datestamp>1262623080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> They also want "content-centric networking" where all content is identified and controlled. Even "an alternative architecture that removes the intelligence from switches and routers and places these smarts in an external controller", your router or switch is no longer your own but controlled and remotely programmed by others. </p><p> The article stinks of creating an internet that matches the 20th century media model, where a handful and rich and greedy decide what is to be presented as the majority opinion. The struggle was to be expected, after all you can have the uncontrolled masses sharing and discussing there opinions. </p><p> Here's betting that their controlled, censored, monitored, restricted, "Big Brother" network dies on the drawing board, as the majority seek to protect their thoughts and opinions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They also want " content-centric networking " where all content is identified and controlled .
Even " an alternative architecture that removes the intelligence from switches and routers and places these smarts in an external controller " , your router or switch is no longer your own but controlled and remotely programmed by others .
The article stinks of creating an internet that matches the 20th century media model , where a handful and rich and greedy decide what is to be presented as the majority opinion .
The struggle was to be expected , after all you can have the uncontrolled masses sharing and discussing there opinions .
Here 's betting that their controlled , censored , monitored , restricted , " Big Brother " network dies on the drawing board , as the majority seek to protect their thoughts and opinions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> They also want "content-centric networking" where all content is identified and controlled.
Even "an alternative architecture that removes the intelligence from switches and routers and places these smarts in an external controller", your router or switch is no longer your own but controlled and remotely programmed by others.
The article stinks of creating an internet that matches the 20th century media model, where a handful and rich and greedy decide what is to be presented as the majority opinion.
The struggle was to be expected, after all you can have the uncontrolled masses sharing and discussing there opinions.
Here's betting that their controlled, censored, monitored, restricted, "Big Brother" network dies on the drawing board, as the majority seek to protect their thoughts and opinions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30640960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641780</id>
	<title>Welcome to the beginning of the end</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262625000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>To create an Internet without so many security breaches, with better trust and built-in identity management</p></div><p>Once it was possible to obtain a car (if you could afford it), sit at the wheel and roam about the countryside, feeling the wind in you hair and scaring the cows. Eventually this became so much the image of freedom that the theme from the "World of Motion" exhibit at EPCOT was called "It's fun to be free."  Today you need to license the car (pay fee), license yourself (pay fee), maintain both licenses (pay fee pay fee), keep you car street legal (pay maintenance), learn and abide by an insane amount of legislation (and I don't know anybody who has never had a ticket, no matter how careful they are), pay insurance... Owning a car today is a chore, driving is a necessity but it's far from fun; the moment it becomes fun, you're breaking some law. I know, this protects everybody, blah blah blah, I agree. But it's not fun.</p><p>The same mindset, for similar reasons, is now being ported to the Internet. Good bye freedom, good bye fun. Hello taxes, licensing and obligations. Sad.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>To create an Internet without so many security breaches , with better trust and built-in identity managementOnce it was possible to obtain a car ( if you could afford it ) , sit at the wheel and roam about the countryside , feeling the wind in you hair and scaring the cows .
Eventually this became so much the image of freedom that the theme from the " World of Motion " exhibit at EPCOT was called " It 's fun to be free .
" Today you need to license the car ( pay fee ) , license yourself ( pay fee ) , maintain both licenses ( pay fee pay fee ) , keep you car street legal ( pay maintenance ) , learn and abide by an insane amount of legislation ( and I do n't know anybody who has never had a ticket , no matter how careful they are ) , pay insurance... Owning a car today is a chore , driving is a necessity but it 's far from fun ; the moment it becomes fun , you 're breaking some law .
I know , this protects everybody , blah blah blah , I agree .
But it 's not fun.The same mindset , for similar reasons , is now being ported to the Internet .
Good bye freedom , good bye fun .
Hello taxes , licensing and obligations .
Sad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To create an Internet without so many security breaches, with better trust and built-in identity managementOnce it was possible to obtain a car (if you could afford it), sit at the wheel and roam about the countryside, feeling the wind in you hair and scaring the cows.
Eventually this became so much the image of freedom that the theme from the "World of Motion" exhibit at EPCOT was called "It's fun to be free.
"  Today you need to license the car (pay fee), license yourself (pay fee), maintain both licenses (pay fee pay fee), keep you car street legal (pay maintenance), learn and abide by an insane amount of legislation (and I don't know anybody who has never had a ticket, no matter how careful they are), pay insurance... Owning a car today is a chore, driving is a necessity but it's far from fun; the moment it becomes fun, you're breaking some law.
I know, this protects everybody, blah blah blah, I agree.
But it's not fun.The same mindset, for similar reasons, is now being ported to the Internet.
Good bye freedom, good bye fun.
Hello taxes, licensing and obligations.
Sad.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30643196</id>
	<title>Re:What other planets?</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1262630460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I assume their colloquial usage of "planets" includes all giant spheres that have significant gravity, including Titan, Europa and the like.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I assume their colloquial usage of " planets " includes all giant spheres that have significant gravity , including Titan , Europa and the like .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I assume their colloquial usage of "planets" includes all giant spheres that have significant gravity, including Titan, Europa and the like.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30640908</id>
	<title>Get real</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262621700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Get real,
in 2020 we might just have IPV6 to your local PC. Probably with all the consoles, games, etc that require IPV4 even this is optomistic. (I know many of you will have IPV6 end to end, but I mean for the average Joe)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Get real , in 2020 we might just have IPV6 to your local PC .
Probably with all the consoles , games , etc that require IPV4 even this is optomistic .
( I know many of you will have IPV6 end to end , but I mean for the average Joe )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Get real,
in 2020 we might just have IPV6 to your local PC.
Probably with all the consoles, games, etc that require IPV4 even this is optomistic.
(I know many of you will have IPV6 end to end, but I mean for the average Joe)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30643840</id>
	<title>Re:Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262633160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, actually it will make Internet Big Bro easier. There are already known security models that are completely dependent on identity management, beginning from encrypted BIOS/EFI, AEGIS bootstrap, TPM interdependence, sandboxing, cascaded verification of installed components etc. While I feared Microsoft will implement it in Vista or 7, the shock came from Google - Chrome OS is based on this model, the identity management across the network is its core feature.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , actually it will make Internet Big Bro easier .
There are already known security models that are completely dependent on identity management , beginning from encrypted BIOS/EFI , AEGIS bootstrap , TPM interdependence , sandboxing , cascaded verification of installed components etc .
While I feared Microsoft will implement it in Vista or 7 , the shock came from Google - Chrome OS is based on this model , the identity management across the network is its core feature .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, actually it will make Internet Big Bro easier.
There are already known security models that are completely dependent on identity management, beginning from encrypted BIOS/EFI, AEGIS bootstrap, TPM interdependence, sandboxing, cascaded verification of installed components etc.
While I feared Microsoft will implement it in Vista or 7, the shock came from Google - Chrome OS is based on this model, the identity management across the network is its core feature.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30640912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30643340</id>
	<title>Re:Their goal is audacious?</title>
	<author>AdamThor</author>
	<datestamp>1262631120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>What I found lacking in the article was an actual discussion of how they were going to make security better.</i></p><p>That information is unavailable unless your security clearance meets or exceeds <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranoia\_(role-playing\_game)#Security\_Clearances" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">code blue</a> [wikipedia.org] .  Troubleshooters have been dispatched to your location.  Please remain where you are until The Computer has verified your identity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What I found lacking in the article was an actual discussion of how they were going to make security better.That information is unavailable unless your security clearance meets or exceeds code blue [ wikipedia.org ] .
Troubleshooters have been dispatched to your location .
Please remain where you are until The Computer has verified your identity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I found lacking in the article was an actual discussion of how they were going to make security better.That information is unavailable unless your security clearance meets or exceeds code blue [wikipedia.org] .
Troubleshooters have been dispatched to your location.
Please remain where you are until The Computer has verified your identity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641256</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641322</id>
	<title>Re:Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>molecular</author>
	<datestamp>1262623200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The question is will a government-funded internet make <b>big-brother-ing</b> easier?</p></div><p>Oh please, not that word! You're getting it all wrong. You should call it "internet-safer-place-make-ing".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The question is will a government-funded internet make big-brother-ing easier ? Oh please , not that word !
You 're getting it all wrong .
You should call it " internet-safer-place-make-ing " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The question is will a government-funded internet make big-brother-ing easier?Oh please, not that word!
You're getting it all wrong.
You should call it "internet-safer-place-make-ing".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30640912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641666</id>
	<title>Re:Their goal is audacious?</title>
	<author>Nadaka</author>
	<datestamp>1262624640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Free speech without the need for anonymity is way better" agreed, if only it were the case. Sometimes you need to openly discuss something while retaining privacy, putting your name on questions about disease or sexuality could cost you your insurance, job, social status, family and even your life even in "the free west".</p><p>If you have something sufficiently important to say, it doesn't matter where you are in the world, you either need anonymity or the willingness to be sued, imprisoned or killed for what you say. "Deep Throat" used anonymity, Martin Luther King Jr. didn't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Free speech without the need for anonymity is way better " agreed , if only it were the case .
Sometimes you need to openly discuss something while retaining privacy , putting your name on questions about disease or sexuality could cost you your insurance , job , social status , family and even your life even in " the free west " .If you have something sufficiently important to say , it does n't matter where you are in the world , you either need anonymity or the willingness to be sued , imprisoned or killed for what you say .
" Deep Throat " used anonymity , Martin Luther King Jr. did n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Free speech without the need for anonymity is way better" agreed, if only it were the case.
Sometimes you need to openly discuss something while retaining privacy, putting your name on questions about disease or sexuality could cost you your insurance, job, social status, family and even your life even in "the free west".If you have something sufficiently important to say, it doesn't matter where you are in the world, you either need anonymity or the willingness to be sued, imprisoned or killed for what you say.
"Deep Throat" used anonymity, Martin Luther King Jr. didn't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30645126</id>
	<title>It's about telco control of the Internet</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1262595900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
This has been tried before. See the <a href="http://cleanslate.stanford.edu/" title="stanford.edu">"Clean Slate"</a> [stanford.edu] program at Stanford.  Basically, it's a plan to redesign the Internet to put telcos more in control.  The emphasis is on identifiable "flows", allowing the endpoints, bandwidth, duration, and traffic statistics of a flow to be identified.  Visualize an Internet that allows cell-phone like billing and you have the telco dream.
</p><p>
Read the <a href="http://www.openflowswitch.org/documents/openflow-wp-latest.pdf" title="openflowswitch.org">OpenFlow white paper.</a> [openflowswitch.org] The basic idea is that, every time a new "flow" appears, the first packets are forwarded to Master Control, which decides what to do about them.  Deny?  Wiretap?  Throttle?  Report?  It's all up to the "Controller".  See page 3, col. 1. This is implemented by making ordinary routers "OpenFlow compatible".  Most routers already have flow tables. Currently they're mostly caches for routing info. OpenFlow puts them under centralized control.
</p><p>
With relatively minor mods designed into existing router FPGAs, (or software - there's a Linux implementation for test purposes, and <a href="http://www.openflowswitch.org/wp/openwrt/" title="openflowswitch.org">downloads</a> [openflowswitch.org] for some Linux-based routers) they can be OpenFlow compatible.  They can act like ordinary routers until a controller contacts them and takes them over.
</p><p>
The hype is about "enabling innovation in campus networks", but the reality is that it puts a central controller fully in charge of, and fully aware of, each user's connections.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This has been tried before .
See the " Clean Slate " [ stanford.edu ] program at Stanford .
Basically , it 's a plan to redesign the Internet to put telcos more in control .
The emphasis is on identifiable " flows " , allowing the endpoints , bandwidth , duration , and traffic statistics of a flow to be identified .
Visualize an Internet that allows cell-phone like billing and you have the telco dream .
Read the OpenFlow white paper .
[ openflowswitch.org ] The basic idea is that , every time a new " flow " appears , the first packets are forwarded to Master Control , which decides what to do about them .
Deny ? Wiretap ?
Throttle ? Report ?
It 's all up to the " Controller " .
See page 3 , col. 1. This is implemented by making ordinary routers " OpenFlow compatible " .
Most routers already have flow tables .
Currently they 're mostly caches for routing info .
OpenFlow puts them under centralized control .
With relatively minor mods designed into existing router FPGAs , ( or software - there 's a Linux implementation for test purposes , and downloads [ openflowswitch.org ] for some Linux-based routers ) they can be OpenFlow compatible .
They can act like ordinary routers until a controller contacts them and takes them over .
The hype is about " enabling innovation in campus networks " , but the reality is that it puts a central controller fully in charge of , and fully aware of , each user 's connections .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
This has been tried before.
See the "Clean Slate" [stanford.edu] program at Stanford.
Basically, it's a plan to redesign the Internet to put telcos more in control.
The emphasis is on identifiable "flows", allowing the endpoints, bandwidth, duration, and traffic statistics of a flow to be identified.
Visualize an Internet that allows cell-phone like billing and you have the telco dream.
Read the OpenFlow white paper.
[openflowswitch.org] The basic idea is that, every time a new "flow" appears, the first packets are forwarded to Master Control, which decides what to do about them.
Deny?  Wiretap?
Throttle?  Report?
It's all up to the "Controller".
See page 3, col. 1. This is implemented by making ordinary routers "OpenFlow compatible".
Most routers already have flow tables.
Currently they're mostly caches for routing info.
OpenFlow puts them under centralized control.
With relatively minor mods designed into existing router FPGAs, (or software - there's a Linux implementation for test purposes, and downloads [openflowswitch.org] for some Linux-based routers) they can be OpenFlow compatible.
They can act like ordinary routers until a controller contacts them and takes them over.
The hype is about "enabling innovation in campus networks", but the reality is that it puts a central controller fully in charge of, and fully aware of, each user's connections.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30644328</id>
	<title>Re:What other planets?</title>
	<author>TangoMargarine</author>
	<datestamp>1262635500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why do you assume that it's limited to this solar system? Just because nobody is going to be living in the Proxima Centauri system, which may not even have any habitable planets, in the foreseeable future doesn't mean they're not trying to make a system that could transmit that far, regardless of how implausible it sounds.
<br> <br>If they're going to fail, they might as well fail epicly, right?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do you assume that it 's limited to this solar system ?
Just because nobody is going to be living in the Proxima Centauri system , which may not even have any habitable planets , in the foreseeable future does n't mean they 're not trying to make a system that could transmit that far , regardless of how implausible it sounds .
If they 're going to fail , they might as well fail epicly , right ?
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do you assume that it's limited to this solar system?
Just because nobody is going to be living in the Proxima Centauri system, which may not even have any habitable planets, in the foreseeable future doesn't mean they're not trying to make a system that could transmit that far, regardless of how implausible it sounds.
If they're going to fail, they might as well fail epicly, right?
:-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641332</id>
	<title>Re:Get real</title>
	<author>Talderas</author>
	<datestamp>1262623260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey, I would just like to see encryption techniques switch over to one of the methods that have been mathematically proven unbreakable instead of continuing to rely on the primes method which still has that Riemann hypothesis staring at it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , I would just like to see encryption techniques switch over to one of the methods that have been mathematically proven unbreakable instead of continuing to rely on the primes method which still has that Riemann hypothesis staring at it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, I would just like to see encryption techniques switch over to one of the methods that have been mathematically proven unbreakable instead of continuing to rely on the primes method which still has that Riemann hypothesis staring at it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30640908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30643988</id>
	<title>Re:Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Grishnakh</author>
	<datestamp>1262633880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sure the governments are going to work together to remove anonymity altogether, because it's completely against what these governments stand for: control.  Look how many judges like to order websites to give up the identity of anonymous posters, because one of these posters said something bad about a politician.</p><p>The new internet will be designed to remove all privacy altogether, so that the government can keep tabs on who's saying what.  The fact that the internet is trans-national is irrelevant: all the governments want this, including the USA and China, and they're going to work together to make it this way.  What the people want is irrelevant since the governments don't work for the people, and are not elected by the people (except in sham elections).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure the governments are going to work together to remove anonymity altogether , because it 's completely against what these governments stand for : control .
Look how many judges like to order websites to give up the identity of anonymous posters , because one of these posters said something bad about a politician.The new internet will be designed to remove all privacy altogether , so that the government can keep tabs on who 's saying what .
The fact that the internet is trans-national is irrelevant : all the governments want this , including the USA and China , and they 're going to work together to make it this way .
What the people want is irrelevant since the governments do n't work for the people , and are not elected by the people ( except in sham elections ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure the governments are going to work together to remove anonymity altogether, because it's completely against what these governments stand for: control.
Look how many judges like to order websites to give up the identity of anonymous posters, because one of these posters said something bad about a politician.The new internet will be designed to remove all privacy altogether, so that the government can keep tabs on who's saying what.
The fact that the internet is trans-national is irrelevant: all the governments want this, including the USA and China, and they're going to work together to make it this way.
What the people want is irrelevant since the governments don't work for the people, and are not elected by the people (except in sham elections).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30640912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30643648</id>
	<title>You Won't Recognize the Internet in 2200</title>
	<author>davidwr</author>
	<datestamp>1262632440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There, fixed that for you.</p><p>Let's compare this with the phone system:</p><p>The hand-crank-operator-plug-board system of the late 1800s gave way to manual switches in the very late 1800s, but many places in America still didn't have dial phones until the 1960s.  Touch-tone came about in the very early 1960s and "calling features" like call waiting in the 1970s, but they weren't nearly universal in America until the very late 1980s or 1990s.</p><p>Long distance went digital in the 1980s and 1990s, but the end user only noticed higher "sounds like next door" quality and cheaper rates, not a difference in how they made calls.</p><p>Now almost all calling is digital, but for most of us the only change in how we dial is we push a "talk" button on our wireless handset or cell phone rather than lifting the receiver.</p><p>The big changes in "how we use phones" to communicate are voicemail, text, pictures, and as an Internet/email access device.</p><p>As far as the Internet being "unrecognizable" in 10 years, no, it won't be.  Will it be different?  Yes, but in an evolutionary, not revolutionary, way.  Remember, in 2000, we had the web but in practical terms it was limited to still pictures, simple animations, and text.  Oh, we also had dialup, which nobody misses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There , fixed that for you.Let 's compare this with the phone system : The hand-crank-operator-plug-board system of the late 1800s gave way to manual switches in the very late 1800s , but many places in America still did n't have dial phones until the 1960s .
Touch-tone came about in the very early 1960s and " calling features " like call waiting in the 1970s , but they were n't nearly universal in America until the very late 1980s or 1990s.Long distance went digital in the 1980s and 1990s , but the end user only noticed higher " sounds like next door " quality and cheaper rates , not a difference in how they made calls.Now almost all calling is digital , but for most of us the only change in how we dial is we push a " talk " button on our wireless handset or cell phone rather than lifting the receiver.The big changes in " how we use phones " to communicate are voicemail , text , pictures , and as an Internet/email access device.As far as the Internet being " unrecognizable " in 10 years , no , it wo n't be .
Will it be different ?
Yes , but in an evolutionary , not revolutionary , way .
Remember , in 2000 , we had the web but in practical terms it was limited to still pictures , simple animations , and text .
Oh , we also had dialup , which nobody misses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There, fixed that for you.Let's compare this with the phone system:The hand-crank-operator-plug-board system of the late 1800s gave way to manual switches in the very late 1800s, but many places in America still didn't have dial phones until the 1960s.
Touch-tone came about in the very early 1960s and "calling features" like call waiting in the 1970s, but they weren't nearly universal in America until the very late 1980s or 1990s.Long distance went digital in the 1980s and 1990s, but the end user only noticed higher "sounds like next door" quality and cheaper rates, not a difference in how they made calls.Now almost all calling is digital, but for most of us the only change in how we dial is we push a "talk" button on our wireless handset or cell phone rather than lifting the receiver.The big changes in "how we use phones" to communicate are voicemail, text, pictures, and as an Internet/email access device.As far as the Internet being "unrecognizable" in 10 years, no, it won't be.
Will it be different?
Yes, but in an evolutionary, not revolutionary, way.
Remember, in 2000, we had the web but in practical terms it was limited to still pictures, simple animations, and text.
Oh, we also had dialup, which nobody misses.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30645680</id>
	<title>Re:And not even that imaginative.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262597640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>From TFA:</p><p>

[...]</p><p><div class="quote"><p>We're trying to work around the fact that machines-talking-to-machines isn't important anymore. Moving content is really important.</p></div><p>Which is done by machines-talking-to-machines.</p></div><p>The idea here is that today's Internet consists of a lot of one-to-one TCP conversations, which is not a model of what is actually happening: a lot of one-to-many conversations. Multicast never took off. If n people see a video on youtube, then there will be n different connections each delivering the very same stream of data (some caching aside, maybe).</p><p><div class="quote"><p>[...]


</p><p>Now, maybe what they're proposing will improve things, but if so, it's going to be incremental -- it's still going to talk IP under the hood. The bold claim that we "won't recognize" the Internet, that this is a "radical idea", is unwarranted hype.</p><p>I mean, if I understand what they're actually proposing, the most radical interpretation I could give it is ideas that have already been in Freenet for years.</p></div><p>Yes, there definitely is some similarity between the ideas of Van Jacobson and what has been done in Freenet.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Now, maybe what they're proposing will improve things, but if so, it's going to be incremental -- it's still going to talk IP under the hood. The bold claim that we "won't recognize" the Internet, that this is a "radical idea", is unwarranted hype.</p></div><p>No, it doesn't necessarily run over IP. It can run over pretty much anything and has even less demands on the underlying layer than IP has.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFA : [ ... ] We 're trying to work around the fact that machines-talking-to-machines is n't important anymore .
Moving content is really important.Which is done by machines-talking-to-machines.The idea here is that today 's Internet consists of a lot of one-to-one TCP conversations , which is not a model of what is actually happening : a lot of one-to-many conversations .
Multicast never took off .
If n people see a video on youtube , then there will be n different connections each delivering the very same stream of data ( some caching aside , maybe ) . [ .. .
] Now , maybe what they 're proposing will improve things , but if so , it 's going to be incremental -- it 's still going to talk IP under the hood .
The bold claim that we " wo n't recognize " the Internet , that this is a " radical idea " , is unwarranted hype.I mean , if I understand what they 're actually proposing , the most radical interpretation I could give it is ideas that have already been in Freenet for years.Yes , there definitely is some similarity between the ideas of Van Jacobson and what has been done in Freenet.Now , maybe what they 're proposing will improve things , but if so , it 's going to be incremental -- it 's still going to talk IP under the hood .
The bold claim that we " wo n't recognize " the Internet , that this is a " radical idea " , is unwarranted hype.No , it does n't necessarily run over IP .
It can run over pretty much anything and has even less demands on the underlying layer than IP has .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFA:

[...]We're trying to work around the fact that machines-talking-to-machines isn't important anymore.
Moving content is really important.Which is done by machines-talking-to-machines.The idea here is that today's Internet consists of a lot of one-to-one TCP conversations, which is not a model of what is actually happening: a lot of one-to-many conversations.
Multicast never took off.
If n people see a video on youtube, then there will be n different connections each delivering the very same stream of data (some caching aside, maybe).[...
]


Now, maybe what they're proposing will improve things, but if so, it's going to be incremental -- it's still going to talk IP under the hood.
The bold claim that we "won't recognize" the Internet, that this is a "radical idea", is unwarranted hype.I mean, if I understand what they're actually proposing, the most radical interpretation I could give it is ideas that have already been in Freenet for years.Yes, there definitely is some similarity between the ideas of Van Jacobson and what has been done in Freenet.Now, maybe what they're proposing will improve things, but if so, it's going to be incremental -- it's still going to talk IP under the hood.
The bold claim that we "won't recognize" the Internet, that this is a "radical idea", is unwarranted hype.No, it doesn't necessarily run over IP.
It can run over pretty much anything and has even less demands on the underlying layer than IP has.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30642550</id>
	<title>Re:Get real</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262627760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Get real, the aim is to create a croporately-controlled network on the server-client model. The &ldquo;new&rdquo;, &ldquo;improved&rdquo; intertubes will be stritly one-way, and will incorporate DRM down to the packet level to make sure that the croporate masters get paid for every shred of content consumed by the great unwashed masses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Get real , the aim is to create a croporately-controlled network on the server-client model .
The    new    ,    improved    intertubes will be stritly one-way , and will incorporate DRM down to the packet level to make sure that the croporate masters get paid for every shred of content consumed by the great unwashed masses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Get real, the aim is to create a croporately-controlled network on the server-client model.
The “new”, “improved” intertubes will be stritly one-way, and will incorporate DRM down to the packet level to make sure that the croporate masters get paid for every shred of content consumed by the great unwashed masses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30640908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30642970</id>
	<title>Re:How about some digital cash?</title>
	<author>Mana Mana</author>
	<datestamp>1262629380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ha? You are talking about prepaid cash cards. They exist for a while now. A lot of places in the USA no less, like Walgreens (as Mom and pop as you get), sell them, and visa logoed cards too. slysoft uses it for their **aa averse customers for example.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ha ?
You are talking about prepaid cash cards .
They exist for a while now .
A lot of places in the USA no less , like Walgreens ( as Mom and pop as you get ) , sell them , and visa logoed cards too .
slysoft uses it for their * * aa averse customers for example .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ha?
You are talking about prepaid cash cards.
They exist for a while now.
A lot of places in the USA no less, like Walgreens (as Mom and pop as you get), sell them, and visa logoed cards too.
slysoft uses it for their **aa averse customers for example.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30648056</id>
	<title>Re:Their goal is audacious?</title>
	<author>Eil</author>
	<datestamp>1262607660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Here's betting that their controlled, censored, monitored, restricted, "Big Brother" network dies on the drawing board, as the majority seek to protect their thoughts and opinions.</p></div></blockquote><p>Haven't spent much time on this planet, have you?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's betting that their controlled , censored , monitored , restricted , " Big Brother " network dies on the drawing board , as the majority seek to protect their thoughts and opinions.Have n't spent much time on this planet , have you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's betting that their controlled, censored, monitored, restricted, "Big Brother" network dies on the drawing board, as the majority seek to protect their thoughts and opinions.Haven't spent much time on this planet, have you?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30642248</id>
	<title>I'm with Professor Frink</title>
	<author>swanzilla</author>
	<datestamp>1262626800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I predict that within 100 years, computers will
be twice as powerful, 10,000 times larger, and so expensive that only the five richest kings of Europe will own them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I predict that within 100 years , computers will be twice as powerful , 10,000 times larger , and so expensive that only the five richest kings of Europe will own them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I predict that within 100 years, computers will
be twice as powerful, 10,000 times larger, and so expensive that only the five richest kings of Europe will own them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30642914</id>
	<title>Re:Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262629140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It doesn't matter what it is they try to do, there will always be people who will create ways around it, just like there will always be people who break encryptions and copy protections, defeat and delete DRM, and otherwise keep things "free". You can't stop the signal!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It does n't matter what it is they try to do , there will always be people who will create ways around it , just like there will always be people who break encryptions and copy protections , defeat and delete DRM , and otherwise keep things " free " .
You ca n't stop the signal !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It doesn't matter what it is they try to do, there will always be people who will create ways around it, just like there will always be people who break encryptions and copy protections, defeat and delete DRM, and otherwise keep things "free".
You can't stop the signal!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30640912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30642088</id>
	<title>Re:Their goal is audacious?</title>
	<author>geekgirlandrea</author>
	<datestamp>1262626140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And now, since the government's signing key is universally trusted, they can:</p><ul>
<li>Impersonate anyone at any time convincingly by signing a fake public key</li>
<li>Refuse anyone they dislike this new identity card that is now necessary to participate in modern life</li>
</ul><p>The fact that your list doesn't even include a really-anonymous, no helpfully 'verified' information level is rather telling.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And now , since the government 's signing key is universally trusted , they can : Impersonate anyone at any time convincingly by signing a fake public key Refuse anyone they dislike this new identity card that is now necessary to participate in modern life The fact that your list does n't even include a really-anonymous , no helpfully 'verified ' information level is rather telling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And now, since the government's signing key is universally trusted, they can:
Impersonate anyone at any time convincingly by signing a fake public key
Refuse anyone they dislike this new identity card that is now necessary to participate in modern life
The fact that your list doesn't even include a really-anonymous, no helpfully 'verified' information level is rather telling.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641190</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30645302</id>
	<title>Re:How about some digital cash?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262596380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because, at the end of the day, you can copy bits much easier than currency... and there is no demand to change that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because , at the end of the day , you can copy bits much easier than currency... and there is no demand to change that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because, at the end of the day, you can copy bits much easier than currency... and there is no demand to change that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30646080</id>
	<title>Re:Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262599200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, in the future Intertubes 3.0 if you don't log in you will be known as Anonymous Hero.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , in the future Intertubes 3.0 if you do n't log in you will be known as Anonymous Hero .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, in the future Intertubes 3.0 if you don't log in you will be known as Anonymous Hero.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30640912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30640910</id>
	<title>Not only that...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262621700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>also every internet account will come withy a free flying car.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>also every internet account will come withy a free flying car .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>also every internet account will come withy a free flying car.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30644278</id>
	<title>Re:Deja Vu</title>
	<author>Grishnakh</author>
	<datestamp>1262635200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>If the internet is unrecognizable in 20 years it'll be because of some great innovation from a random guy in his college office, or someone working on a private project during spare moments at his job, or an amateur coder who works on an idea beyond the limit of sanity to turn vision into reality. It won't come from a bunch of bureacrats and government servants setting out to make "The New Internet (tm)". </i></p><p>You've got to be kidding.  The government and their corporate masters are the ones with money and the law on their side, and most importantly of all, who actually own and operate the network backbones and ISPs.  If they decide they want to replace the internet with Internet 2.0 with built-in "identity management" (so you can't make any anti-government statements without them knowing it was you), it's only a matter of time and funding, and there's absolutely nothing you can do about it.</p><p>Some "great innovation" by a random guy in his college office won't mean squat when the government and ISPs have no interest in it.  Unlike software, which can be copied for free and passed around easily (making free/open-source software possible), internet infrastructure requires money and equipment (like routers, fiber, etc.).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the internet is unrecognizable in 20 years it 'll be because of some great innovation from a random guy in his college office , or someone working on a private project during spare moments at his job , or an amateur coder who works on an idea beyond the limit of sanity to turn vision into reality .
It wo n't come from a bunch of bureacrats and government servants setting out to make " The New Internet ( tm ) " .
You 've got to be kidding .
The government and their corporate masters are the ones with money and the law on their side , and most importantly of all , who actually own and operate the network backbones and ISPs .
If they decide they want to replace the internet with Internet 2.0 with built-in " identity management " ( so you ca n't make any anti-government statements without them knowing it was you ) , it 's only a matter of time and funding , and there 's absolutely nothing you can do about it.Some " great innovation " by a random guy in his college office wo n't mean squat when the government and ISPs have no interest in it .
Unlike software , which can be copied for free and passed around easily ( making free/open-source software possible ) , internet infrastructure requires money and equipment ( like routers , fiber , etc .
) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the internet is unrecognizable in 20 years it'll be because of some great innovation from a random guy in his college office, or someone working on a private project during spare moments at his job, or an amateur coder who works on an idea beyond the limit of sanity to turn vision into reality.
It won't come from a bunch of bureacrats and government servants setting out to make "The New Internet (tm)".
You've got to be kidding.
The government and their corporate masters are the ones with money and the law on their side, and most importantly of all, who actually own and operate the network backbones and ISPs.
If they decide they want to replace the internet with Internet 2.0 with built-in "identity management" (so you can't make any anti-government statements without them knowing it was you), it's only a matter of time and funding, and there's absolutely nothing you can do about it.Some "great innovation" by a random guy in his college office won't mean squat when the government and ISPs have no interest in it.
Unlike software, which can be copied for free and passed around easily (making free/open-source software possible), internet infrastructure requires money and equipment (like routers, fiber, etc.
).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30642762</id>
	<title>Re:What other planets?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262628600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While strictly speaking not planets, there are lots of other "heavenly bodies" that one might land on. The most obvious is Luna, although Titan and some of the other gas giant moons hold a degree of promise. Then there's the possibility of sending data to other planets but not to their surfaces - Venus' atmosphere may be hot and corrosive, but its orbital space is essentially clear. Suppose we wanted to send a manned orbital observation craft to Jupiter (for whatever reason) - would connecting it into this network not count as extending this Internet "to other planets"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While strictly speaking not planets , there are lots of other " heavenly bodies " that one might land on .
The most obvious is Luna , although Titan and some of the other gas giant moons hold a degree of promise .
Then there 's the possibility of sending data to other planets but not to their surfaces - Venus ' atmosphere may be hot and corrosive , but its orbital space is essentially clear .
Suppose we wanted to send a manned orbital observation craft to Jupiter ( for whatever reason ) - would connecting it into this network not count as extending this Internet " to other planets " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While strictly speaking not planets, there are lots of other "heavenly bodies" that one might land on.
The most obvious is Luna, although Titan and some of the other gas giant moons hold a degree of promise.
Then there's the possibility of sending data to other planets but not to their surfaces - Venus' atmosphere may be hot and corrosive, but its orbital space is essentially clear.
Suppose we wanted to send a manned orbital observation craft to Jupiter (for whatever reason) - would connecting it into this network not count as extending this Internet "to other planets"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30642080</id>
	<title>Babies and bathwater...</title>
	<author>geminidomino</author>
	<datestamp>1262626140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have to wonder how many of the things they'll get rid of citing "security" concerns are the same thing so many of us (even us benign ones) consider advantages, like being able to view a website without dropping off our digital passport at the door.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to wonder how many of the things they 'll get rid of citing " security " concerns are the same thing so many of us ( even us benign ones ) consider advantages , like being able to view a website without dropping off our digital passport at the door .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to wonder how many of the things they'll get rid of citing "security" concerns are the same thing so many of us (even us benign ones) consider advantages, like being able to view a website without dropping off our digital passport at the door.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641374</id>
	<title>No more nowrap="nowrap"</title>
	<author>SpoodyGoon</author>
	<datestamp>1262623440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does this mean no more nowrap="nowrap"? I have lost any faith in a uniform internet I ever had, I would not be shock to learn in 2020 we will still be making concessions to applications so they run on IE6.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does this mean no more nowrap = " nowrap " ?
I have lost any faith in a uniform internet I ever had , I would not be shock to learn in 2020 we will still be making concessions to applications so they run on IE6 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does this mean no more nowrap="nowrap"?
I have lost any faith in a uniform internet I ever had, I would not be shock to learn in 2020 we will still be making concessions to applications so they run on IE6.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30648230</id>
	<title>Re:Learn a lesson from "the Jetsons" ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262608620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>We were all supposed to be residing in apartments in the sky and driving flying cars by now, weren't we? Seems to me future predictions always underestimate how long it will take to reach a certain milestone by a factor of 10 or more. And of course they miss completely the radical new developments--notice there's no Internet in "the Jetsons?"</p></div></blockquote><p>Dude, it was a <i>cartoon</i>.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We were all supposed to be residing in apartments in the sky and driving flying cars by now , were n't we ?
Seems to me future predictions always underestimate how long it will take to reach a certain milestone by a factor of 10 or more .
And of course they miss completely the radical new developments--notice there 's no Internet in " the Jetsons ?
" Dude , it was a cartoon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We were all supposed to be residing in apartments in the sky and driving flying cars by now, weren't we?
Seems to me future predictions always underestimate how long it will take to reach a certain milestone by a factor of 10 or more.
And of course they miss completely the radical new developments--notice there's no Internet in "the Jetsons?
"Dude, it was a cartoon.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30643346</id>
	<title>Re:And not even that imaginative.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262631180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>RE: Virtual Servers - Because, like, Virtual servers are, like, Totally Virtual Man!  They just float around out there in the ether and aren't constrained to a machine like other servers.</p><p>My guess is 'Virtual Servers' was thrown into the list because it sounds cool.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>RE : Virtual Servers - Because , like , Virtual servers are , like , Totally Virtual Man !
They just float around out there in the ether and are n't constrained to a machine like other servers.My guess is 'Virtual Servers ' was thrown into the list because it sounds cool .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RE: Virtual Servers - Because, like, Virtual servers are, like, Totally Virtual Man!
They just float around out there in the ether and aren't constrained to a machine like other servers.My guess is 'Virtual Servers' was thrown into the list because it sounds cool.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641328</id>
	<title>Re:Their goal is audacious?</title>
	<author>interploy</author>
	<datestamp>1262623200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That, and they want to be able to have near-absolute control of content again. A new and improved Internet where the DRM is built right in, and the poor, huddled masses of big business doesn't have to be afraid of piracy or charging for content anymore.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That , and they want to be able to have near-absolute control of content again .
A new and improved Internet where the DRM is built right in , and the poor , huddled masses of big business does n't have to be afraid of piracy or charging for content anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That, and they want to be able to have near-absolute control of content again.
A new and improved Internet where the DRM is built right in, and the poor, huddled masses of big business doesn't have to be afraid of piracy or charging for content anymore.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30640960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641314</id>
	<title>Anonymous internet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262623200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With governments and ISPs censoring the internet around the world, we need a peer to peer network that is truly distributed, decentralized, and anonymous.</p><p>I don't want to have to pay a monthly fee either.  I will pay $$ for my own equipment to connect to my neighbors.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With governments and ISPs censoring the internet around the world , we need a peer to peer network that is truly distributed , decentralized , and anonymous.I do n't want to have to pay a monthly fee either .
I will pay $ $ for my own equipment to connect to my neighbors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With governments and ISPs censoring the internet around the world, we need a peer to peer network that is truly distributed, decentralized, and anonymous.I don't want to have to pay a monthly fee either.
I will pay $$ for my own equipment to connect to my neighbors.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30642330</id>
	<title>Start from scratch...</title>
	<author>Decameron81</author>
	<datestamp>1262627100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"As they imagine the Internet of 2020, computer scientists across the country are starting from scratch and re-thinking everything..."</p></div></blockquote><p>

IMHO evolution is the only way.  People put too much content into this "old" internet to make it feasible to start from scratch "just like that".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" As they imagine the Internet of 2020 , computer scientists across the country are starting from scratch and re-thinking everything... " IMHO evolution is the only way .
People put too much content into this " old " internet to make it feasible to start from scratch " just like that " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"As they imagine the Internet of 2020, computer scientists across the country are starting from scratch and re-thinking everything..."

IMHO evolution is the only way.
People put too much content into this "old" internet to make it feasible to start from scratch "just like that".
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30643040</id>
	<title>I like it the way it is</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1262629680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let's face it, the point of any redesign is more about knowing exactly who you are and what you're doing at all times. Don't be surprised if it some how involves some sort of identification to even connect.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's face it , the point of any redesign is more about knowing exactly who you are and what you 're doing at all times .
Do n't be surprised if it some how involves some sort of identification to even connect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's face it, the point of any redesign is more about knowing exactly who you are and what you're doing at all times.
Don't be surprised if it some how involves some sort of identification to even connect.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641554</id>
	<title>Re:Their goal is audacious?</title>
	<author>Rude Turnip</author>
	<datestamp>1262624220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In some parts of the US still, it can also mean getting your head bashed in with a brick and your family being left without a dad and husband.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In some parts of the US still , it can also mean getting your head bashed in with a brick and your family being left without a dad and husband .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In some parts of the US still, it can also mean getting your head bashed in with a brick and your family being left without a dad and husband.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641802</id>
	<title>Re:Their goal is audacious?</title>
	<author>Omestes</author>
	<datestamp>1262625060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In theory this is true, but even if somewhere in the world the perfect country (whatever that means, there are as many hypothetical perfect countries as people in the world) which acknowledged free speech there still would be a need for anonymous speech.  There never has been a perfect country that has stayed perfect for very long, and there are still forces hostile to openness (corporations, foreign governments, radical groups (ala the Mohammed cartoon fiasco), etc...  Within 50 years your perfect country will stop being perfect, as corruption, greed, and idealism eats it from the inside.</p><p>Really the goal should be to raise people up to the point where governments don't need to exist, and we all can get a long.  This, though, will never happen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In theory this is true , but even if somewhere in the world the perfect country ( whatever that means , there are as many hypothetical perfect countries as people in the world ) which acknowledged free speech there still would be a need for anonymous speech .
There never has been a perfect country that has stayed perfect for very long , and there are still forces hostile to openness ( corporations , foreign governments , radical groups ( ala the Mohammed cartoon fiasco ) , etc... Within 50 years your perfect country will stop being perfect , as corruption , greed , and idealism eats it from the inside.Really the goal should be to raise people up to the point where governments do n't need to exist , and we all can get a long .
This , though , will never happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In theory this is true, but even if somewhere in the world the perfect country (whatever that means, there are as many hypothetical perfect countries as people in the world) which acknowledged free speech there still would be a need for anonymous speech.
There never has been a perfect country that has stayed perfect for very long, and there are still forces hostile to openness (corporations, foreign governments, radical groups (ala the Mohammed cartoon fiasco), etc...  Within 50 years your perfect country will stop being perfect, as corruption, greed, and idealism eats it from the inside.Really the goal should be to raise people up to the point where governments don't need to exist, and we all can get a long.
This, though, will never happen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30644972</id>
	<title>Re:What other planets?</title>
	<author>zippthorne</author>
	<datestamp>1262638440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Luna is one of the original seven planets...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Luna is one of the original seven planets.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Luna is one of the original seven planets...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30642762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30642216</id>
	<title>There will be at least one thing you recognize</title>
	<author>gyrogeerloose</author>
	<datestamp>1262626680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The goatse guy will still be there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The goatse guy will still be there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The goatse guy will still be there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30647924</id>
	<title>Re:Security starts at the ends</title>
	<author>Burz</author>
	<datestamp>1262606940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree with your premise. As for the last bit, my concern is more the collusion of profit centers with authorities: Scaring and restricting us has become a primary vehicle for industry to increase profits, the idea being that we not only hand over our freedoms but nearly all of the money as well. The big problem with that is not just living in a culture that feels sick, but the very real trend for running the system for the benefit of fewer and fewer people and the corresponding need for increasingly large prison systems.</p><p>So I see this move as engendering something like 'cyber-prison' where people can be penalized with being cut off from culture and information. Every PC will have the hardware apparatus to put you into a digital prison. Or maybe it will come in the form of an add-on, like an ankle-bracelet device for your laptop.</p><p>What gets me is the general lack of appropriate responses from the tech geek culture. It takes 20 minutes for me to educate total novices on how to use https the right way, incl. hovering over links (in both browser and email) before clicking on them. Right there, opportunities for cyber criminals are immensely reduced and all that is required is a certain willingness on the part of the web host and the web user to be mindful of their connection for a couple seconds. Most techies say that people are too stupid to learn how to check a URL domain when the lock appears, and that SSL is too taxing for ubiquitous use on their servers. (Both complaints tend to be grossly overstated.)</p><p>Well, guess what?? Now we are expected to move toward a future where the user definitely has NO role in checking their security because the security won't be theirs, it will be the security of the state and corporate interests. And everything will be based on crypto that is not only taxing on servers, it will be a kind of crypto where the end user isn't verifying the server so much as the other way around: It won't tolerate user anonymity and will require a role (and surcharge) for an increasingly <b>deputized ISP sector</b> as well.</p><p>With ubiquitous https, we could have cut out so much of this crap, starting with phishing attacks and ISP snooping/interference.</p><p>Oh, and another tiny thing -- The Windows monoculture and its rotten architecture has also lead us to this place by the putrid combination of its poor architecture and many anti-competitive tactics (shoving hooks for its proprietary stuff into every conceivable nook and cranny, and numerous underhanded business practices). Microsoft have given cyber criminals much more than a decade of <em>extreme laxity under which criminals could entrench</em> and grow into robust and profitable organizations to the point where authorities don't even need kiddie porn and terrorism as their justifications.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with your premise .
As for the last bit , my concern is more the collusion of profit centers with authorities : Scaring and restricting us has become a primary vehicle for industry to increase profits , the idea being that we not only hand over our freedoms but nearly all of the money as well .
The big problem with that is not just living in a culture that feels sick , but the very real trend for running the system for the benefit of fewer and fewer people and the corresponding need for increasingly large prison systems.So I see this move as engendering something like 'cyber-prison ' where people can be penalized with being cut off from culture and information .
Every PC will have the hardware apparatus to put you into a digital prison .
Or maybe it will come in the form of an add-on , like an ankle-bracelet device for your laptop.What gets me is the general lack of appropriate responses from the tech geek culture .
It takes 20 minutes for me to educate total novices on how to use https the right way , incl .
hovering over links ( in both browser and email ) before clicking on them .
Right there , opportunities for cyber criminals are immensely reduced and all that is required is a certain willingness on the part of the web host and the web user to be mindful of their connection for a couple seconds .
Most techies say that people are too stupid to learn how to check a URL domain when the lock appears , and that SSL is too taxing for ubiquitous use on their servers .
( Both complaints tend to be grossly overstated .
) Well , guess what ? ?
Now we are expected to move toward a future where the user definitely has NO role in checking their security because the security wo n't be theirs , it will be the security of the state and corporate interests .
And everything will be based on crypto that is not only taxing on servers , it will be a kind of crypto where the end user is n't verifying the server so much as the other way around : It wo n't tolerate user anonymity and will require a role ( and surcharge ) for an increasingly deputized ISP sector as well.With ubiquitous https , we could have cut out so much of this crap , starting with phishing attacks and ISP snooping/interference.Oh , and another tiny thing -- The Windows monoculture and its rotten architecture has also lead us to this place by the putrid combination of its poor architecture and many anti-competitive tactics ( shoving hooks for its proprietary stuff into every conceivable nook and cranny , and numerous underhanded business practices ) .
Microsoft have given cyber criminals much more than a decade of extreme laxity under which criminals could entrench and grow into robust and profitable organizations to the point where authorities do n't even need kiddie porn and terrorism as their justifications .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with your premise.
As for the last bit, my concern is more the collusion of profit centers with authorities: Scaring and restricting us has become a primary vehicle for industry to increase profits, the idea being that we not only hand over our freedoms but nearly all of the money as well.
The big problem with that is not just living in a culture that feels sick, but the very real trend for running the system for the benefit of fewer and fewer people and the corresponding need for increasingly large prison systems.So I see this move as engendering something like 'cyber-prison' where people can be penalized with being cut off from culture and information.
Every PC will have the hardware apparatus to put you into a digital prison.
Or maybe it will come in the form of an add-on, like an ankle-bracelet device for your laptop.What gets me is the general lack of appropriate responses from the tech geek culture.
It takes 20 minutes for me to educate total novices on how to use https the right way, incl.
hovering over links (in both browser and email) before clicking on them.
Right there, opportunities for cyber criminals are immensely reduced and all that is required is a certain willingness on the part of the web host and the web user to be mindful of their connection for a couple seconds.
Most techies say that people are too stupid to learn how to check a URL domain when the lock appears, and that SSL is too taxing for ubiquitous use on their servers.
(Both complaints tend to be grossly overstated.
)Well, guess what??
Now we are expected to move toward a future where the user definitely has NO role in checking their security because the security won't be theirs, it will be the security of the state and corporate interests.
And everything will be based on crypto that is not only taxing on servers, it will be a kind of crypto where the end user isn't verifying the server so much as the other way around: It won't tolerate user anonymity and will require a role (and surcharge) for an increasingly deputized ISP sector as well.With ubiquitous https, we could have cut out so much of this crap, starting with phishing attacks and ISP snooping/interference.Oh, and another tiny thing -- The Windows monoculture and its rotten architecture has also lead us to this place by the putrid combination of its poor architecture and many anti-competitive tactics (shoving hooks for its proprietary stuff into every conceivable nook and cranny, and numerous underhanded business practices).
Microsoft have given cyber criminals much more than a decade of extreme laxity under which criminals could entrench and grow into robust and profitable organizations to the point where authorities don't even need kiddie porn and terrorism as their justifications.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30642378</id>
	<title>Intermediate goal</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1262627280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>a different internet that i will still recognize in 2015. More than a pipedream goal for 2020, matters how we evolve current internet to it, while everything is working, at a very cheap or close to zero cost, and in an open way. Without all those components, you wont be able to succeed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>a different internet that i will still recognize in 2015 .
More than a pipedream goal for 2020 , matters how we evolve current internet to it , while everything is working , at a very cheap or close to zero cost , and in an open way .
Without all those components , you wont be able to succeed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a different internet that i will still recognize in 2015.
More than a pipedream goal for 2020, matters how we evolve current internet to it, while everything is working, at a very cheap or close to zero cost, and in an open way.
Without all those components, you wont be able to succeed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30646140</id>
	<title>Re:Their goal is audacious?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262599380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are far more optimistic than me. I expect SMS style pirating... pilfering...pillaging of my money from the new internet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are far more optimistic than me .
I expect SMS style pirating... pilfering...pillaging of my money from the new internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are far more optimistic than me.
I expect SMS style pirating... pilfering...pillaging of my money from the new internet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30644374</id>
	<title>Re:How about some digital cash?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262635680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you go in to a Duane Reade drug store in NYC you can buy a prepaid debit card with cash.  Apparently this is a mainstay for people living on the fringes of legality.</p><p>That would be good for buying *services* on the Internet anonymously, but if you want to get physical goods you still have to give an address, so you're not anonymous.</p><p>Also, you were caught on camera at Duane Reade when you bought the debit card.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you go in to a Duane Reade drug store in NYC you can buy a prepaid debit card with cash .
Apparently this is a mainstay for people living on the fringes of legality.That would be good for buying * services * on the Internet anonymously , but if you want to get physical goods you still have to give an address , so you 're not anonymous.Also , you were caught on camera at Duane Reade when you bought the debit card .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you go in to a Duane Reade drug store in NYC you can buy a prepaid debit card with cash.
Apparently this is a mainstay for people living on the fringes of legality.That would be good for buying *services* on the Internet anonymously, but if you want to get physical goods you still have to give an address, so you're not anonymous.Also, you were caught on camera at Duane Reade when you bought the debit card.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641240</id>
	<title>Just not trustworthy</title>
	<author>onyxruby</author>
	<datestamp>1262622900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> with better trust and built-in identity management.</p></div></blockquote><p>.
This is the part I worry about, it sounds like what the **AA's would love to have, an Internet without anonymity, one where everything is trusted.</p><p>
Much like the trusted computing module put onto motherboards, I simply can't have faith in "trusted" Internet. Remember your TPM has nothing to with you being able to trust anyone, and everything to do with you not being trusted with your own computer.</p><blockquote><div><p>The model we're using today is just wrong. It can't be made to work. We need a much more information-oriented view of security, where the context of information and the trust of information have to be much more central."</p></div></blockquote><p>
It may not be the researchers intent, but this sounds a lot like a euphemism for centralized content licensing management. The Internet community has been burned to many times, with trust becoming a euphemism for DRM and licensing. These researchers need to understand, that if nothing else they are going to have an image problem, even if they have no intentions of centralizing content management. One way to further look into this to see if this indeed the case would be to look and see what companies are helping to bankroll the research. Depending on the company, they will expect (demand) that things are built in a manner that they would as resolving their licensing issues.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>with better trust and built-in identity management. . This is the part I worry about , it sounds like what the * * AA 's would love to have , an Internet without anonymity , one where everything is trusted .
Much like the trusted computing module put onto motherboards , I simply ca n't have faith in " trusted " Internet .
Remember your TPM has nothing to with you being able to trust anyone , and everything to do with you not being trusted with your own computer.The model we 're using today is just wrong .
It ca n't be made to work .
We need a much more information-oriented view of security , where the context of information and the trust of information have to be much more central .
" It may not be the researchers intent , but this sounds a lot like a euphemism for centralized content licensing management .
The Internet community has been burned to many times , with trust becoming a euphemism for DRM and licensing .
These researchers need to understand , that if nothing else they are going to have an image problem , even if they have no intentions of centralizing content management .
One way to further look into this to see if this indeed the case would be to look and see what companies are helping to bankroll the research .
Depending on the company , they will expect ( demand ) that things are built in a manner that they would as resolving their licensing issues .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> with better trust and built-in identity management..
This is the part I worry about, it sounds like what the **AA's would love to have, an Internet without anonymity, one where everything is trusted.
Much like the trusted computing module put onto motherboards, I simply can't have faith in "trusted" Internet.
Remember your TPM has nothing to with you being able to trust anyone, and everything to do with you not being trusted with your own computer.The model we're using today is just wrong.
It can't be made to work.
We need a much more information-oriented view of security, where the context of information and the trust of information have to be much more central.
"
It may not be the researchers intent, but this sounds a lot like a euphemism for centralized content licensing management.
The Internet community has been burned to many times, with trust becoming a euphemism for DRM and licensing.
These researchers need to understand, that if nothing else they are going to have an image problem, even if they have no intentions of centralizing content management.
One way to further look into this to see if this indeed the case would be to look and see what companies are helping to bankroll the research.
Depending on the company, they will expect (demand) that things are built in a manner that they would as resolving their licensing issues.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30640896</id>
	<title>First Post</title>
	<author>JohnHegarty</author>
	<datestamp>1262621640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bet some idiot will still be trying to get the first post.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bet some idiot will still be trying to get the first post .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bet some idiot will still be trying to get the first post.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30643282</id>
	<title>Re:What other planets?</title>
	<author>MikeURL</author>
	<datestamp>1262630880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Aren't most of us secretly hoping that LHC somehow paves the way for wormhole technology?  I mean, if we can't teleport to other worlds in my lifetime I'm going to be pretty pissed off.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are n't most of us secretly hoping that LHC somehow paves the way for wormhole technology ?
I mean , if we ca n't teleport to other worlds in my lifetime I 'm going to be pretty pissed off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aren't most of us secretly hoping that LHC somehow paves the way for wormhole technology?
I mean, if we can't teleport to other worlds in my lifetime I'm going to be pretty pissed off.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641688</id>
	<title>How about some digital cash?</title>
	<author>BetterSense</author>
	<datestamp>1262624700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is still no way for me to buy something with cash on the internet. Cash is cash. It's money, in and of itself, divorced from my identity. No identity is necessary. I can buy something at the corner store, or the liquor store, or the gas station with cash; the cashier doesn't need to verify my identity to see if my money is "good". It doesn't matter; my cash spends the same as anyone else's. When I meet someone to buy something off craigslist, I don't NEED to check anyone's identity; only to see that they are holding a wad of cash. The cash will spend regardless of who they are. There is nothing like this on the internet. I have to pay via credit card, paypal, or something else. How about getting around to inventing digital cash?<br><br>And since cash is "just money", and the property of whoever is holding it at a particular time, why not invent identities which are themselves "just identities" in the same way? In one of the Terry Pratchett books, there were ID cards that were, inherently, identities of themselves. Nobody had to prove you were the "owner" of the identity. It didn't matter; it was a non-issue, just like nobody has to verify if you are the owner of a wad of cash. The card WAS the identity.<br><br>I still long for a True Names anonymous internet of pseudoannonymity, multiple online identities, digital cash and annonymising remailers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is still no way for me to buy something with cash on the internet .
Cash is cash .
It 's money , in and of itself , divorced from my identity .
No identity is necessary .
I can buy something at the corner store , or the liquor store , or the gas station with cash ; the cashier does n't need to verify my identity to see if my money is " good " .
It does n't matter ; my cash spends the same as anyone else 's .
When I meet someone to buy something off craigslist , I do n't NEED to check anyone 's identity ; only to see that they are holding a wad of cash .
The cash will spend regardless of who they are .
There is nothing like this on the internet .
I have to pay via credit card , paypal , or something else .
How about getting around to inventing digital cash ? And since cash is " just money " , and the property of whoever is holding it at a particular time , why not invent identities which are themselves " just identities " in the same way ?
In one of the Terry Pratchett books , there were ID cards that were , inherently , identities of themselves .
Nobody had to prove you were the " owner " of the identity .
It did n't matter ; it was a non-issue , just like nobody has to verify if you are the owner of a wad of cash .
The card WAS the identity.I still long for a True Names anonymous internet of pseudoannonymity , multiple online identities , digital cash and annonymising remailers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is still no way for me to buy something with cash on the internet.
Cash is cash.
It's money, in and of itself, divorced from my identity.
No identity is necessary.
I can buy something at the corner store, or the liquor store, or the gas station with cash; the cashier doesn't need to verify my identity to see if my money is "good".
It doesn't matter; my cash spends the same as anyone else's.
When I meet someone to buy something off craigslist, I don't NEED to check anyone's identity; only to see that they are holding a wad of cash.
The cash will spend regardless of who they are.
There is nothing like this on the internet.
I have to pay via credit card, paypal, or something else.
How about getting around to inventing digital cash?And since cash is "just money", and the property of whoever is holding it at a particular time, why not invent identities which are themselves "just identities" in the same way?
In one of the Terry Pratchett books, there were ID cards that were, inherently, identities of themselves.
Nobody had to prove you were the "owner" of the identity.
It didn't matter; it was a non-issue, just like nobody has to verify if you are the owner of a wad of cash.
The card WAS the identity.I still long for a True Names anonymous internet of pseudoannonymity, multiple online identities, digital cash and annonymising remailers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641754</id>
	<title>Re:Security starts at the ends</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262624880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Or maybe I'm just a bit paranoid?</p></div></blockquote><p>Using only one bit to represent paranoia is a known vulnerability.  Please upgrade libParanoiaKit.</p><p>That said, it seems like secure identity management can be added to the existing system with the addition of single secure endpoints as you stipulate.  My recommendation is that these endpoints be <strong>additional</strong> rather than attempting to secure existing endpoints.  That is, new, secure mobile devices that would be secure endpoints.  They would handle key management, user authentication, and encryption.  Existing endpoints could be used for routing secure and insecure communications alike.</p><p>Very little would have to change for this to be effective in the short term, and in the long term (as you say) capability-based security and user-prompted delegation (for privacy, security, and identity management) could be realized through the secure endpoints.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or maybe I 'm just a bit paranoid ? Using only one bit to represent paranoia is a known vulnerability .
Please upgrade libParanoiaKit.That said , it seems like secure identity management can be added to the existing system with the addition of single secure endpoints as you stipulate .
My recommendation is that these endpoints be additional rather than attempting to secure existing endpoints .
That is , new , secure mobile devices that would be secure endpoints .
They would handle key management , user authentication , and encryption .
Existing endpoints could be used for routing secure and insecure communications alike.Very little would have to change for this to be effective in the short term , and in the long term ( as you say ) capability-based security and user-prompted delegation ( for privacy , security , and identity management ) could be realized through the secure endpoints .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or maybe I'm just a bit paranoid?Using only one bit to represent paranoia is a known vulnerability.
Please upgrade libParanoiaKit.That said, it seems like secure identity management can be added to the existing system with the addition of single secure endpoints as you stipulate.
My recommendation is that these endpoints be additional rather than attempting to secure existing endpoints.
That is, new, secure mobile devices that would be secure endpoints.
They would handle key management, user authentication, and encryption.
Existing endpoints could be used for routing secure and insecure communications alike.Very little would have to change for this to be effective in the short term, and in the long term (as you say) capability-based security and user-prompted delegation (for privacy, security, and identity management) could be realized through the secure endpoints.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641198</id>
	<title>Re:Their goal is audacious?</title>
	<author>JcMorin</author>
	<datestamp>1262622780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree with you, they will "try" to have a better control-freak internet but my prediction is that in 10 years, the web will still be IPv4 mainly, html with a bit more JavaScript/flash/Silverlight but won't be rebuild from scratch... the same way email never got rebuild from scratch even if everyone agree with one the worst communication design.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with you , they will " try " to have a better control-freak internet but my prediction is that in 10 years , the web will still be IPv4 mainly , html with a bit more JavaScript/flash/Silverlight but wo n't be rebuild from scratch... the same way email never got rebuild from scratch even if everyone agree with one the worst communication design .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with you, they will "try" to have a better control-freak internet but my prediction is that in 10 years, the web will still be IPv4 mainly, html with a bit more JavaScript/flash/Silverlight but won't be rebuild from scratch... the same way email never got rebuild from scratch even if everyone agree with one the worst communication design.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30640960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641582</id>
	<title>Re:Their goal is audacious?</title>
	<author>fulldecent</author>
	<datestamp>1262624340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> They also want "content-centric networking" where all content is identified and controlled. </p></div><p>Maybe they could conjure up some sort of uniform locator for these resources and some type of algorithm to securely hash the content.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They also want " content-centric networking " where all content is identified and controlled .
Maybe they could conjure up some sort of uniform locator for these resources and some type of algorithm to securely hash the content .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> They also want "content-centric networking" where all content is identified and controlled.
Maybe they could conjure up some sort of uniform locator for these resources and some type of algorithm to securely hash the content.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30644240</id>
	<title>yeah, good luck with that</title>
	<author>Thud457</author>
	<datestamp>1262635020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>it's going to take a lot of work to get <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPoAC" title="wikipedia.org">IPoAC</a> [wikipedia.org] to work between here and Jupiter...</htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's going to take a lot of work to get IPoAC [ wikipedia.org ] to work between here and Jupiter.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's going to take a lot of work to get IPoAC [wikipedia.org] to work between here and Jupiter...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30642762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30642856</id>
	<title>Re:How about some digital cash?</title>
	<author>Explodicle</author>
	<datestamp>1262628960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You mean <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic\_money" title="wikipedia.org">electronic money</a> [wikipedia.org]?</htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean electronic money [ wikipedia.org ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean electronic money [wikipedia.org]?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641452</id>
	<title>and five years after we invent &amp; roll that out</title>
	<author>caudron</author>
	<datestamp>1262623800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...the rest of the world will hate us for controlling "their" Internet.</p><p>(sorry, just read a Digg thread and I'm bitter about dumb people right now)</p><p>Tom Caudron</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...the rest of the world will hate us for controlling " their " Internet .
( sorry , just read a Digg thread and I 'm bitter about dumb people right now ) Tom Caudron</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...the rest of the world will hate us for controlling "their" Internet.
(sorry, just read a Digg thread and I'm bitter about dumb people right now)Tom Caudron</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30642000</id>
	<title>Security Theatre</title>
	<author>vlm</author>
	<datestamp>1262625900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>... to Internet security in general<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div><p>Guaranteed, they won't increase real security, but they will increase security theatre.</p><p>Stuff that's very public, annoying, and utterly ineffective, like background and credit score checks as part of Cisco CCNA certification, maybe an official scarey looking badge or uniform for internet security personnel, maybe some very public raids against random citizens, etc.</p><p>Heres a thought<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Americans used to be "citizens".  Now we're merely "consumers".  Maybe with the new internet we'll get a new name like "surfers".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... to Internet security in general ...Guaranteed , they wo n't increase real security , but they will increase security theatre.Stuff that 's very public , annoying , and utterly ineffective , like background and credit score checks as part of Cisco CCNA certification , maybe an official scarey looking badge or uniform for internet security personnel , maybe some very public raids against random citizens , etc.Heres a thought ... Americans used to be " citizens " .
Now we 're merely " consumers " .
Maybe with the new internet we 'll get a new name like " surfers " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... to Internet security in general ...Guaranteed, they won't increase real security, but they will increase security theatre.Stuff that's very public, annoying, and utterly ineffective, like background and credit score checks as part of Cisco CCNA certification, maybe an official scarey looking badge or uniform for internet security personnel, maybe some very public raids against random citizens, etc.Heres a thought ... Americans used to be "citizens".
Now we're merely "consumers".
Maybe with the new internet we'll get a new name like "surfers".
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641956</id>
	<title>Jaron Lanier</title>
	<author>pydev</author>
	<datestamp>1262625660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But what would Jaron Lanier say about that kind of Internet?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But what would Jaron Lanier say about that kind of Internet ?
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But what would Jaron Lanier say about that kind of Internet?
:-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30642188</id>
	<title>In other words, the world's wealthy fear the net</title>
	<author>gestalt\_n\_pepper</author>
	<datestamp>1262626560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Any "new" internet will be all nicely traceable and controlled. You'll need an ID to log in and your physical address will be in the international database. Your health inquiries will all be reported to the insurance guilds and if you make too much noise about the wrong politician/financial professional, your porn surfing habits will be accidently "discovered" and reported by a media owned "news" site.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Any " new " internet will be all nicely traceable and controlled .
You 'll need an ID to log in and your physical address will be in the international database .
Your health inquiries will all be reported to the insurance guilds and if you make too much noise about the wrong politician/financial professional , your porn surfing habits will be accidently " discovered " and reported by a media owned " news " site .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any "new" internet will be all nicely traceable and controlled.
You'll need an ID to log in and your physical address will be in the international database.
Your health inquiries will all be reported to the insurance guilds and if you make too much noise about the wrong politician/financial professional, your porn surfing habits will be accidently "discovered" and reported by a media owned "news" site.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30642680</id>
	<title>Re:Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262628240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sigh . . . you use gov funded things everyday like mail, the roads you drive on, the approved medicine you take and the public schools you send your kids to or went to yourself, etc.<br> <br> <br>
A lot of you tin hat loonies need to take a step back sometimes . . . =\</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sigh .
. .
you use gov funded things everyday like mail , the roads you drive on , the approved medicine you take and the public schools you send your kids to or went to yourself , etc .
A lot of you tin hat loonies need to take a step back sometimes .
. .
= \</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sigh .
. .
you use gov funded things everyday like mail, the roads you drive on, the approved medicine you take and the public schools you send your kids to or went to yourself, etc.
A lot of you tin hat loonies need to take a step back sometimes .
. .
=\</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30640912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641292</id>
	<title>this sounds like</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1262623080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the propaganda that iran, china, cuba, etc., put out as an excuse as they tweak their filters and install technological "improvements" for disallowing freedom of expression on the internet</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the propaganda that iran , china , cuba , etc. , put out as an excuse as they tweak their filters and install technological " improvements " for disallowing freedom of expression on the internet</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the propaganda that iran, china, cuba, etc., put out as an excuse as they tweak their filters and install technological "improvements" for disallowing freedom of expression on the internet</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641246</id>
	<title>Deja Vu</title>
	<author>EriktheGreen</author>
	<datestamp>1262622960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>
<p>
"Why, we could redefine everything, from a new addressing scheme to network management protocols, and we could define a software stack with specific functions performed by each level of the network code..  from packet construction to routing and switching!  And get this... for flexibility, we'll allow each layer to communicate directly with its corresponding layer in another application!  You'll be able to use the same network code for local shared memory communications and global internet communications!  There'll be a new addressing scheme with no shortage of addresses, performance will be better than it currently is, and most of the problems related to security and routing of traffic will be solved!"
</p><p>
"Best of all, the new model for the network will be very logically organized, not the mishmash of software and standards that have organically evolved from the old ARPANet protocols and de facto standards.  It will be easily understandable through common sense acronyms and simple models."
</p><p>
"It'll be so superior to what we have now that it's a no brainer.. everyone will obviously convert to it right away, with no one left behind."
</p><p>
"So, you should watch closely and start admiring the folks writing this standard now, and start teaching it to college students so they're prepared to deal with the New Internet when we're done."
</p><p>
Pfft.
</p><p>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSI\_model" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSI\_model</a> [wikipedia.org]
</p><p>

If the internet is unrecognizable in 20 years it'll be because of some great innovation from a random guy in his college office, or someone working on a private project during spare moments at his job, or an amateur coder who works on an idea beyond the limit of sanity to turn vision into reality.  It won't come from a bunch of bureacrats and government servants setting out to make "The New Internet (tm)".
</p><p>
Erik</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Why , we could redefine everything , from a new addressing scheme to network management protocols , and we could define a software stack with specific functions performed by each level of the network code.. from packet construction to routing and switching !
And get this... for flexibility , we 'll allow each layer to communicate directly with its corresponding layer in another application !
You 'll be able to use the same network code for local shared memory communications and global internet communications !
There 'll be a new addressing scheme with no shortage of addresses , performance will be better than it currently is , and most of the problems related to security and routing of traffic will be solved !
" " Best of all , the new model for the network will be very logically organized , not the mishmash of software and standards that have organically evolved from the old ARPANet protocols and de facto standards .
It will be easily understandable through common sense acronyms and simple models .
" " It 'll be so superior to what we have now that it 's a no brainer.. everyone will obviously convert to it right away , with no one left behind .
" " So , you should watch closely and start admiring the folks writing this standard now , and start teaching it to college students so they 're prepared to deal with the New Internet when we 're done .
" Pfft .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSI \ _model [ wikipedia.org ] If the internet is unrecognizable in 20 years it 'll be because of some great innovation from a random guy in his college office , or someone working on a private project during spare moments at his job , or an amateur coder who works on an idea beyond the limit of sanity to turn vision into reality .
It wo n't come from a bunch of bureacrats and government servants setting out to make " The New Internet ( tm ) " .
Erik</tokentext>
<sentencetext>

"Why, we could redefine everything, from a new addressing scheme to network management protocols, and we could define a software stack with specific functions performed by each level of the network code..  from packet construction to routing and switching!
And get this... for flexibility, we'll allow each layer to communicate directly with its corresponding layer in another application!
You'll be able to use the same network code for local shared memory communications and global internet communications!
There'll be a new addressing scheme with no shortage of addresses, performance will be better than it currently is, and most of the problems related to security and routing of traffic will be solved!
"

"Best of all, the new model for the network will be very logically organized, not the mishmash of software and standards that have organically evolved from the old ARPANet protocols and de facto standards.
It will be easily understandable through common sense acronyms and simple models.
"

"It'll be so superior to what we have now that it's a no brainer.. everyone will obviously convert to it right away, with no one left behind.
"

"So, you should watch closely and start admiring the folks writing this standard now, and start teaching it to college students so they're prepared to deal with the New Internet when we're done.
"

Pfft.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSI\_model [wikipedia.org]


If the internet is unrecognizable in 20 years it'll be because of some great innovation from a random guy in his college office, or someone working on a private project during spare moments at his job, or an amateur coder who works on an idea beyond the limit of sanity to turn vision into reality.
It won't come from a bunch of bureacrats and government servants setting out to make "The New Internet (tm)".
Erik</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30642102</id>
	<title>i2</title>
	<author>darkpixel2k</author>
	<datestamp>1262626200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This high-risk, long-range Internet research will kick into high gear in 2010</p></div><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...and we'll call it...Internet2.<br>
<br>
Eh?  What do you mean we've tried this before?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This high-risk , long-range Internet research will kick into high gear in 2010 ...and we 'll call it...Internet2 .
Eh ? What do you mean we 've tried this before ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This high-risk, long-range Internet research will kick into high gear in 2010 ...and we'll call it...Internet2.
Eh?  What do you mean we've tried this before?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641232</id>
	<title>Security starts at the ends</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262622900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not the Internet switching fabric that is the problem, it's the end nodes. None of our PCs is provably secure. It's highly likely it won't be by 2020 either, as it appears the money is going into the wrong places in research. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capability-based\_security" title="wikipedia.org">Capability Based Security</a> [wikipedia.org] has been around since the 1980s, and yet it's not even being funded to try to get it ready for widespread use by 2020.</p><p>
Until the ends of the internet are secure, it's not going to be secure. It almost seems the money is always being spent in places where it won't really help the end user, but will allow more control by the authorities. (Or maybe I'm just a bit paranoid?)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not the Internet switching fabric that is the problem , it 's the end nodes .
None of our PCs is provably secure .
It 's highly likely it wo n't be by 2020 either , as it appears the money is going into the wrong places in research .
Capability Based Security [ wikipedia.org ] has been around since the 1980s , and yet it 's not even being funded to try to get it ready for widespread use by 2020 .
Until the ends of the internet are secure , it 's not going to be secure .
It almost seems the money is always being spent in places where it wo n't really help the end user , but will allow more control by the authorities .
( Or maybe I 'm just a bit paranoid ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not the Internet switching fabric that is the problem, it's the end nodes.
None of our PCs is provably secure.
It's highly likely it won't be by 2020 either, as it appears the money is going into the wrong places in research.
Capability Based Security [wikipedia.org] has been around since the 1980s, and yet it's not even being funded to try to get it ready for widespread use by 2020.
Until the ends of the internet are secure, it's not going to be secure.
It almost seems the money is always being spent in places where it won't really help the end user, but will allow more control by the authorities.
(Or maybe I'm just a bit paranoid?
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30642658</id>
	<title>Re:And not even that imaginative.</title>
	<author>cbhacking</author>
	<datestamp>1262628180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did you even read the bits you quoted? URIs point to speciic servers, or at least to specific IP blocks behind the DNS lookup. The content might be in multiple locations, but there's no guarantee you'll get the closest or least-congested one. More importantly, once you have the content downloaded to your system, if your roommate goes looking for it (withint knowing you already have it) he or she will end up re-downloading that content from some distant machine identified by a URI, rather than asking the network for &lt;structured-content-name&gt; and having your computer announce the presence of a local copy.</p><p>It would either require a distributed search approach, or a content registration approach (with centralized search servers). The first is probably preferable - extend the peer-to-peer approach to cover everything one might download, rather than just the specific items that have been selected for sharing. Add some form of security/authentication/verification techniques (I'll admit I wouldn't know how to go about this, but it's still in research) to ensure that the content is available to you (not private) and that it's what you were looking for in the first place. For the actual transfer, one might use a BitTorrent-type approach (or something else entirely) but the point is the method by which you locate content.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you even read the bits you quoted ?
URIs point to speciic servers , or at least to specific IP blocks behind the DNS lookup .
The content might be in multiple locations , but there 's no guarantee you 'll get the closest or least-congested one .
More importantly , once you have the content downloaded to your system , if your roommate goes looking for it ( withint knowing you already have it ) he or she will end up re-downloading that content from some distant machine identified by a URI , rather than asking the network for and having your computer announce the presence of a local copy.It would either require a distributed search approach , or a content registration approach ( with centralized search servers ) .
The first is probably preferable - extend the peer-to-peer approach to cover everything one might download , rather than just the specific items that have been selected for sharing .
Add some form of security/authentication/verification techniques ( I 'll admit I would n't know how to go about this , but it 's still in research ) to ensure that the content is available to you ( not private ) and that it 's what you were looking for in the first place .
For the actual transfer , one might use a BitTorrent-type approach ( or something else entirely ) but the point is the method by which you locate content .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you even read the bits you quoted?
URIs point to speciic servers, or at least to specific IP blocks behind the DNS lookup.
The content might be in multiple locations, but there's no guarantee you'll get the closest or least-congested one.
More importantly, once you have the content downloaded to your system, if your roommate goes looking for it (withint knowing you already have it) he or she will end up re-downloading that content from some distant machine identified by a URI, rather than asking the network for  and having your computer announce the presence of a local copy.It would either require a distributed search approach, or a content registration approach (with centralized search servers).
The first is probably preferable - extend the peer-to-peer approach to cover everything one might download, rather than just the specific items that have been selected for sharing.
Add some form of security/authentication/verification techniques (I'll admit I wouldn't know how to go about this, but it's still in research) to ensure that the content is available to you (not private) and that it's what you were looking for in the first place.
For the actual transfer, one might use a BitTorrent-type approach (or something else entirely) but the point is the method by which you locate content.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30643442</id>
	<title>Re:Security starts at the ends</title>
	<author>Lodragandraoidh</author>
	<datestamp>1262631660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Capability Based Security hinges on the operating system being inviolate.  The problem is programmable computers by their very nature offer the opportunity to reprogram the whole system.  This is not a bad thing, because it allows the same device to be used in various different ways (Linux, Windows, OSX etc) - diving deeper, it allows more efficient software (patches) to be added to the system by anyone with the desire to accomplish some task, or make the system run more efficiently.</p><p>With a capability based security system in place, OSs would collapse into one 'approved' version - and the general purpose nature of the computer would be lost (a game console would be the current model for such a system I would think).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Capability Based Security hinges on the operating system being inviolate .
The problem is programmable computers by their very nature offer the opportunity to reprogram the whole system .
This is not a bad thing , because it allows the same device to be used in various different ways ( Linux , Windows , OSX etc ) - diving deeper , it allows more efficient software ( patches ) to be added to the system by anyone with the desire to accomplish some task , or make the system run more efficiently.With a capability based security system in place , OSs would collapse into one 'approved ' version - and the general purpose nature of the computer would be lost ( a game console would be the current model for such a system I would think ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Capability Based Security hinges on the operating system being inviolate.
The problem is programmable computers by their very nature offer the opportunity to reprogram the whole system.
This is not a bad thing, because it allows the same device to be used in various different ways (Linux, Windows, OSX etc) - diving deeper, it allows more efficient software (patches) to be added to the system by anyone with the desire to accomplish some task, or make the system run more efficiently.With a capability based security system in place, OSs would collapse into one 'approved' version - and the general purpose nature of the computer would be lost (a game console would be the current model for such a system I would think).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30644056</id>
	<title>Maybe you missed the point</title>
	<author>olau</author>
	<datestamp>1262634180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Right now, if you want to do something on the web, you need a web server. Sure, you can rent a virtual one etc., but still.</p><p>The model in a peer-to-peer content distribution network is more like if you need to put something up, you just do it by connecting your computer to the rest of the world. The network distributes the content according to demand. If your machine goes down, the content doesn't disappear.</p><p>Of course, someone still needs to run a computer somewhere, but the fact is that there's a gazillion of computers out there idling. If you can tap into them... The current way of organising computers with DNS is really fairly static and thus inefficient, even with virtual servers.</p><p>So it's about lower cost and seamless handling of failures and scaling.</p><p>Of course, this kind of thing is not going to happen overnight, and it might not even be feasible (not yet, at least). But that's why it's research. And yes, these ideas have been simmering for some time, I was in the field when I wrote my Masters three years ago, and at that time I certainly read a couple papers about it. Given what we know today, how could we redesign IP or DNS or the web to avoid some of their flaws? It's interesting stuff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right now , if you want to do something on the web , you need a web server .
Sure , you can rent a virtual one etc. , but still.The model in a peer-to-peer content distribution network is more like if you need to put something up , you just do it by connecting your computer to the rest of the world .
The network distributes the content according to demand .
If your machine goes down , the content does n't disappear.Of course , someone still needs to run a computer somewhere , but the fact is that there 's a gazillion of computers out there idling .
If you can tap into them... The current way of organising computers with DNS is really fairly static and thus inefficient , even with virtual servers.So it 's about lower cost and seamless handling of failures and scaling.Of course , this kind of thing is not going to happen overnight , and it might not even be feasible ( not yet , at least ) .
But that 's why it 's research .
And yes , these ideas have been simmering for some time , I was in the field when I wrote my Masters three years ago , and at that time I certainly read a couple papers about it .
Given what we know today , how could we redesign IP or DNS or the web to avoid some of their flaws ?
It 's interesting stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right now, if you want to do something on the web, you need a web server.
Sure, you can rent a virtual one etc., but still.The model in a peer-to-peer content distribution network is more like if you need to put something up, you just do it by connecting your computer to the rest of the world.
The network distributes the content according to demand.
If your machine goes down, the content doesn't disappear.Of course, someone still needs to run a computer somewhere, but the fact is that there's a gazillion of computers out there idling.
If you can tap into them... The current way of organising computers with DNS is really fairly static and thus inefficient, even with virtual servers.So it's about lower cost and seamless handling of failures and scaling.Of course, this kind of thing is not going to happen overnight, and it might not even be feasible (not yet, at least).
But that's why it's research.
And yes, these ideas have been simmering for some time, I was in the field when I wrote my Masters three years ago, and at that time I certainly read a couple papers about it.
Given what we know today, how could we redesign IP or DNS or the web to avoid some of their flaws?
It's interesting stuff.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30642814</id>
	<title>In the future</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262628780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Also in the future, we will have flying cars.</p><p>Honestly, what has been created in the last 10 years astonishes me but I don't see a replacement for the internet as it exists now in the next 10.  Flying cars, more likely.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Also in the future , we will have flying cars.Honestly , what has been created in the last 10 years astonishes me but I do n't see a replacement for the internet as it exists now in the next 10 .
Flying cars , more likely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also in the future, we will have flying cars.Honestly, what has been created in the last 10 years astonishes me but I don't see a replacement for the internet as it exists now in the next 10.
Flying cars, more likely.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641550</id>
	<title>Re:Security starts at the ends</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262624220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The politicians must be the ones making the future internet. Because after all, anyone with a working knowledge of security knows that it's impossible to make something 100\% secure. Because after all, security is just a bunch of logical computer statements. If you want something made secure, you have to take the computer out of it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The politicians must be the ones making the future internet .
Because after all , anyone with a working knowledge of security knows that it 's impossible to make something 100 \ % secure .
Because after all , security is just a bunch of logical computer statements .
If you want something made secure , you have to take the computer out of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The politicians must be the ones making the future internet.
Because after all, anyone with a working knowledge of security knows that it's impossible to make something 100\% secure.
Because after all, security is just a bunch of logical computer statements.
If you want something made secure, you have to take the computer out of it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30642360</id>
	<title>Re:Get real</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262627160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. Disproving the Riemann hypothesis is a hell of a lot less likely than getting a quantum computer that's powerful enough to run Schor's algorithm against a modern key length. 2. If the Riemann hypothesis is wrong, I'm not sure that makes RSA any less secure; e.g., it doesn't mean that there are 1000X more multiplicative inverses for each key than previously thought. 3. There are no algebraic methods which are mathematically unbreakable; read Shannon. The only way to make an unbreakable code is to use a truly random key which is longer than the message and to only use each key for a single message.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Disproving the Riemann hypothesis is a hell of a lot less likely than getting a quantum computer that 's powerful enough to run Schor 's algorithm against a modern key length .
2. If the Riemann hypothesis is wrong , I 'm not sure that makes RSA any less secure ; e.g. , it does n't mean that there are 1000X more multiplicative inverses for each key than previously thought .
3. There are no algebraic methods which are mathematically unbreakable ; read Shannon .
The only way to make an unbreakable code is to use a truly random key which is longer than the message and to only use each key for a single message .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Disproving the Riemann hypothesis is a hell of a lot less likely than getting a quantum computer that's powerful enough to run Schor's algorithm against a modern key length.
2. If the Riemann hypothesis is wrong, I'm not sure that makes RSA any less secure; e.g., it doesn't mean that there are 1000X more multiplicative inverses for each key than previously thought.
3. There are no algebraic methods which are mathematically unbreakable; read Shannon.
The only way to make an unbreakable code is to use a truly random key which is longer than the message and to only use each key for a single message.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641500</id>
	<title>Re:Their goal is audacious?</title>
	<author>Nadaka</author>
	<datestamp>1262623920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And your system provides absolutely no protection against corrupt governments that seek to limit freedom of speech. (AKA, all governments)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And your system provides absolutely no protection against corrupt governments that seek to limit freedom of speech .
( AKA , all governments )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And your system provides absolutely no protection against corrupt governments that seek to limit freedom of speech.
(AKA, all governments)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641190</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30651026</id>
	<title>Re:Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>shaitand</author>
	<datestamp>1262624700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>'the approved medicine you take'</p><p>Why take a perfectly good list of government services and throw in an example of nasty government overreaching and control?</p><p>The FDA should be to drugs what the USDA is to beef. If the product is produced commercially for distribution then it must be produced safely and meet criteria but the government has no business regulating who can purchase medications or what medications they can purchase.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'the approved medicine you take'Why take a perfectly good list of government services and throw in an example of nasty government overreaching and control ? The FDA should be to drugs what the USDA is to beef .
If the product is produced commercially for distribution then it must be produced safely and meet criteria but the government has no business regulating who can purchase medications or what medications they can purchase .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'the approved medicine you take'Why take a perfectly good list of government services and throw in an example of nasty government overreaching and control?The FDA should be to drugs what the USDA is to beef.
If the product is produced commercially for distribution then it must be produced safely and meet criteria but the government has no business regulating who can purchase medications or what medications they can purchase.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30642680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641528</id>
	<title>Time capsule</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262624100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can someone print this page and put in a time capsule and place underground for 10 years? I'd say this link would be here to reference, but with a "New" internet... One never knows!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can someone print this page and put in a time capsule and place underground for 10 years ?
I 'd say this link would be here to reference , but with a " New " internet... One never knows !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can someone print this page and put in a time capsule and place underground for 10 years?
I'd say this link would be here to reference, but with a "New" internet... One never knows!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641514</id>
	<title>And not even that imaginative.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262624040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From TFA:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Another radical proposal to change the Internet infrastructure is content-centric networking, which is being developed at PARC.... Instead of using IP addresses to identify the machines that store content, content-centric networking uses file names and URLs to identify the content itself.</p></div><p>Kind of like how the Web works.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>We're trying to work around the fact that machines-talking-to-machines isn't important anymore. Moving content is really important.</p></div><p>Which is done by machines-talking-to-machines.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Peer-to-peer networks, content distribution networks, virtual servers and storage are all trying to get around this fact.</p></div><p>Actually, no, they're the methods you'll have to use to build your utopian Internet, even if you hide it behind a new name. Also, how do virtual servers get around that fact?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Jacobson proposes that content &mdash; such as a movie, a document or an e-mail message &mdash; would receive a structured name that users can search for and retrieve. The data has a name, but not a location, so that end users can find the nearest copy.</p></div><p>There's a name for that "name" -- a URI.</p><p>Now, maybe what they're proposing will improve things, but if so, it's going to be incremental -- it's still going to talk IP under the hood. The bold claim that we "won't recognize" the Internet, that this is a "radical idea", is unwarranted hype.</p><p>I mean, if I understand what they're actually proposing, the most radical interpretation I could give it is ideas that have already been in Freenet for years.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFA : Another radical proposal to change the Internet infrastructure is content-centric networking , which is being developed at PARC.... Instead of using IP addresses to identify the machines that store content , content-centric networking uses file names and URLs to identify the content itself.Kind of like how the Web works.We 're trying to work around the fact that machines-talking-to-machines is n't important anymore .
Moving content is really important.Which is done by machines-talking-to-machines.Peer-to-peer networks , content distribution networks , virtual servers and storage are all trying to get around this fact.Actually , no , they 're the methods you 'll have to use to build your utopian Internet , even if you hide it behind a new name .
Also , how do virtual servers get around that fact ? Jacobson proposes that content    such as a movie , a document or an e-mail message    would receive a structured name that users can search for and retrieve .
The data has a name , but not a location , so that end users can find the nearest copy.There 's a name for that " name " -- a URI.Now , maybe what they 're proposing will improve things , but if so , it 's going to be incremental -- it 's still going to talk IP under the hood .
The bold claim that we " wo n't recognize " the Internet , that this is a " radical idea " , is unwarranted hype.I mean , if I understand what they 're actually proposing , the most radical interpretation I could give it is ideas that have already been in Freenet for years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFA:Another radical proposal to change the Internet infrastructure is content-centric networking, which is being developed at PARC.... Instead of using IP addresses to identify the machines that store content, content-centric networking uses file names and URLs to identify the content itself.Kind of like how the Web works.We're trying to work around the fact that machines-talking-to-machines isn't important anymore.
Moving content is really important.Which is done by machines-talking-to-machines.Peer-to-peer networks, content distribution networks, virtual servers and storage are all trying to get around this fact.Actually, no, they're the methods you'll have to use to build your utopian Internet, even if you hide it behind a new name.
Also, how do virtual servers get around that fact?Jacobson proposes that content — such as a movie, a document or an e-mail message — would receive a structured name that users can search for and retrieve.
The data has a name, but not a location, so that end users can find the nearest copy.There's a name for that "name" -- a URI.Now, maybe what they're proposing will improve things, but if so, it's going to be incremental -- it's still going to talk IP under the hood.
The bold claim that we "won't recognize" the Internet, that this is a "radical idea", is unwarranted hype.I mean, if I understand what they're actually proposing, the most radical interpretation I could give it is ideas that have already been in Freenet for years.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30640960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30640960</id>
	<title>Their goal is audacious?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262621880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"To create an Internet without so many security breaches, with better trust and built-in identity management."</p><p>I see. They want to end the real protection of free speach that anonymity provides.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" To create an Internet without so many security breaches , with better trust and built-in identity management .
" I see .
They want to end the real protection of free speach that anonymity provides .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"To create an Internet without so many security breaches, with better trust and built-in identity management.
"I see.
They want to end the real protection of free speach that anonymity provides.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641524</id>
	<title>Learn a lesson from "the Jetsons" ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262624040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>We were all supposed to be residing in apartments in the sky and driving flying cars by now, weren't we? Seems to me future predictions always underestimate how long it will take to reach a certain milestone by a factor of 10 or more.  And of course they miss completely the radical new developments--notice there's no Internet in "the Jetsons?"
With so many businesses relying on the Internet, it will be like pulling teeth to bring IPv6 to fruition, whether or not Windows Vista said it was ready for it.
I'm not saying these changes don't need to be made--of course they do. But with every business on Earth pulling in the other direction, I don't believe I'll see these changes in my lifetime.
Of course I would have said the same thing about seeing an African-American President, too<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</htmltext>
<tokenext>We were all supposed to be residing in apartments in the sky and driving flying cars by now , were n't we ?
Seems to me future predictions always underestimate how long it will take to reach a certain milestone by a factor of 10 or more .
And of course they miss completely the radical new developments--notice there 's no Internet in " the Jetsons ?
" With so many businesses relying on the Internet , it will be like pulling teeth to bring IPv6 to fruition , whether or not Windows Vista said it was ready for it .
I 'm not saying these changes do n't need to be made--of course they do .
But with every business on Earth pulling in the other direction , I do n't believe I 'll see these changes in my lifetime .
Of course I would have said the same thing about seeing an African-American President , too .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We were all supposed to be residing in apartments in the sky and driving flying cars by now, weren't we?
Seems to me future predictions always underestimate how long it will take to reach a certain milestone by a factor of 10 or more.
And of course they miss completely the radical new developments--notice there's no Internet in "the Jetsons?
"
With so many businesses relying on the Internet, it will be like pulling teeth to bring IPv6 to fruition, whether or not Windows Vista said it was ready for it.
I'm not saying these changes don't need to be made--of course they do.
But with every business on Earth pulling in the other direction, I don't believe I'll see these changes in my lifetime.
Of course I would have said the same thing about seeing an African-American President, too ...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30652982</id>
	<title>Re:And not even that imaginative.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262689260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's pretty different from an URI if it doesn't include a location.  While the rest can be considered abstract (even though in practice it's usually a location), the first component (after the protocol) in a URI always identifies the host where the content is stored.</p><p>This sounds more like a freenet hash.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's pretty different from an URI if it does n't include a location .
While the rest can be considered abstract ( even though in practice it 's usually a location ) , the first component ( after the protocol ) in a URI always identifies the host where the content is stored.This sounds more like a freenet hash .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's pretty different from an URI if it doesn't include a location.
While the rest can be considered abstract (even though in practice it's usually a location), the first component (after the protocol) in a URI always identifies the host where the content is stored.This sounds more like a freenet hash.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641274</id>
	<title>Right</title>
	<author>dedazo</author>
	<datestamp>1262623020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's what they said in 1999, isn't it? We have Facebook and Twitter and x10000000000 web pages and lolcats, but everything else is the same.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's what they said in 1999 , is n't it ?
We have Facebook and Twitter and x10000000000 web pages and lolcats , but everything else is the same .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's what they said in 1999, isn't it?
We have Facebook and Twitter and x10000000000 web pages and lolcats, but everything else is the same.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30640912</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>tsj5j</author>
	<datestamp>1262621700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>As I came to the end of the article, I saw...

"You are not logged in.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... or post as Anonymous Coward."

I wonder, with all these fancy features and identity management, will the veil of anonymity on the internet be removed?
Internet censorship has always been limited because the internet as we know it makes it hard with its anonymity and proxies, etc.

The question is will a government-funded internet make big-brother-ing easier?</htmltext>
<tokenext>As I came to the end of the article , I saw.. . " You are not logged in .
... or post as Anonymous Coward .
" I wonder , with all these fancy features and identity management , will the veil of anonymity on the internet be removed ?
Internet censorship has always been limited because the internet as we know it makes it hard with its anonymity and proxies , etc .
The question is will a government-funded internet make big-brother-ing easier ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As I came to the end of the article, I saw...

"You are not logged in.
... or post as Anonymous Coward.
"

I wonder, with all these fancy features and identity management, will the veil of anonymity on the internet be removed?
Internet censorship has always been limited because the internet as we know it makes it hard with its anonymity and proxies, etc.
The question is will a government-funded internet make big-brother-ing easier?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30642788</id>
	<title>Internet Generation</title>
	<author>Verna</author>
	<datestamp>1262628720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Kids who grow up with social networking are going to experience the internet differently too:

<a href="http://thealbatross.ca/2009/11/report-children-too-mature-for-social-networking/" title="thealbatross.ca" rel="nofollow">http://thealbatross.ca/2009/11/report-children-too-mature-for-social-networking/</a> [thealbatross.ca]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Kids who grow up with social networking are going to experience the internet differently too : http : //thealbatross.ca/2009/11/report-children-too-mature-for-social-networking/ [ thealbatross.ca ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kids who grow up with social networking are going to experience the internet differently too:

http://thealbatross.ca/2009/11/report-children-too-mature-for-social-networking/ [thealbatross.ca]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30646826</id>
	<title>Re:Welcome to the beginning of the end</title>
	<author>BJ\_Covert\_Action</author>
	<datestamp>1262602260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Owning a car today is a chore, driving is a necessity but it's far from fun; the moment it becomes fun, you're breaking some law</p></div><p>
Buy a motorcycle.....really.
<br> <br>
Oh, also, regarding:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>and I don't know anybody who has never had a ticket, no matter how careful they are</p></div><p>
My mother has never had a ticket. Not a single one. Not even a parking ticket or a fix it ticket.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Owning a car today is a chore , driving is a necessity but it 's far from fun ; the moment it becomes fun , you 're breaking some law Buy a motorcycle.....really .
Oh , also , regarding : and I do n't know anybody who has never had a ticket , no matter how careful they are My mother has never had a ticket .
Not a single one .
Not even a parking ticket or a fix it ticket .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Owning a car today is a chore, driving is a necessity but it's far from fun; the moment it becomes fun, you're breaking some law
Buy a motorcycle.....really.
Oh, also, regarding:and I don't know anybody who has never had a ticket, no matter how careful they are
My mother has never had a ticket.
Not a single one.
Not even a parking ticket or a fix it ticket.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641238</id>
	<title>Re:Get real</title>
	<author>jimbolauski</author>
	<datestamp>1262622900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't care what they do as long as I can get to porn.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't care what they do as long as I can get to porn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't care what they do as long as I can get to porn.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30640908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30644444</id>
	<title>back to the future</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262636040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>"<i>computer scientists<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. goal is audacious: To create an Internet without so many security breaches, with better trust and built-in identity management</i>"<br> <br>

We don't need to wait until 2020, all the above currently exist in some form, why aren't they being used.<br> <br>

"<i>One of the key goals of GENI is to let researchers program very deep into the network<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. It allows you to install any software you want deep into the network anywhere you want. You can program switches and routers</i>"<br> <br>

Are you sure this project is about securing the Internet<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:o</htmltext>
<tokenext>" computer scientists .. goal is audacious : To create an Internet without so many security breaches , with better trust and built-in identity management " We do n't need to wait until 2020 , all the above currently exist in some form , why are n't they being used .
" One of the key goals of GENI is to let researchers program very deep into the network .. It allows you to install any software you want deep into the network anywhere you want .
You can program switches and routers " Are you sure this project is about securing the Internet : o</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"computer scientists .. goal is audacious: To create an Internet without so many security breaches, with better trust and built-in identity management" 

We don't need to wait until 2020, all the above currently exist in some form, why aren't they being used.
"One of the key goals of GENI is to let researchers program very deep into the network .. It allows you to install any software you want deep into the network anywhere you want.
You can program switches and routers" 

Are you sure this project is about securing the Internet :o</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30644430</id>
	<title>Re:Their goal is audacious?</title>
	<author>Jackie\_Chan\_Fan</author>
	<datestamp>1262635920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The fucked up thing is... They will win. they will get what they want.</p><p>Cyberpunk may be scifi, but all scifi becomes reality at somepoint. It is a roadmap for humanity and it does become real.</p><p>Will will soon see ourselves deep within that battle where many who crave freedom will not find it on the new corporate internet in 2020.</p><p>Get ready for the War... I'm not kidding.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The fucked up thing is... They will win .
they will get what they want.Cyberpunk may be scifi , but all scifi becomes reality at somepoint .
It is a roadmap for humanity and it does become real.Will will soon see ourselves deep within that battle where many who crave freedom will not find it on the new corporate internet in 2020.Get ready for the War... I 'm not kidding .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fucked up thing is... They will win.
they will get what they want.Cyberpunk may be scifi, but all scifi becomes reality at somepoint.
It is a roadmap for humanity and it does become real.Will will soon see ourselves deep within that battle where many who crave freedom will not find it on the new corporate internet in 2020.Get ready for the War... I'm not kidding.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641556</id>
	<title>World's largest you say? Wave that flag, dude!</title>
	<author>djupedal</author>
	<datestamp>1262624220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"Indeed, the United States is building the world's largest virtual network lab across 14 college campuses and two nationwide backbone networks so that it can engage thousands &ndash; perhaps millions &ndash; of end users in its experiments."</i>
<br>
<br>
Gosh now, <a href="http://mvapich.cse.ohio-state.edu/current\_users/" title="ohio-state.edu">China seems to only have a measly 22 NBCLs involved at the moment</a> [ohio-state.edu]....and there's nothing 'perhaps' about the millions it can engage.
<br>
<br>
And those are just the ones that are already built. Who knows have many are in the '<i>is building</i>' stage...</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Indeed , the United States is building the world 's largest virtual network lab across 14 college campuses and two nationwide backbone networks so that it can engage thousands    perhaps millions    of end users in its experiments .
" Gosh now , China seems to only have a measly 22 NBCLs involved at the moment [ ohio-state.edu ] ....and there 's nothing 'perhaps ' about the millions it can engage .
And those are just the ones that are already built .
Who knows have many are in the 'is building ' stage.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Indeed, the United States is building the world's largest virtual network lab across 14 college campuses and two nationwide backbone networks so that it can engage thousands – perhaps millions – of end users in its experiments.
"


Gosh now, China seems to only have a measly 22 NBCLs involved at the moment [ohio-state.edu]....and there's nothing 'perhaps' about the millions it can engage.
And those are just the ones that are already built.
Who knows have many are in the 'is building' stage...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641132</id>
	<title>Re:Their goal is audacious?</title>
	<author>Thanshin</author>
	<datestamp>1262622540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Personal identification is bad for porn.</p><p>Finding a new source of money of such dimensions will be challenging.</p><p>It's one thing to not talk openly about it, it's another to forget it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Personal identification is bad for porn.Finding a new source of money of such dimensions will be challenging.It 's one thing to not talk openly about it , it 's another to forget it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personal identification is bad for porn.Finding a new source of money of such dimensions will be challenging.It's one thing to not talk openly about it, it's another to forget it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30640960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30650686</id>
	<title>Country??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262622240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Computer scientists are Across which country??</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Computer scientists are Across which country ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Computer scientists are Across which country?
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30645856</id>
	<title>And then came Narus</title>
	<author>sgt\_doom</author>
	<datestamp>1262598300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Late-breaking news.....the creators of the Narus box have just been named as the sole project manager for the 2020 internet....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Late-breaking news.....the creators of the Narus box have just been named as the sole project manager for the 2020 internet... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Late-breaking news.....the creators of the Narus box have just been named as the sole project manager for the 2020 internet....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30642550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641426</id>
	<title>But...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262623680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>the internet will still be a series of tubes, right?</htmltext>
<tokenext>the internet will still be a series of tubes , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the internet will still be a series of tubes, right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30645842</id>
	<title>Digital cash is invented (not yet innovated)</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1262598240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How about getting around to inventing digital cash?</p></div><p>Look around the internet, or your cryptography textbooks, for Brand's Electronic Cash Scheme (or e-cash scheme).</p><p>If you can, have a look at this: <a href="http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/9746/30738/01423662.pdf\%3Farnumber\%3D1423662&amp;authDecision=-203" title="ieee.org">http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/9746/30738/01423662.pdf\%3Farnumber\%3D1423662&amp;authDecision=-203</a> [ieee.org]</p><p>As best I know, the problem isn't that e-cash hasn't been invented.  It's that it hasn't been innovated yet.  That is, it hasn't been turned into a product or service or thing that regular people can and want to use.</p><p>Although, I heard someone chat about being able to store money on our (nation-specific) debit cards.</p><p>The purpose I heard was eliminating the delay when the terminals call up the bank and ask whether it should OK a transaction.</p><p>The card holder first runs a protocol between him and the bank to store money on the card.  When the money is stored on the card, the card holder and the seller can then run a local protocol to transfer the e-cash to the seller, which the seller can then turn into real money (real as in "numbers in a computer") by talking to the bank some other time.</p><p>I don't know whether the talk was specifically about Brand's e-cash scheme, but it has the same communication structure (i.e. which pairs of people talk together at which relative point in time).</p><p>But as I said: I just heard it sort of passing by.  But I think it would take involvement of the state to make changes to what is considered legal tender.  And if e-cash isn't, how do you buy anything else than WoW loot (or "faceville" crops, or items from some other isolated virtual world) with it?  How does it cross national borders?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about getting around to inventing digital cash ? Look around the internet , or your cryptography textbooks , for Brand 's Electronic Cash Scheme ( or e-cash scheme ) .If you can , have a look at this : http : //ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp ? url = http : //ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/9746/30738/01423662.pdf \ % 3Farnumber \ % 3D1423662&amp;authDecision = -203 [ ieee.org ] As best I know , the problem is n't that e-cash has n't been invented .
It 's that it has n't been innovated yet .
That is , it has n't been turned into a product or service or thing that regular people can and want to use.Although , I heard someone chat about being able to store money on our ( nation-specific ) debit cards.The purpose I heard was eliminating the delay when the terminals call up the bank and ask whether it should OK a transaction.The card holder first runs a protocol between him and the bank to store money on the card .
When the money is stored on the card , the card holder and the seller can then run a local protocol to transfer the e-cash to the seller , which the seller can then turn into real money ( real as in " numbers in a computer " ) by talking to the bank some other time.I do n't know whether the talk was specifically about Brand 's e-cash scheme , but it has the same communication structure ( i.e .
which pairs of people talk together at which relative point in time ) .But as I said : I just heard it sort of passing by .
But I think it would take involvement of the state to make changes to what is considered legal tender .
And if e-cash is n't , how do you buy anything else than WoW loot ( or " faceville " crops , or items from some other isolated virtual world ) with it ?
How does it cross national borders ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about getting around to inventing digital cash?Look around the internet, or your cryptography textbooks, for Brand's Electronic Cash Scheme (or e-cash scheme).If you can, have a look at this: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/9746/30738/01423662.pdf\%3Farnumber\%3D1423662&amp;authDecision=-203 [ieee.org]As best I know, the problem isn't that e-cash hasn't been invented.
It's that it hasn't been innovated yet.
That is, it hasn't been turned into a product or service or thing that regular people can and want to use.Although, I heard someone chat about being able to store money on our (nation-specific) debit cards.The purpose I heard was eliminating the delay when the terminals call up the bank and ask whether it should OK a transaction.The card holder first runs a protocol between him and the bank to store money on the card.
When the money is stored on the card, the card holder and the seller can then run a local protocol to transfer the e-cash to the seller, which the seller can then turn into real money (real as in "numbers in a computer") by talking to the bank some other time.I don't know whether the talk was specifically about Brand's e-cash scheme, but it has the same communication structure (i.e.
which pairs of people talk together at which relative point in time).But as I said: I just heard it sort of passing by.
But I think it would take involvement of the state to make changes to what is considered legal tender.
And if e-cash isn't, how do you buy anything else than WoW loot (or "faceville" crops, or items from some other isolated virtual world) with it?
How does it cross national borders?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30642198</id>
	<title>uhhh..</title>
	<author>Pederson</author>
	<datestamp>1262626620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm on the internet all day every day, I have yet to experience a major 'security breech'. Perhaps this 'second internet' is really more of a 'stupid person internet'.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm on the internet all day every day , I have yet to experience a major 'security breech' .
Perhaps this 'second internet ' is really more of a 'stupid person internet' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm on the internet all day every day, I have yet to experience a major 'security breech'.
Perhaps this 'second internet' is really more of a 'stupid person internet'.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30644844</id>
	<title>Should we start building our own Internet?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262637960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really, should we start volunteering in building our own infrastructure that cannot be misused? WiFi seems to be a good candidate; I expect the price for the components would go down significantly in 10 years, or we can start developing our own open HW that would be independent from what is out now. Anyone would join?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really , should we start volunteering in building our own infrastructure that can not be misused ?
WiFi seems to be a good candidate ; I expect the price for the components would go down significantly in 10 years , or we can start developing our own open HW that would be independent from what is out now .
Anyone would join ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really, should we start volunteering in building our own infrastructure that cannot be misused?
WiFi seems to be a good candidate; I expect the price for the components would go down significantly in 10 years, or we can start developing our own open HW that would be independent from what is out now.
Anyone would join?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641256</id>
	<title>Re:Their goal is audacious?</title>
	<author>eldavojohn</author>
	<datestamp>1262622960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"To create an Internet without so many security breaches, with better trust and built-in identity management."</p><p>I see. They want to end the real protection of free speach that anonymity provides.</p></div><p>What I found lacking in the article was an actual discussion of how they were going to make security better.  At the end, there was a brief mention of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content-centric\_networking" title="wikipedia.org">content-centric networking</a> [wikipedia.org] which -- I must admit -- sounds like it doesn't solve any security issues.  There's all these generic complaints of security and how horrible it is.  In the article, when they talk about reinventing the internet they say things like:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>NSF says it won't make the same mistake today as was made when the Internet was invented, with security bolted on to the Internet architecture after-the-fact instead of being designed in from the beginning.</p> </div><p>I frankly don't get it.  And since they're not giving me examples of how they're going to revolutionize security, all I can do is sit back and ask, "How are you going to do it better than SSL?"  How will a security implementation 'from the beginning' change anything?  You know what else made my eyes roll?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Another key aspect of GENI is that it will be used to test new security paradigms. Elliott says the GENI program will fund 10 security-related efforts between now and October 2010.</p></div><p>That statement is dripping with bullshit marketing and venture capital garnering rhetoric.  Will someone please man up and explain in detail how you are going to revolutionize security on the internet without running into obvious problems that the current solution seeks to avoid (ones like the parent post pointed out)?  <br> <br>

We're getting all these nebulous ideas thrown at us without any detailed explanation so you'll have to forgive me for being dubious.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" To create an Internet without so many security breaches , with better trust and built-in identity management .
" I see .
They want to end the real protection of free speach that anonymity provides.What I found lacking in the article was an actual discussion of how they were going to make security better .
At the end , there was a brief mention of content-centric networking [ wikipedia.org ] which -- I must admit -- sounds like it does n't solve any security issues .
There 's all these generic complaints of security and how horrible it is .
In the article , when they talk about reinventing the internet they say things like : NSF says it wo n't make the same mistake today as was made when the Internet was invented , with security bolted on to the Internet architecture after-the-fact instead of being designed in from the beginning .
I frankly do n't get it .
And since they 're not giving me examples of how they 're going to revolutionize security , all I can do is sit back and ask , " How are you going to do it better than SSL ?
" How will a security implementation 'from the beginning ' change anything ?
You know what else made my eyes roll ? Another key aspect of GENI is that it will be used to test new security paradigms .
Elliott says the GENI program will fund 10 security-related efforts between now and October 2010.That statement is dripping with bullshit marketing and venture capital garnering rhetoric .
Will someone please man up and explain in detail how you are going to revolutionize security on the internet without running into obvious problems that the current solution seeks to avoid ( ones like the parent post pointed out ) ?
We 're getting all these nebulous ideas thrown at us without any detailed explanation so you 'll have to forgive me for being dubious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"To create an Internet without so many security breaches, with better trust and built-in identity management.
"I see.
They want to end the real protection of free speach that anonymity provides.What I found lacking in the article was an actual discussion of how they were going to make security better.
At the end, there was a brief mention of content-centric networking [wikipedia.org] which -- I must admit -- sounds like it doesn't solve any security issues.
There's all these generic complaints of security and how horrible it is.
In the article, when they talk about reinventing the internet they say things like:NSF says it won't make the same mistake today as was made when the Internet was invented, with security bolted on to the Internet architecture after-the-fact instead of being designed in from the beginning.
I frankly don't get it.
And since they're not giving me examples of how they're going to revolutionize security, all I can do is sit back and ask, "How are you going to do it better than SSL?
"  How will a security implementation 'from the beginning' change anything?
You know what else made my eyes roll?Another key aspect of GENI is that it will be used to test new security paradigms.
Elliott says the GENI program will fund 10 security-related efforts between now and October 2010.That statement is dripping with bullshit marketing and venture capital garnering rhetoric.
Will someone please man up and explain in detail how you are going to revolutionize security on the internet without running into obvious problems that the current solution seeks to avoid (ones like the parent post pointed out)?
We're getting all these nebulous ideas thrown at us without any detailed explanation so you'll have to forgive me for being dubious.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30640960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30651924</id>
	<title>wow gold</title>
	<author>kadey</author>
	<datestamp>1262634180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.power4game.com/" title="power4game.com" rel="nofollow">wow gold</a> [power4game.com]
<a href="http://www.power4game.com/" title="power4game.com" rel="nofollow">cheap wow gold</a> [power4game.com]
<a href="http://www.panjewellery.com/" title="panjewellery.com" rel="nofollow">pandora jewellery</a> [panjewellery.com]
<a href="http://www.power4game.com/" title="power4game.com" rel="nofollow">buy wow gold</a> [power4game.com]
<a href="http://www.pandora-diy.com/" title="pandora-diy.com" rel="nofollow">pandora jewellery</a> [pandora-diy.com]
<a href="http://www.tiffanys-store.com/" title="tiffanys-store.com" rel="nofollow">tiffany jewellery</a> [tiffanys-store.com]
<a href="http://www.panjewellery.com/" title="panjewellery.com" rel="nofollow">pandora charms</a> [panjewellery.com]
<a href="http://www.tiffanys-store.com/" title="tiffanys-store.com" rel="nofollow">tiffany</a> [tiffanys-store.com]
<a href="http://www.pandora-diy.com/" title="pandora-diy.com" rel="nofollow">pandora bracelets</a> [pandora-diy.com]
<a href="http://www.tiffanys-store.com/" title="tiffanys-store.com" rel="nofollow">tiffany jewelry</a> [tiffanys-store.com]
<a href="http://www.swisswatches-shop.com/" title="swisswatches-shop.com" rel="nofollow">rolex watches</a> [swisswatches-shop.com]
<a href="http://www.swisswatches-shop.com/" title="swisswatches-shop.com" rel="nofollow">replica rolex</a> [swisswatches-shop.com]
<a href="http://www.swisswatches-shop.com/" title="swisswatches-shop.com" rel="nofollow">replica rolex watches</a> [swisswatches-shop.com]
<a href="http://www.swisswatches-shop.com/" title="swisswatches-shop.com" rel="nofollow">rolex</a> [swisswatches-shop.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>wow gold [ power4game.com ] cheap wow gold [ power4game.com ] pandora jewellery [ panjewellery.com ] buy wow gold [ power4game.com ] pandora jewellery [ pandora-diy.com ] tiffany jewellery [ tiffanys-store.com ] pandora charms [ panjewellery.com ] tiffany [ tiffanys-store.com ] pandora bracelets [ pandora-diy.com ] tiffany jewelry [ tiffanys-store.com ] rolex watches [ swisswatches-shop.com ] replica rolex [ swisswatches-shop.com ] replica rolex watches [ swisswatches-shop.com ] rolex [ swisswatches-shop.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>wow gold [power4game.com]
cheap wow gold [power4game.com]
pandora jewellery [panjewellery.com]
buy wow gold [power4game.com]
pandora jewellery [pandora-diy.com]
tiffany jewellery [tiffanys-store.com]
pandora charms [panjewellery.com]
tiffany [tiffanys-store.com]
pandora bracelets [pandora-diy.com]
tiffany jewelry [tiffanys-store.com]
rolex watches [swisswatches-shop.com]
replica rolex [swisswatches-shop.com]
replica rolex watches [swisswatches-shop.com]
rolex [swisswatches-shop.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30640894</id>
	<title>yay</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262621640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>yay me</htmltext>
<tokenext>yay me</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yay me</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30643452</id>
	<title>As it was and ever shall be . . . I doubt it.</title>
	<author>josquin9</author>
	<datestamp>1262631660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a natural tendency to be hamstrung by familiarity.  "Since the current internet is monolithic, any future internet must also be monolithic."  I suspect that in order to actually create truly secure pockets for power grid management, financial data and so forth, new infrastructures will have to be deployed in parallel to the existing network, not replacing it wholesale.  Over time Internet 1.0/2.0/X.0 may or may not be supplanted as the most popular public network by a new upstart.  At the same time, different communities and entities will create systems that work for them in terms of security, privacy, speed, etc, and mirror appropriate information in a controlled manner to other networks as needed.  What is lost in efficiency will be compensated in flexibility and robustness.</p><p>This is just what I think is most likely, not some cause that I'm emotionally invested in.  It just seems to fit trends we've seen before (which, as I mentioned in my first sentence, should be considered suspect as a matter of course.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a natural tendency to be hamstrung by familiarity .
" Since the current internet is monolithic , any future internet must also be monolithic .
" I suspect that in order to actually create truly secure pockets for power grid management , financial data and so forth , new infrastructures will have to be deployed in parallel to the existing network , not replacing it wholesale .
Over time Internet 1.0/2.0/X.0 may or may not be supplanted as the most popular public network by a new upstart .
At the same time , different communities and entities will create systems that work for them in terms of security , privacy , speed , etc , and mirror appropriate information in a controlled manner to other networks as needed .
What is lost in efficiency will be compensated in flexibility and robustness.This is just what I think is most likely , not some cause that I 'm emotionally invested in .
It just seems to fit trends we 've seen before ( which , as I mentioned in my first sentence , should be considered suspect as a matter of course .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a natural tendency to be hamstrung by familiarity.
"Since the current internet is monolithic, any future internet must also be monolithic.
"  I suspect that in order to actually create truly secure pockets for power grid management, financial data and so forth, new infrastructures will have to be deployed in parallel to the existing network, not replacing it wholesale.
Over time Internet 1.0/2.0/X.0 may or may not be supplanted as the most popular public network by a new upstart.
At the same time, different communities and entities will create systems that work for them in terms of security, privacy, speed, etc, and mirror appropriate information in a controlled manner to other networks as needed.
What is lost in efficiency will be compensated in flexibility and robustness.This is just what I think is most likely, not some cause that I'm emotionally invested in.
It just seems to fit trends we've seen before (which, as I mentioned in my first sentence, should be considered suspect as a matter of course.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30647424</id>
	<title>Re:Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Dan541</author>
	<datestamp>1262604720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The current internet is not going away, ever. This is just like the "year of the linux desktop" nothing happens we all continue as normal. Perhaps some new protocols will be developed but they will still be run on the internet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The current internet is not going away , ever .
This is just like the " year of the linux desktop " nothing happens we all continue as normal .
Perhaps some new protocols will be developed but they will still be run on the internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The current internet is not going away, ever.
This is just like the "year of the linux desktop" nothing happens we all continue as normal.
Perhaps some new protocols will be developed but they will still be run on the internet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30640912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30645522</id>
	<title>Look back 10 &amp; 20 to see the what next 10 brin</title>
	<author>John Sokol</author>
	<datestamp>1262597160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Being 40+ years old now and watching technology my whole life starting computers at 7 it's something I am very in tune with.<br>If you want to see how it's going to change in the future you can just extrapolate from the past.</p><p>First let's point out that the internet is a common method for moving datagrams (IP packets, block of data up to 1500 bytes at a time), much like the postal service ships individual letter. On top of this stream connections using (TCP) are created and most of what we see is built on this.<br>The point is, there are no limitations over what can be sent, or the format.<br>So telepresents, virtual reality, haptics, Remote control of UAV's, skys the limit on what can be sent over this network.</p><p>I remember the Internet clearly as it was 30 years ago. As a hacker breaking in to it was the most LEET thing you could do back in 1980.<br>I wasn't till 1987 before I finally got my first legitimate access to the Internet.</p><p>Let me put a little time line down to put things in to perspective.</p><p>1969 CompuServe started.<br>1972 C Programming Language invented.</p><p>1980 -- there was no TCP/IP even is was NCP, no unix servers and it was the DARPANET.  It was all 300 Baud Modems! UUCP and Email was there.<br>1983 BSD 4.2 Unix came out with first tcp/ip stack in .  C++ first developed.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Modems and BBS's ruled at this time (sort of like when dinosaurs roamed the earth)<br>1984 Apple Macintosh first released.<br>1985 "thin" Ethernet first comes out (uses BNC Coax)<br>1987 Perl released.<br>1988 Linksys founded.  First Internet Worm get's loose, create massive panic! (Robert Tappan Morris)</p><p>1990 -- there was no www, html, , it was telnet, ftp, gopher,  Archie First Internet search engine starts.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 10Base-T first comes out.<br>1992 Wais search engine starts.<br>1992 Tim Berards Lee came out with www and html.<br>1993 Mosaic the first "graphical" web browser.  Before this it was all console text based !!!!!<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; WiFi was invented.  Linux and FreeBSD first Released. Lycos search engine starts.<br>1994 14.4K modems first started to appear. WebCrawler search engine starts. VRML web based virtual reality.<br>1995 Yahoo and Altavista search engines start. Vocaltec first VOIP comes out. JAVA released.<br>1995/6 is when the internet boom started.  28.8K  modems appear.<br>1997 Google &amp; E-Bay started.  36.6K and 56Kmodems appear.  PHP first comes out.  Netflix starts.  100Base-T first comes out.<br>1998 Voip is 1\% of all phone traffic.<br>1999 Napster first comes out. DSL &amp; Cable Modems first become available.  Metricom Ricochet service comes out. Blogger.com goes online.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Gigabit Ethernet first comes out.</p><p>2000 Dot com Crash.<br>2001 Metricom dies.<br>2002 Bit Torrent takes off.  Wifi Starts to take off for consumers.<br>2003 Skype first comes out.<br>2004 Facebook goes online.<br>2005 Youtube goes online.<br>2006 Twitter founded.<br>2007 Hulu Starts<br>2008 Netflix start streaming video.<br>2009 HD videos are being streamed from Youtube.</p><p>Well as you can see things in the past 10 haven't changed all that much.<br>I expect the next 10 will not bring any radical surprises unless your living under a rock.</p><p>I expect telepresents, and augmented reality to be the next big things.</p><p>I am going to try to keep filling this in and post on my blog johnsokol.blogspot.com</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Being 40 + years old now and watching technology my whole life starting computers at 7 it 's something I am very in tune with.If you want to see how it 's going to change in the future you can just extrapolate from the past.First let 's point out that the internet is a common method for moving datagrams ( IP packets , block of data up to 1500 bytes at a time ) , much like the postal service ships individual letter .
On top of this stream connections using ( TCP ) are created and most of what we see is built on this.The point is , there are no limitations over what can be sent , or the format.So telepresents , virtual reality , haptics , Remote control of UAV 's , skys the limit on what can be sent over this network.I remember the Internet clearly as it was 30 years ago .
As a hacker breaking in to it was the most LEET thing you could do back in 1980.I was n't till 1987 before I finally got my first legitimate access to the Internet.Let me put a little time line down to put things in to perspective.1969 CompuServe started.1972 C Programming Language invented.1980 -- there was no TCP/IP even is was NCP , no unix servers and it was the DARPANET .
It was all 300 Baud Modems !
UUCP and Email was there.1983 BSD 4.2 Unix came out with first tcp/ip stack in .
C + + first developed .
    Modems and BBS 's ruled at this time ( sort of like when dinosaurs roamed the earth ) 1984 Apple Macintosh first released.1985 " thin " Ethernet first comes out ( uses BNC Coax ) 1987 Perl released.1988 Linksys founded .
First Internet Worm get 's loose , create massive panic !
( Robert Tappan Morris ) 1990 -- there was no www , html , , it was telnet , ftp , gopher , Archie First Internet search engine starts .
          10Base-T first comes out.1992 Wais search engine starts.1992 Tim Berards Lee came out with www and html.1993 Mosaic the first " graphical " web browser .
Before this it was all console text based ! ! ! ! !
                  WiFi was invented .
Linux and FreeBSD first Released .
Lycos search engine starts.1994 14.4K modems first started to appear .
WebCrawler search engine starts .
VRML web based virtual reality.1995 Yahoo and Altavista search engines start .
Vocaltec first VOIP comes out .
JAVA released.1995/6 is when the internet boom started .
28.8K modems appear.1997 Google &amp; E-Bay started .
36.6K and 56Kmodems appear .
PHP first comes out .
Netflix starts .
100Base-T first comes out.1998 Voip is 1 \ % of all phone traffic.1999 Napster first comes out .
DSL &amp; Cable Modems first become available .
Metricom Ricochet service comes out .
Blogger.com goes online .
            Gigabit Ethernet first comes out.2000 Dot com Crash.2001 Metricom dies.2002 Bit Torrent takes off .
Wifi Starts to take off for consumers.2003 Skype first comes out.2004 Facebook goes online.2005 Youtube goes online.2006 Twitter founded.2007 Hulu Starts2008 Netflix start streaming video.2009 HD videos are being streamed from Youtube.Well as you can see things in the past 10 have n't changed all that much.I expect the next 10 will not bring any radical surprises unless your living under a rock.I expect telepresents , and augmented reality to be the next big things.I am going to try to keep filling this in and post on my blog johnsokol.blogspot.com</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Being 40+ years old now and watching technology my whole life starting computers at 7 it's something I am very in tune with.If you want to see how it's going to change in the future you can just extrapolate from the past.First let's point out that the internet is a common method for moving datagrams (IP packets, block of data up to 1500 bytes at a time), much like the postal service ships individual letter.
On top of this stream connections using (TCP) are created and most of what we see is built on this.The point is, there are no limitations over what can be sent, or the format.So telepresents, virtual reality, haptics, Remote control of UAV's, skys the limit on what can be sent over this network.I remember the Internet clearly as it was 30 years ago.
As a hacker breaking in to it was the most LEET thing you could do back in 1980.I wasn't till 1987 before I finally got my first legitimate access to the Internet.Let me put a little time line down to put things in to perspective.1969 CompuServe started.1972 C Programming Language invented.1980 -- there was no TCP/IP even is was NCP, no unix servers and it was the DARPANET.
It was all 300 Baud Modems!
UUCP and Email was there.1983 BSD 4.2 Unix came out with first tcp/ip stack in .
C++ first developed.
    Modems and BBS's ruled at this time (sort of like when dinosaurs roamed the earth)1984 Apple Macintosh first released.1985 "thin" Ethernet first comes out (uses BNC Coax)1987 Perl released.1988 Linksys founded.
First Internet Worm get's loose, create massive panic!
(Robert Tappan Morris)1990 -- there was no www, html, , it was telnet, ftp, gopher,  Archie First Internet search engine starts.
          10Base-T first comes out.1992 Wais search engine starts.1992 Tim Berards Lee came out with www and html.1993 Mosaic the first "graphical" web browser.
Before this it was all console text based !!!!!
                  WiFi was invented.
Linux and FreeBSD first Released.
Lycos search engine starts.1994 14.4K modems first started to appear.
WebCrawler search engine starts.
VRML web based virtual reality.1995 Yahoo and Altavista search engines start.
Vocaltec first VOIP comes out.
JAVA released.1995/6 is when the internet boom started.
28.8K  modems appear.1997 Google &amp; E-Bay started.
36.6K and 56Kmodems appear.
PHP first comes out.
Netflix starts.
100Base-T first comes out.1998 Voip is 1\% of all phone traffic.1999 Napster first comes out.
DSL &amp; Cable Modems first become available.
Metricom Ricochet service comes out.
Blogger.com goes online.
            Gigabit Ethernet first comes out.2000 Dot com Crash.2001 Metricom dies.2002 Bit Torrent takes off.
Wifi Starts to take off for consumers.2003 Skype first comes out.2004 Facebook goes online.2005 Youtube goes online.2006 Twitter founded.2007 Hulu Starts2008 Netflix start streaming video.2009 HD videos are being streamed from Youtube.Well as you can see things in the past 10 haven't changed all that much.I expect the next 10 will not bring any radical surprises unless your living under a rock.I expect telepresents, and augmented reality to be the next big things.I am going to try to keep filling this in and post on my blog johnsokol.blogspot.com</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641344</id>
	<title>What other planets?</title>
	<author>rudy\_wayne</author>
	<datestamp>1262623320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>And they're hoping to build an Internet that extends connectivity to the most remote regions of the world, perhaps to <b>other planets</b>.</p></div> </blockquote><p>
What "other planets"?  Occassionally people will talk about travelling to "other planets".  What "planets" are they talking about?
<br> <br>
You can't land on Jupiter, Saturn, Nepture or Uranus because they are just gas.  Mercury has a temp of around 1100 C and Venus is 900 degrees with a sulfuric acid atmosphere and atmospheric pressure 90 times greater than earth.
<br> <br>
So that just leaves Mars.  So why don't they just say Mars instead of "other planets"?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And they 're hoping to build an Internet that extends connectivity to the most remote regions of the world , perhaps to other planets .
What " other planets " ?
Occassionally people will talk about travelling to " other planets " .
What " planets " are they talking about ?
You ca n't land on Jupiter , Saturn , Nepture or Uranus because they are just gas .
Mercury has a temp of around 1100 C and Venus is 900 degrees with a sulfuric acid atmosphere and atmospheric pressure 90 times greater than earth .
So that just leaves Mars .
So why do n't they just say Mars instead of " other planets " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And they're hoping to build an Internet that extends connectivity to the most remote regions of the world, perhaps to other planets.
What "other planets"?
Occassionally people will talk about travelling to "other planets".
What "planets" are they talking about?
You can't land on Jupiter, Saturn, Nepture or Uranus because they are just gas.
Mercury has a temp of around 1100 C and Venus is 900 degrees with a sulfuric acid atmosphere and atmospheric pressure 90 times greater than earth.
So that just leaves Mars.
So why don't they just say Mars instead of "other planets"?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30643962</id>
	<title>Re:And not even that imaginative.</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1262633760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Did you even read the bits you quoted? URIs point to speciic servers, or at least to specific IP blocks behind the DNS lookup.</p></div></blockquote><p>No, Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs) provide identity. Some URIs (Uniform Resource Locators -- URLs) also provide information about the preferred method of accessing information, which may or may not be relevant to their use in a particular application. Some URIs (Uniform Resource Names -- URNs) do not location information at all.</p><blockquote><div><p>The content might be in multiple locations, but there's no guarantee you'll get the closest or least-congested one.</p></div> </blockquote><p>The URI itself does not present such a guarantee, true, but its quite possible to build systems which do that, using existing internet technologies. (For "closest", with http: URLs, that's the point of caching proxies.)</p><blockquote><div><p>More importantly, once you have the content downloaded to your system, if your roommate goes looking for it (withint knowing you already have it) he or she will end up re-downloading that content from some distant machine identified by a URI</p></div></blockquote><p>Well, assuming that he just doesn't get it from the local browser cache, or (if using different user accounts that wouldn't share a cache), if you aren't using a local caching proxy running as a system process. But this problem is obviously solvable by setting up the local environment correctly using the <i>current</i> structure of the internet, replacing the internet to fix it is clearly overkill (and, because there is a lot of investment in the current internet, isn't likely to happen, anyway.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you even read the bits you quoted ?
URIs point to speciic servers , or at least to specific IP blocks behind the DNS lookup.No , Uniform Resource Identifiers ( URIs ) provide identity .
Some URIs ( Uniform Resource Locators -- URLs ) also provide information about the preferred method of accessing information , which may or may not be relevant to their use in a particular application .
Some URIs ( Uniform Resource Names -- URNs ) do not location information at all.The content might be in multiple locations , but there 's no guarantee you 'll get the closest or least-congested one .
The URI itself does not present such a guarantee , true , but its quite possible to build systems which do that , using existing internet technologies .
( For " closest " , with http : URLs , that 's the point of caching proxies .
) More importantly , once you have the content downloaded to your system , if your roommate goes looking for it ( withint knowing you already have it ) he or she will end up re-downloading that content from some distant machine identified by a URIWell , assuming that he just does n't get it from the local browser cache , or ( if using different user accounts that would n't share a cache ) , if you are n't using a local caching proxy running as a system process .
But this problem is obviously solvable by setting up the local environment correctly using the current structure of the internet , replacing the internet to fix it is clearly overkill ( and , because there is a lot of investment in the current internet , is n't likely to happen , anyway .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you even read the bits you quoted?
URIs point to speciic servers, or at least to specific IP blocks behind the DNS lookup.No, Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs) provide identity.
Some URIs (Uniform Resource Locators -- URLs) also provide information about the preferred method of accessing information, which may or may not be relevant to their use in a particular application.
Some URIs (Uniform Resource Names -- URNs) do not location information at all.The content might be in multiple locations, but there's no guarantee you'll get the closest or least-congested one.
The URI itself does not present such a guarantee, true, but its quite possible to build systems which do that, using existing internet technologies.
(For "closest", with http: URLs, that's the point of caching proxies.
)More importantly, once you have the content downloaded to your system, if your roommate goes looking for it (withint knowing you already have it) he or she will end up re-downloading that content from some distant machine identified by a URIWell, assuming that he just doesn't get it from the local browser cache, or (if using different user accounts that wouldn't share a cache), if you aren't using a local caching proxy running as a system process.
But this problem is obviously solvable by setting up the local environment correctly using the current structure of the internet, replacing the internet to fix it is clearly overkill (and, because there is a lot of investment in the current internet, isn't likely to happen, anyway.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30642658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30661734</id>
	<title>My god</title>
	<author>KingTank</author>
	<datestamp>1262690700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's full of buzzwords.  And all aimed at people who use the internet, but don't quite understand what it is.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's full of buzzwords .
And all aimed at people who use the internet , but do n't quite understand what it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's full of buzzwords.
And all aimed at people who use the internet, but don't quite understand what it is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30645692</id>
	<title>Re:Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>mhajicek</author>
	<datestamp>1262597640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, and yes.  It's already happening, as courts have ordered the identities of anonymous posters revealed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , and yes .
It 's already happening , as courts have ordered the identities of anonymous posters revealed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, and yes.
It's already happening, as courts have ordered the identities of anonymous posters revealed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30640912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30651528</id>
	<title>Danny\_fr</title>
	<author>MrNatas</author>
	<datestamp>1262629500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What many seem to forget is that lately, many late users (I mean users attracted to a higher use of Teh Interwebz by social media and such) are currently worrying about their privacy. The IRC/Usenet generation might still see privacy as "doing whatever I want under cover of anonymity", but the later users see it as "I don't want my boss to see my Nekd Disco Foam Night photos where I'm pole dancing with three transvestites and a horse photos I just uploaded".
From there onward it's just a matter of time until someone has the idea to make our online publication a 'real' private belonging. How can it be done without linking it to our IRL identity ?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What many seem to forget is that lately , many late users ( I mean users attracted to a higher use of Teh Interwebz by social media and such ) are currently worrying about their privacy .
The IRC/Usenet generation might still see privacy as " doing whatever I want under cover of anonymity " , but the later users see it as " I do n't want my boss to see my Nekd Disco Foam Night photos where I 'm pole dancing with three transvestites and a horse photos I just uploaded " .
From there onward it 's just a matter of time until someone has the idea to make our online publication a 'real ' private belonging .
How can it be done without linking it to our IRL identity ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What many seem to forget is that lately, many late users (I mean users attracted to a higher use of Teh Interwebz by social media and such) are currently worrying about their privacy.
The IRC/Usenet generation might still see privacy as "doing whatever I want under cover of anonymity", but the later users see it as "I don't want my boss to see my Nekd Disco Foam Night photos where I'm pole dancing with three transvestites and a horse photos I just uploaded".
From there onward it's just a matter of time until someone has the idea to make our online publication a 'real' private belonging.
How can it be done without linking it to our IRL identity ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641354</id>
	<title>Ummm...</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1262623320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>To create an Internet without so many security breaches, with better trust and built-in identity management.</p></div><p>We don't want that.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Researchers are trying to build an Internet that's more reliable, higher performing and better able to manage exabytes of content. And they're hoping to build an Internet that extends connectivity to the most remote regions of the world, perhaps to other planets</p></div><p>None of that has anything to with the first part of their statement. Changing protocols and changing packets won't change the fact that you need the physical hardware at the location. The current internet does not have a problem extending connectivity to the remote regions of the world, or even to other planets. The only thing stopping THAT is the physical wires, servers, switches, etc. that have to be set up.</p><p>Before you go on about limitted address space, keep in mind that if we pushed those kinds of projects (the second type) the more we'd be pushing towards IPv6 - and even now we have some silly workarounds like NAT. In fact, I think if they redesigned NAT so it wasn't so... annoying to use, we'd get more use out of that than any other internet protocol they are probably working on.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>To create an Internet without so many security breaches , with better trust and built-in identity management.We do n't want that.Researchers are trying to build an Internet that 's more reliable , higher performing and better able to manage exabytes of content .
And they 're hoping to build an Internet that extends connectivity to the most remote regions of the world , perhaps to other planetsNone of that has anything to with the first part of their statement .
Changing protocols and changing packets wo n't change the fact that you need the physical hardware at the location .
The current internet does not have a problem extending connectivity to the remote regions of the world , or even to other planets .
The only thing stopping THAT is the physical wires , servers , switches , etc .
that have to be set up.Before you go on about limitted address space , keep in mind that if we pushed those kinds of projects ( the second type ) the more we 'd be pushing towards IPv6 - and even now we have some silly workarounds like NAT .
In fact , I think if they redesigned NAT so it was n't so... annoying to use , we 'd get more use out of that than any other internet protocol they are probably working on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To create an Internet without so many security breaches, with better trust and built-in identity management.We don't want that.Researchers are trying to build an Internet that's more reliable, higher performing and better able to manage exabytes of content.
And they're hoping to build an Internet that extends connectivity to the most remote regions of the world, perhaps to other planetsNone of that has anything to with the first part of their statement.
Changing protocols and changing packets won't change the fact that you need the physical hardware at the location.
The current internet does not have a problem extending connectivity to the remote regions of the world, or even to other planets.
The only thing stopping THAT is the physical wires, servers, switches, etc.
that have to be set up.Before you go on about limitted address space, keep in mind that if we pushed those kinds of projects (the second type) the more we'd be pushing towards IPv6 - and even now we have some silly workarounds like NAT.
In fact, I think if they redesigned NAT so it wasn't so... annoying to use, we'd get more use out of that than any other internet protocol they are probably working on.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30642324</id>
	<title>Schrodinger's Cat</title>
	<author>benjamindees</author>
	<datestamp>1262627040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The same people who watched Star Wars and wanted to build the Death Star are now working on turning The Matrix into reality.</p><p>This has been in the works for a while, driven by a collusion between security agencies and high tech industry.  This is what they meant when they were "caught off guard" by 9/11, and decided to "wage war on the internet" as a response to dissent during Operation Iraqi Liberation.  When the entire plot of America's next blatant power grab becomes common knowledge within a matter of weeks thanks to a free global individual communications medium, FBI agents with 486's could no longer successfully pull off the kind of false flag operations they could when television was dominant.  They had to pick their donut-stuffed asses out of their plastic chairs and resort to the good old fashioned foot-work of personal attacks, disappearances and discrediting anyone who questions the official line to keep the blood money flowing.</p><p>Profit is of course the motive, but not profit for society at large, profit at your expense.  The initial purpose is to enable more reliable monitoring of communications by making identification more reliable.  Stick your smart-card enabled driver's-license-slash-food-stamp-card into a reader in order to access the internet.  Copy a song or movie, or pose a sufficient threat to society, and your access can be revoked.  Government are the only ones who might be motivated to pay for such a scheme, with no clear benefit to anyone but the types of delusional control freaks government attracts.</p><p>The next step will be to take everything you say or communicate electronically, and to use it against you.  This is where the profit comes in.  Your ideas are copied, stolen, and then black-holed.  Your views are distorted.  Everyone from your employer to your landlord to concerned parents would pay for information on you.  Those who control it's collection will control it's perception and use, and profit from it.  Your health insurance may be cancelled.  Your boss may not recommend you for a raise.  Your parents may decide to cut you out of their will.  Your bank may reduce your credit limit.  They will have no qualms about doing so.  You will never see it coming.  The information they base their decisions on comes from the government, and government is trusted.  The information is thus trusted as well, thanks to step one above.</p><p>The final step is segmentation.  The internet is no longer global.  You get your own personal copy.  Every search result you get and every website you go to is filtered and personalized.  The internet is no longer your link to a larger world, but a fictional creation used to manipulate and control you.  Freedom of speech is no longer liberating, but a jail for your mind.  This will take a while.  But it is coming.  It's just targeted advertising for now, but wait ten years and see what it becomes with the Federal government picking up the tab.</p><p>Consider this:  There is a $200 trillion financial derivatives market in the United States.  At 3\% growth, this represents $70,000/yr for each and every US household, nearly every dollar earned by working Americans.  And it's already accounted for.  They know you will spend it.  They know to 99\% certainty how you will spend it.  And if they happen to be wrong, they will get bailed out.  There is no room for error.  There is no tolerance of paradigm-changing technologically innovative ideas.  Every economic transaction is now backed by the force of government.  And they have every incentive to increase their intrusion into and control over your everyday life.</p><p>My response is to be careful what you wish for.  Sometimes it is better not to know whether the cat is dead or not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The same people who watched Star Wars and wanted to build the Death Star are now working on turning The Matrix into reality.This has been in the works for a while , driven by a collusion between security agencies and high tech industry .
This is what they meant when they were " caught off guard " by 9/11 , and decided to " wage war on the internet " as a response to dissent during Operation Iraqi Liberation .
When the entire plot of America 's next blatant power grab becomes common knowledge within a matter of weeks thanks to a free global individual communications medium , FBI agents with 486 's could no longer successfully pull off the kind of false flag operations they could when television was dominant .
They had to pick their donut-stuffed asses out of their plastic chairs and resort to the good old fashioned foot-work of personal attacks , disappearances and discrediting anyone who questions the official line to keep the blood money flowing.Profit is of course the motive , but not profit for society at large , profit at your expense .
The initial purpose is to enable more reliable monitoring of communications by making identification more reliable .
Stick your smart-card enabled driver 's-license-slash-food-stamp-card into a reader in order to access the internet .
Copy a song or movie , or pose a sufficient threat to society , and your access can be revoked .
Government are the only ones who might be motivated to pay for such a scheme , with no clear benefit to anyone but the types of delusional control freaks government attracts.The next step will be to take everything you say or communicate electronically , and to use it against you .
This is where the profit comes in .
Your ideas are copied , stolen , and then black-holed .
Your views are distorted .
Everyone from your employer to your landlord to concerned parents would pay for information on you .
Those who control it 's collection will control it 's perception and use , and profit from it .
Your health insurance may be cancelled .
Your boss may not recommend you for a raise .
Your parents may decide to cut you out of their will .
Your bank may reduce your credit limit .
They will have no qualms about doing so .
You will never see it coming .
The information they base their decisions on comes from the government , and government is trusted .
The information is thus trusted as well , thanks to step one above.The final step is segmentation .
The internet is no longer global .
You get your own personal copy .
Every search result you get and every website you go to is filtered and personalized .
The internet is no longer your link to a larger world , but a fictional creation used to manipulate and control you .
Freedom of speech is no longer liberating , but a jail for your mind .
This will take a while .
But it is coming .
It 's just targeted advertising for now , but wait ten years and see what it becomes with the Federal government picking up the tab.Consider this : There is a $ 200 trillion financial derivatives market in the United States .
At 3 \ % growth , this represents $ 70,000/yr for each and every US household , nearly every dollar earned by working Americans .
And it 's already accounted for .
They know you will spend it .
They know to 99 \ % certainty how you will spend it .
And if they happen to be wrong , they will get bailed out .
There is no room for error .
There is no tolerance of paradigm-changing technologically innovative ideas .
Every economic transaction is now backed by the force of government .
And they have every incentive to increase their intrusion into and control over your everyday life.My response is to be careful what you wish for .
Sometimes it is better not to know whether the cat is dead or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The same people who watched Star Wars and wanted to build the Death Star are now working on turning The Matrix into reality.This has been in the works for a while, driven by a collusion between security agencies and high tech industry.
This is what they meant when they were "caught off guard" by 9/11, and decided to "wage war on the internet" as a response to dissent during Operation Iraqi Liberation.
When the entire plot of America's next blatant power grab becomes common knowledge within a matter of weeks thanks to a free global individual communications medium, FBI agents with 486's could no longer successfully pull off the kind of false flag operations they could when television was dominant.
They had to pick their donut-stuffed asses out of their plastic chairs and resort to the good old fashioned foot-work of personal attacks, disappearances and discrediting anyone who questions the official line to keep the blood money flowing.Profit is of course the motive, but not profit for society at large, profit at your expense.
The initial purpose is to enable more reliable monitoring of communications by making identification more reliable.
Stick your smart-card enabled driver's-license-slash-food-stamp-card into a reader in order to access the internet.
Copy a song or movie, or pose a sufficient threat to society, and your access can be revoked.
Government are the only ones who might be motivated to pay for such a scheme, with no clear benefit to anyone but the types of delusional control freaks government attracts.The next step will be to take everything you say or communicate electronically, and to use it against you.
This is where the profit comes in.
Your ideas are copied, stolen, and then black-holed.
Your views are distorted.
Everyone from your employer to your landlord to concerned parents would pay for information on you.
Those who control it's collection will control it's perception and use, and profit from it.
Your health insurance may be cancelled.
Your boss may not recommend you for a raise.
Your parents may decide to cut you out of their will.
Your bank may reduce your credit limit.
They will have no qualms about doing so.
You will never see it coming.
The information they base their decisions on comes from the government, and government is trusted.
The information is thus trusted as well, thanks to step one above.The final step is segmentation.
The internet is no longer global.
You get your own personal copy.
Every search result you get and every website you go to is filtered and personalized.
The internet is no longer your link to a larger world, but a fictional creation used to manipulate and control you.
Freedom of speech is no longer liberating, but a jail for your mind.
This will take a while.
But it is coming.
It's just targeted advertising for now, but wait ten years and see what it becomes with the Federal government picking up the tab.Consider this:  There is a $200 trillion financial derivatives market in the United States.
At 3\% growth, this represents $70,000/yr for each and every US household, nearly every dollar earned by working Americans.
And it's already accounted for.
They know you will spend it.
They know to 99\% certainty how you will spend it.
And if they happen to be wrong, they will get bailed out.
There is no room for error.
There is no tolerance of paradigm-changing technologically innovative ideas.
Every economic transaction is now backed by the force of government.
And they have every incentive to increase their intrusion into and control over your everyday life.My response is to be careful what you wish for.
Sometimes it is better not to know whether the cat is dead or not.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641184</id>
	<title>Re:Their goal is audacious?</title>
	<author>Jenming</author>
	<datestamp>1262622720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Free speech through anonymity is kind of cool and really important in some parts of the world where thats the only kind of free speech available. However free speech without the need for anonymity is way better. Also there is something to be said for being proud and responsible for the things you say. And this means putting your name on them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Free speech through anonymity is kind of cool and really important in some parts of the world where thats the only kind of free speech available .
However free speech without the need for anonymity is way better .
Also there is something to be said for being proud and responsible for the things you say .
And this means putting your name on them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Free speech through anonymity is kind of cool and really important in some parts of the world where thats the only kind of free speech available.
However free speech without the need for anonymity is way better.
Also there is something to be said for being proud and responsible for the things you say.
And this means putting your name on them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30640960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641934</id>
	<title>LOL</title>
	<author>(arg!)Styopa</author>
	<datestamp>1262625600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Projects like this make me laugh on a number of levels.</p><p>First, "...This high-risk, long-range Internet research will kick into high gear in 2010, as the <b>US federal government</b> ramps up funding to allow a handful of projects to move out of the lab and into prototype. Indeed, the <b>United States</b> is building the world's largest virtual network lab across 14 college campuses and two nationwide backbone networks so that it can engage..."  Funny, I thought the US was collapsing and falling apart?  Where's all the investment and research $$ for all this <i>essential</i> international infrastructure from say, China?  India?  Europe?  Do we want to talk again about 'internationalizing' the TLD registration and expanding the urls to non-Latin characters, or do we want to wait until the US has (again) made all the primary development investment first?</p><p>Second, 'rebuilding the internet' is a bit like reworking the Constitution, isn't it?  I mean, the confluence of the varying and irreconcilable intrests of the RIAA, MPAA, EFF, NSA, commercial companies, research organizations, politicians, and even perhaps the needs of the public somewhere near the bottom (presuming you can even get a coherent picture of what 'the public' wants, from the Evangelical Christians, to the Scientologists, to NAMBLA, to people stealing torrents of movies, to  4chan users) all react against each other to make the idea of such a fundamental reworking conceptually impossible.  They simply cannot all win, and NONE of them have ever shown a willingness to compromise in any meaningful way.  Stalemate.  Your choice is to try to cobble together some ridiculously bloated thing that tries to be everything to everyone (witness the Euro constitution, lol), or, you have some neo-fascist organization promulgating their own standard and trying to enforce it on everyone, no matter how much they clearly don't want it (witness again the Euro constitution, lol).</p><p>So what will happen, I expect, is that we're going to continue to use the same old creaky, leaky, insecure decrepit system until someone figures out ways to improve it piecemeal, so that as people have specific needs that can be met technologically and modularly (like better authentication, etc.) they can spend what they need to, implement what they need and no more.  It's all about $, and perceived cost-benefit.  When the need is perceived to be great enough, proprietary solutions will be developed.  They'll compete in the marketplace, and the most usable (note I didn't say "best") will win, probably eventually going from proprietary to standard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Projects like this make me laugh on a number of levels.First , " ...This high-risk , long-range Internet research will kick into high gear in 2010 , as the US federal government ramps up funding to allow a handful of projects to move out of the lab and into prototype .
Indeed , the United States is building the world 's largest virtual network lab across 14 college campuses and two nationwide backbone networks so that it can engage... " Funny , I thought the US was collapsing and falling apart ?
Where 's all the investment and research $ $ for all this essential international infrastructure from say , China ?
India ? Europe ?
Do we want to talk again about 'internationalizing ' the TLD registration and expanding the urls to non-Latin characters , or do we want to wait until the US has ( again ) made all the primary development investment first ? Second , 'rebuilding the internet ' is a bit like reworking the Constitution , is n't it ?
I mean , the confluence of the varying and irreconcilable intrests of the RIAA , MPAA , EFF , NSA , commercial companies , research organizations , politicians , and even perhaps the needs of the public somewhere near the bottom ( presuming you can even get a coherent picture of what 'the public ' wants , from the Evangelical Christians , to the Scientologists , to NAMBLA , to people stealing torrents of movies , to 4chan users ) all react against each other to make the idea of such a fundamental reworking conceptually impossible .
They simply can not all win , and NONE of them have ever shown a willingness to compromise in any meaningful way .
Stalemate. Your choice is to try to cobble together some ridiculously bloated thing that tries to be everything to everyone ( witness the Euro constitution , lol ) , or , you have some neo-fascist organization promulgating their own standard and trying to enforce it on everyone , no matter how much they clearly do n't want it ( witness again the Euro constitution , lol ) .So what will happen , I expect , is that we 're going to continue to use the same old creaky , leaky , insecure decrepit system until someone figures out ways to improve it piecemeal , so that as people have specific needs that can be met technologically and modularly ( like better authentication , etc .
) they can spend what they need to , implement what they need and no more .
It 's all about $ , and perceived cost-benefit .
When the need is perceived to be great enough , proprietary solutions will be developed .
They 'll compete in the marketplace , and the most usable ( note I did n't say " best " ) will win , probably eventually going from proprietary to standard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Projects like this make me laugh on a number of levels.First, "...This high-risk, long-range Internet research will kick into high gear in 2010, as the US federal government ramps up funding to allow a handful of projects to move out of the lab and into prototype.
Indeed, the United States is building the world's largest virtual network lab across 14 college campuses and two nationwide backbone networks so that it can engage..."  Funny, I thought the US was collapsing and falling apart?
Where's all the investment and research $$ for all this essential international infrastructure from say, China?
India?  Europe?
Do we want to talk again about 'internationalizing' the TLD registration and expanding the urls to non-Latin characters, or do we want to wait until the US has (again) made all the primary development investment first?Second, 'rebuilding the internet' is a bit like reworking the Constitution, isn't it?
I mean, the confluence of the varying and irreconcilable intrests of the RIAA, MPAA, EFF, NSA, commercial companies, research organizations, politicians, and even perhaps the needs of the public somewhere near the bottom (presuming you can even get a coherent picture of what 'the public' wants, from the Evangelical Christians, to the Scientologists, to NAMBLA, to people stealing torrents of movies, to  4chan users) all react against each other to make the idea of such a fundamental reworking conceptually impossible.
They simply cannot all win, and NONE of them have ever shown a willingness to compromise in any meaningful way.
Stalemate.  Your choice is to try to cobble together some ridiculously bloated thing that tries to be everything to everyone (witness the Euro constitution, lol), or, you have some neo-fascist organization promulgating their own standard and trying to enforce it on everyone, no matter how much they clearly don't want it (witness again the Euro constitution, lol).So what will happen, I expect, is that we're going to continue to use the same old creaky, leaky, insecure decrepit system until someone figures out ways to improve it piecemeal, so that as people have specific needs that can be met technologically and modularly (like better authentication, etc.
) they can spend what they need to, implement what they need and no more.
It's all about $, and perceived cost-benefit.
When the need is perceived to be great enough, proprietary solutions will be developed.
They'll compete in the marketplace, and the most usable (note I didn't say "best") will win, probably eventually going from proprietary to standard.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641842</id>
	<title>Unless it adds value...</title>
	<author>PerfectionLost</author>
	<datestamp>1262625240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unless it adds value to end users it will not be adopted.  Works faster?  Great.  The US/Iranian/Russian government is now reading my emails in addition to google?  Not so great.</p><p>What would be incredible,  is if the US government could implement OpenID on all of their websites.  Taxes are rolling around, couldn't they make a site that lets me file directly with them?  Or one that lets me see every outstanding ticket i have in my fair city?  These systems don't have to be the same to be integrated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless it adds value to end users it will not be adopted .
Works faster ?
Great. The US/Iranian/Russian government is now reading my emails in addition to google ?
Not so great.What would be incredible , is if the US government could implement OpenID on all of their websites .
Taxes are rolling around , could n't they make a site that lets me file directly with them ?
Or one that lets me see every outstanding ticket i have in my fair city ?
These systems do n't have to be the same to be integrated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless it adds value to end users it will not be adopted.
Works faster?
Great.  The US/Iranian/Russian government is now reading my emails in addition to google?
Not so great.What would be incredible,  is if the US government could implement OpenID on all of their websites.
Taxes are rolling around, couldn't they make a site that lets me file directly with them?
Or one that lets me see every outstanding ticket i have in my fair city?
These systems don't have to be the same to be integrated.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641170</id>
	<title>Re:Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>molecular</author>
	<datestamp>1262622660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The question is will a government-funded internet make big-brother-ing easier?</p></div><p>Maybe this is main the goal?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The question is will a government-funded internet make big-brother-ing easier ? Maybe this is main the goal ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The question is will a government-funded internet make big-brother-ing easier?Maybe this is main the goal?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30640912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30647030</id>
	<title>Re:Just not trustworthy</title>
	<author>Lost Race</author>
	<datestamp>1262603040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The model we're using today is just wrong. It can't be made to work. We need a much more information-oriented view of security, where the context of information and the trust of information have to be much more central."</p></div></blockquote><p>Only a fucking moron would say something that completely idiotic about the Internet. TFA attributes this quote to Van Jacobson, who is not a fucking moron, so we must conclude that the reporter twisted his words around to imply the exact opposite of whatever he actually said. If you've ever been quoted by a reporter, you'll be familiar with that experience.</p><p>Or has Van Jacobson suffered some sort of severe brain damage, causing him to spout crazy random nonsense like the above quote? That would be a shame.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The model we 're using today is just wrong .
It ca n't be made to work .
We need a much more information-oriented view of security , where the context of information and the trust of information have to be much more central .
" Only a fucking moron would say something that completely idiotic about the Internet .
TFA attributes this quote to Van Jacobson , who is not a fucking moron , so we must conclude that the reporter twisted his words around to imply the exact opposite of whatever he actually said .
If you 've ever been quoted by a reporter , you 'll be familiar with that experience.Or has Van Jacobson suffered some sort of severe brain damage , causing him to spout crazy random nonsense like the above quote ?
That would be a shame .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The model we're using today is just wrong.
It can't be made to work.
We need a much more information-oriented view of security, where the context of information and the trust of information have to be much more central.
"Only a fucking moron would say something that completely idiotic about the Internet.
TFA attributes this quote to Van Jacobson, who is not a fucking moron, so we must conclude that the reporter twisted his words around to imply the exact opposite of whatever he actually said.
If you've ever been quoted by a reporter, you'll be familiar with that experience.Or has Van Jacobson suffered some sort of severe brain damage, causing him to spout crazy random nonsense like the above quote?
That would be a shame.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641464</id>
	<title>All those gilded, pumped up words to hide</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1262623860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>one single fucking dirty word : control.</p><p>love the way how they pump up the stuff noone needs - exabytes of content, more 'reliability'. reliability of what, exactly ? reliable in which way, precisely ? it awfully resembles shitty catchphrases senators use to push their sinister private interest agendas in senate. 'good' abstract words which noone should object to - reliability.</p><p>'identity management'. what a nice way to say 'control'. its like naming a damned private interest feudal law Digital Millenium copyright act. now see, there's the phrase 'digital' in it and it also says 'millenium'. that cant be something bad right ?</p><p>so it goes like this. of course, unless we net people, eff and similar organizations starten up and take the initiative to create public opinion rather than waiting for some private interest to screw us all up by brainwashing the public.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>one single fucking dirty word : control.love the way how they pump up the stuff noone needs - exabytes of content , more 'reliability' .
reliability of what , exactly ?
reliable in which way , precisely ?
it awfully resembles shitty catchphrases senators use to push their sinister private interest agendas in senate .
'good ' abstract words which noone should object to - reliability .
'identity management' .
what a nice way to say 'control' .
its like naming a damned private interest feudal law Digital Millenium copyright act .
now see , there 's the phrase 'digital ' in it and it also says 'millenium' .
that cant be something bad right ? so it goes like this .
of course , unless we net people , eff and similar organizations starten up and take the initiative to create public opinion rather than waiting for some private interest to screw us all up by brainwashing the public .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>one single fucking dirty word : control.love the way how they pump up the stuff noone needs - exabytes of content, more 'reliability'.
reliability of what, exactly ?
reliable in which way, precisely ?
it awfully resembles shitty catchphrases senators use to push their sinister private interest agendas in senate.
'good' abstract words which noone should object to - reliability.
'identity management'.
what a nice way to say 'control'.
its like naming a damned private interest feudal law Digital Millenium copyright act.
now see, there's the phrase 'digital' in it and it also says 'millenium'.
that cant be something bad right ?so it goes like this.
of course, unless we net people, eff and similar organizations starten up and take the initiative to create public opinion rather than waiting for some private interest to screw us all up by brainwashing the public.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30643518</id>
	<title>The wrong group in charge...</title>
	<author>geekmux</author>
	<datestamp>1262632020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>"...To create an Internet without so many security breaches, with better trust and built-in identity management."</i></p></div><p>So, let me get this straight.  The same Government who can't even manage to secure their own computer networks is going to try to build a more secure new network?</p><p>Hell, you might as well have given the contract to Microsoft.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...To create an Internet without so many security breaches , with better trust and built-in identity management .
" So , let me get this straight .
The same Government who ca n't even manage to secure their own computer networks is going to try to build a more secure new network ? Hell , you might as well have given the contract to Microsoft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> "...To create an Internet without so many security breaches, with better trust and built-in identity management.
"So, let me get this straight.
The same Government who can't even manage to secure their own computer networks is going to try to build a more secure new network?Hell, you might as well have given the contract to Microsoft.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30642118</id>
	<title>Entering Lamerznet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262626320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"with better trust and built-in identity management"</p><p>but what if I don't want anyone to be able to attribute my postings to me? (like a prospective employer?)</p><p>-AC</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" with better trust and built-in identity management " but what if I do n't want anyone to be able to attribute my postings to me ?
( like a prospective employer ?
) -AC</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"with better trust and built-in identity management"but what if I don't want anyone to be able to attribute my postings to me?
(like a prospective employer?
)-AC</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641408</id>
	<title>in soviet russia...</title>
	<author>molecular</author>
	<datestamp>1262623620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... the internet recognizes you!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... the internet recognizes you !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... the internet recognizes you!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641190</id>
	<title>Re:Their goal is audacious?</title>
	<author>thijsh</author>
	<datestamp>1262622720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Identity management and anonymity are not opposites.<br> <br>

If I were to completely design this system I would use ID cards digitally signed by the government with a proper public-private encryption scheme, but with multiple levels of information. The legislation around these cards should account for the information categories and what companies can legally do with it. The levels should have clear names and colors, and when you sign in to a website you will *never* need a login anymore, only an ID, and the website can request certain information, but you have to enter it by swiping your ID in front of the reader.<br>
<br>
The levels of information should be:<br>
- Anonymous, but verified age<br>
- Anonymous, but verified location (country, city)<br>
- Name verified, but nothing else<br>
- Name, SSN, other details</htmltext>
<tokenext>Identity management and anonymity are not opposites .
If I were to completely design this system I would use ID cards digitally signed by the government with a proper public-private encryption scheme , but with multiple levels of information .
The legislation around these cards should account for the information categories and what companies can legally do with it .
The levels should have clear names and colors , and when you sign in to a website you will * never * need a login anymore , only an ID , and the website can request certain information , but you have to enter it by swiping your ID in front of the reader .
The levels of information should be : - Anonymous , but verified age - Anonymous , but verified location ( country , city ) - Name verified , but nothing else - Name , SSN , other details</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Identity management and anonymity are not opposites.
If I were to completely design this system I would use ID cards digitally signed by the government with a proper public-private encryption scheme, but with multiple levels of information.
The legislation around these cards should account for the information categories and what companies can legally do with it.
The levels should have clear names and colors, and when you sign in to a website you will *never* need a login anymore, only an ID, and the website can request certain information, but you have to enter it by swiping your ID in front of the reader.
The levels of information should be:
- Anonymous, but verified age
- Anonymous, but verified location (country, city)
- Name verified, but nothing else
- Name, SSN, other details</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30640960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30644048</id>
	<title>Re:Get real</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262634120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Blatant assertion:  All usable crypto methods rely on a key of reasonable size, and make it possible to encrypt and decrypt efficiently based on the key.  (The most debateable part of this is probably rejecting run-time pads, which are in fact unusable in most circumstances.)
</p><p>
First conclusion:  For all usable crypto methods, cryptanalysis based on known plaintext is a problem in NP.  Cryptanalysis of unknown plaintext, which will be recognized because it's recognizable plaintext, is also in NP but the argument's longer.
</p><p>
Second conclusion:  No usable crypto method is harder to decrypt than an NP-complete problem of similar size.
</p><p>
Other blatant assertion:  There is no proof that NP-complete problems cannot be solved efficiently.  (If you have a proof, publish it, and collect the fame and the Clay Institute megabuck.)
</p><p>
Final conclusion:  No usable crypto method can be proved to be impossible to crack efficiently.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Blatant assertion : All usable crypto methods rely on a key of reasonable size , and make it possible to encrypt and decrypt efficiently based on the key .
( The most debateable part of this is probably rejecting run-time pads , which are in fact unusable in most circumstances .
) First conclusion : For all usable crypto methods , cryptanalysis based on known plaintext is a problem in NP .
Cryptanalysis of unknown plaintext , which will be recognized because it 's recognizable plaintext , is also in NP but the argument 's longer .
Second conclusion : No usable crypto method is harder to decrypt than an NP-complete problem of similar size .
Other blatant assertion : There is no proof that NP-complete problems can not be solved efficiently .
( If you have a proof , publish it , and collect the fame and the Clay Institute megabuck .
) Final conclusion : No usable crypto method can be proved to be impossible to crack efficiently .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Blatant assertion:  All usable crypto methods rely on a key of reasonable size, and make it possible to encrypt and decrypt efficiently based on the key.
(The most debateable part of this is probably rejecting run-time pads, which are in fact unusable in most circumstances.
)

First conclusion:  For all usable crypto methods, cryptanalysis based on known plaintext is a problem in NP.
Cryptanalysis of unknown plaintext, which will be recognized because it's recognizable plaintext, is also in NP but the argument's longer.
Second conclusion:  No usable crypto method is harder to decrypt than an NP-complete problem of similar size.
Other blatant assertion:  There is no proof that NP-complete problems cannot be solved efficiently.
(If you have a proof, publish it, and collect the fame and the Clay Institute megabuck.
)

Final conclusion:  No usable crypto method can be proved to be impossible to crack efficiently.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30642884</id>
	<title>Re:Security starts at the ends</title>
	<author>sootman</author>
	<datestamp>1262629080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I read the subject of your post I thought by "ends" you meant "users". Which will <em>also</em> be a problem in 2020.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I read the subject of your post I thought by " ends " you meant " users " .
Which will also be a problem in 2020 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I read the subject of your post I thought by "ends" you meant "users".
Which will also be a problem in 2020.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30648710</id>
	<title>Re:How about some digital cash?</title>
	<author>Wesley Felter</author>
	<datestamp>1262610720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since others have addressed digital cash, I'll take the second part.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>why not invent identities which are themselves "just identities" in the same way?</p></div><p>Credentica did this (and more) but then Microsoft bought it and dropped the technology in a black hole.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since others have addressed digital cash , I 'll take the second part.why not invent identities which are themselves " just identities " in the same way ? Credentica did this ( and more ) but then Microsoft bought it and dropped the technology in a black hole .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since others have addressed digital cash, I'll take the second part.why not invent identities which are themselves "just identities" in the same way?Credentica did this (and more) but then Microsoft bought it and dropped the technology in a black hole.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30644754</id>
	<title>Hooray for Internet 3!</title>
	<author>SixDimensionalArray</author>
	<datestamp>1262637420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Whatever happened to <a href="http://www.internet2.edu/" title="internet2.edu">Internet2</a> [internet2.edu]?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Whatever happened to Internet2 [ internet2.edu ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whatever happened to Internet2 [internet2.edu]?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30646914</id>
	<title>Taking all bets</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262602560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It'll be reaaaaaally easy for the government and copyright holders to identify the users.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 'll be reaaaaaally easy for the government and copyright holders to identify the users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It'll be reaaaaaally easy for the government and copyright holders to identify the users.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30648184</id>
	<title>Internet Reform and Government Control</title>
	<author>emaname</author>
	<datestamp>1262608440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
From a recent PBS Newshour analysis AIR DATE: Dec. 22, 2009

<p>Subject: How Dangerous is the Cyber Crime Threat?</p><p>JEFFREY BROWN: Well, in fact, President Obama had talked about doing this as early as May. And then there were reports that it was taking a while to fill the position or to figure out who that person would report to.</p><p>JAMES LEWIS: There's a dispute in the White House and in the administration. And I think that slowed things down.</p><p>Some people think it's best to leave the Internet alone, let it be the Wild West, let it continue to have a limited role for government, and the Internet community will find its way out of this problem.</p><p>I don't happen to agree. I'm not sure where Howard comes out on this, but...</p><p>JEFFREY BROWN: Don't you agree why?</p><p>JAMES LEWIS: I don't, because we have tried letting the Internet community solve this. We have tried seeing if it was a self-organizing global commons. It hasn't worked. It's just like the Wild West. Time to move in the marshals.</p><p>http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/july-dec09/cyber\_12-22.html</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From a recent PBS Newshour analysis AIR DATE : Dec. 22 , 2009 Subject : How Dangerous is the Cyber Crime Threat ? JEFFREY BROWN : Well , in fact , President Obama had talked about doing this as early as May .
And then there were reports that it was taking a while to fill the position or to figure out who that person would report to.JAMES LEWIS : There 's a dispute in the White House and in the administration .
And I think that slowed things down.Some people think it 's best to leave the Internet alone , let it be the Wild West , let it continue to have a limited role for government , and the Internet community will find its way out of this problem.I do n't happen to agree .
I 'm not sure where Howard comes out on this , but...JEFFREY BROWN : Do n't you agree why ? JAMES LEWIS : I do n't , because we have tried letting the Internet community solve this .
We have tried seeing if it was a self-organizing global commons .
It has n't worked .
It 's just like the Wild West .
Time to move in the marshals.http : //www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/july-dec09/cyber \ _12-22.html</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
From a recent PBS Newshour analysis AIR DATE: Dec. 22, 2009

Subject: How Dangerous is the Cyber Crime Threat?JEFFREY BROWN: Well, in fact, President Obama had talked about doing this as early as May.
And then there were reports that it was taking a while to fill the position or to figure out who that person would report to.JAMES LEWIS: There's a dispute in the White House and in the administration.
And I think that slowed things down.Some people think it's best to leave the Internet alone, let it be the Wild West, let it continue to have a limited role for government, and the Internet community will find its way out of this problem.I don't happen to agree.
I'm not sure where Howard comes out on this, but...JEFFREY BROWN: Don't you agree why?JAMES LEWIS: I don't, because we have tried letting the Internet community solve this.
We have tried seeing if it was a self-organizing global commons.
It hasn't worked.
It's just like the Wild West.
Time to move in the marshals.http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/july-dec09/cyber\_12-22.html</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1432223_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30648710
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1432223_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30643196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1432223_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30646826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1432223_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30640960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641256
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30643340
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1432223_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30647924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1432223_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30640960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30642088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1432223_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30640960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30648056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1432223_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30640960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30644430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1432223_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30640960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30643346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1432223_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30642762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30644972
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1432223_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30640960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30646140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1432223_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30645842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1432223_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30644278
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1432223_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30644374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1432223_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30640908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1432223_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30640912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641322
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1432223_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30640960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30644056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1432223_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30646272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1432223_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30642000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30644364
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1432223_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30640960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30649246
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1432223_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30643124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1432223_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30640912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30646080
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1432223_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30640908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30646668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1432223_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30640960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641802
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1432223_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30640960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30652982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1432223_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30643780
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1432223_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30644328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1432223_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641754
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1432223_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30644354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1432223_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30640908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30644048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1432223_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30640908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30642360
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1432223_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30640960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1432223_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30643442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1432223_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30640908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30643608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1432223_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30640960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1432223_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30640912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30642680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30651026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1432223_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30643282
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1432223_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30640960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30643882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1432223_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30642762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30644240
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1432223_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1432223_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30645302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1432223_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30647030
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1432223_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30642000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30645278
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1432223_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30640960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1432223_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30640912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30645692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1432223_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30640960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641582
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1432223_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30640912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1432223_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30640912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30643988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1432223_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30642970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1432223_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30642884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1432223_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30642856
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1432223_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30640912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30642680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30644976
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1432223_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30640912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30643840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1432223_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30640960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30642658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30643962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1432223_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30640960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641666
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1432223_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30648230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1432223_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30640960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1432223_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30640960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1432223_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30640908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30642550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30645856
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1432223_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30640912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30647424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1432223_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30640960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30645680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1432223_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1432223_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30640912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30642914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_1432223.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641524
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30648230
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_1432223.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641246
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30644278
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_1432223.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30640894
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_1432223.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30640960
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641132
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30649246
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641256
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30643340
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641198
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641290
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30648056
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641582
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30646140
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30644430
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641328
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641184
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641666
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641554
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641802
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641514
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30642658
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30643962
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30645680
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30652982
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30643346
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30643882
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30644056
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641190
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641500
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641460
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30642088
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_1432223.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30640908
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641238
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641332
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30644048
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30642360
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30643608
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30642550
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30645856
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30646668
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_1432223.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30642000
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30644364
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30645278
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_1432223.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30645522
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_1432223.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30640912
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30643988
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641322
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30643840
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30646080
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30647424
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641170
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30642914
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30645692
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30642680
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30644976
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30651026
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_1432223.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641688
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30643124
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30645302
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30642970
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30642856
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30644374
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30645842
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30648710
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_1432223.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641240
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30647030
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_1432223.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641232
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30643442
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30642884
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641550
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30647924
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641754
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_1432223.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641408
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_1432223.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641344
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30642762
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30644972
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30644240
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641866
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30643196
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30644328
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30643282
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30644354
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_1432223.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30644844
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_1432223.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30642324
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_1432223.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641426
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30646272
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30643780
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_1432223.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641780
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30646826
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_1432223.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30643648
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_1432223.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30642330
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_1432223.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641446
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_1432223.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641274
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_1432223.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30640910
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_1432223.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1432223.30641464
</commentlist>
</conversation>
