<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_05_1538225</id>
	<title>Can Imaging Technologies Save Us From Terrorists?</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1262707680000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>itwbennett writes <i>"In the aftermath of the failed Christmas Day terrorist attack, <a href="http://www.itworld.com/security/91284/can-imaging-technologies-save-us-terrorists">full body scanning technologies</a> such as millimeter wave and backscatter are regaining popularity, writes blogger Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols in a recent post. But, he asks, do they really work? The TSA seems to think so. It has <a href="http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/12/31/336694/tsa-issues-whole-body-scanner-contract-to-l-3.html">just issued a contract</a> to purchase more millimeter wave scanners from L3 Communications. Michael Chertoff, the former homeland security secretary, told the New York Times that if these scanners had been in place, they would have caught the would-be bomber. Ben Wallace, the Conservative Member of Parliament in the United Kingdom, disagrees, saying that the technologies can't detect the kind of <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/are-planned-airport-scanners-just-a-scam-1856175.html">low-density explosive</a> that the would-be terrorist tried to use on December 25th."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>itwbennett writes " In the aftermath of the failed Christmas Day terrorist attack , full body scanning technologies such as millimeter wave and backscatter are regaining popularity , writes blogger Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols in a recent post .
But , he asks , do they really work ?
The TSA seems to think so .
It has just issued a contract to purchase more millimeter wave scanners from L3 Communications .
Michael Chertoff , the former homeland security secretary , told the New York Times that if these scanners had been in place , they would have caught the would-be bomber .
Ben Wallace , the Conservative Member of Parliament in the United Kingdom , disagrees , saying that the technologies ca n't detect the kind of low-density explosive that the would-be terrorist tried to use on December 25th .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>itwbennett writes "In the aftermath of the failed Christmas Day terrorist attack, full body scanning technologies such as millimeter wave and backscatter are regaining popularity, writes blogger Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols in a recent post.
But, he asks, do they really work?
The TSA seems to think so.
It has just issued a contract to purchase more millimeter wave scanners from L3 Communications.
Michael Chertoff, the former homeland security secretary, told the New York Times that if these scanners had been in place, they would have caught the would-be bomber.
Ben Wallace, the Conservative Member of Parliament in the United Kingdom, disagrees, saying that the technologies can't detect the kind of low-density explosive that the would-be terrorist tried to use on December 25th.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657358</id>
	<title>Re:Kiddie Porn Laws Defeat Scanners</title>
	<author>mpe</author>
	<datestamp>1262716380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>What we need to do now is to accept that airline travel is not safe, and can never be safe.</i> <br> <br>It's considerably safer than just about every other form of transport.<br> <br> <i>Everything in life that has the best rewards also has the greatest risks. Why can't we just factor risk into airline travel for the reward of being a timezone away in an hour? I would still fly. And those who wouldn't would push for a transcontinental high-speed train (Mag-Lev?) which would have a lower risk/reward, but just as cost effective.</i> <br> <br>The risks with trains are always going to be much higher than with aircraft. Because the track is a critical component of the system subject to all sorts of possible failures, including malicious ones.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What we need to do now is to accept that airline travel is not safe , and can never be safe .
It 's considerably safer than just about every other form of transport .
Everything in life that has the best rewards also has the greatest risks .
Why ca n't we just factor risk into airline travel for the reward of being a timezone away in an hour ?
I would still fly .
And those who would n't would push for a transcontinental high-speed train ( Mag-Lev ?
) which would have a lower risk/reward , but just as cost effective .
The risks with trains are always going to be much higher than with aircraft .
Because the track is a critical component of the system subject to all sorts of possible failures , including malicious ones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What we need to do now is to accept that airline travel is not safe, and can never be safe.
It's considerably safer than just about every other form of transport.
Everything in life that has the best rewards also has the greatest risks.
Why can't we just factor risk into airline travel for the reward of being a timezone away in an hour?
I would still fly.
And those who wouldn't would push for a transcontinental high-speed train (Mag-Lev?
) which would have a lower risk/reward, but just as cost effective.
The risks with trains are always going to be much higher than with aircraft.
Because the track is a critical component of the system subject to all sorts of possible failures, including malicious ones.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656826</id>
	<title>Re:No.</title>
	<author>corbettw</author>
	<datestamp>1262714760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think Janet Napolitano (inadvertently) got it right when she said immediately after the event that "the system worked". That is, if by system she meant "relying on the post-9/11 understanding of passengers to use force to subdue suspected terrorists". You can't stop everyone from getting through, and you don't even need to since the people on the plane know that their lives are on the line. They'll take care of the problem much more effectively than some government agency chock full of ne'er-do-wells and morons.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think Janet Napolitano ( inadvertently ) got it right when she said immediately after the event that " the system worked " .
That is , if by system she meant " relying on the post-9/11 understanding of passengers to use force to subdue suspected terrorists " .
You ca n't stop everyone from getting through , and you do n't even need to since the people on the plane know that their lives are on the line .
They 'll take care of the problem much more effectively than some government agency chock full of ne'er-do-wells and morons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think Janet Napolitano (inadvertently) got it right when she said immediately after the event that "the system worked".
That is, if by system she meant "relying on the post-9/11 understanding of passengers to use force to subdue suspected terrorists".
You can't stop everyone from getting through, and you don't even need to since the people on the plane know that their lives are on the line.
They'll take care of the problem much more effectively than some government agency chock full of ne'er-do-wells and morons.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656338</id>
	<title>Re:It was not a "failed" attack.</title>
	<author>Loadmaster</author>
	<datestamp>1262713080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A free society will always be vulnerable in some way. This didn't prove anything except that the American people will need to give up more freedom if they want to feel safer. I don't, but I guess I'm not the one the terrorists are trying to influence.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A free society will always be vulnerable in some way .
This did n't prove anything except that the American people will need to give up more freedom if they want to feel safer .
I do n't , but I guess I 'm not the one the terrorists are trying to influence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A free society will always be vulnerable in some way.
This didn't prove anything except that the American people will need to give up more freedom if they want to feel safer.
I don't, but I guess I'm not the one the terrorists are trying to influence.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655930</id>
	<title>No, nor should we expect it to</title>
	<author>hatemonger</author>
	<datestamp>1262711640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>We can't make the world 100\% safe; I don't see why people are so critical of the TSA. They do a decent job at making airports appear secure, which is all that should be expected of them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We ca n't make the world 100 \ % safe ; I do n't see why people are so critical of the TSA .
They do a decent job at making airports appear secure , which is all that should be expected of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We can't make the world 100\% safe; I don't see why people are so critical of the TSA.
They do a decent job at making airports appear secure, which is all that should be expected of them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30658998</id>
	<title>Re:... but not if</title>
	<author>srussia</author>
	<datestamp>1262722740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> In other words, incredibly ineffective for your taxpayer dollar!</p></div><p>Exactly. The plan is to cause fatal financial hemorrhage. Once the country goes broke, the locals will supply the terror.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In other words , incredibly ineffective for your taxpayer dollar ! Exactly .
The plan is to cause fatal financial hemorrhage .
Once the country goes broke , the locals will supply the terror .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> In other words, incredibly ineffective for your taxpayer dollar!Exactly.
The plan is to cause fatal financial hemorrhage.
Once the country goes broke, the locals will supply the terror.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30661040</id>
	<title>Re:... but not if</title>
	<author>jasno</author>
	<datestamp>1262687700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah but think of it this way - if we overreact when they attack a plane, they'll think we REALLY care about planes, and so they'll keep trying to attack them.</p><p>I don't fly much, so this sounds like a pretty good strategy to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah but think of it this way - if we overreact when they attack a plane , they 'll think we REALLY care about planes , and so they 'll keep trying to attack them.I do n't fly much , so this sounds like a pretty good strategy to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah but think of it this way - if we overreact when they attack a plane, they'll think we REALLY care about planes, and so they'll keep trying to attack them.I don't fly much, so this sounds like a pretty good strategy to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656572</id>
	<title>Re:It was not a "failed" attack.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262713980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are more terrorists now than before the war in Iraq. There is more torture in Iraq now than before the war in Iraq. There were no WMD's in Iraq so the war turned out to be for oil after all. I didn't believe it at first, but you need to look at things honestly if you want to find a real solution.</p><p>Our government has done a lot of very, very bad things over the last few hundred years, and the chickens are coming home to roost.</p><p>There is no winning a war on terror. The best we can hope for is to stay alert, and someday learn from our mistakes.</p><p>Time to stop training death squads and supporting any old asshole just because he has oil, or isn't a dirty commie, and start killing the world with kindness.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are more terrorists now than before the war in Iraq .
There is more torture in Iraq now than before the war in Iraq .
There were no WMD 's in Iraq so the war turned out to be for oil after all .
I did n't believe it at first , but you need to look at things honestly if you want to find a real solution.Our government has done a lot of very , very bad things over the last few hundred years , and the chickens are coming home to roost.There is no winning a war on terror .
The best we can hope for is to stay alert , and someday learn from our mistakes.Time to stop training death squads and supporting any old asshole just because he has oil , or is n't a dirty commie , and start killing the world with kindness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are more terrorists now than before the war in Iraq.
There is more torture in Iraq now than before the war in Iraq.
There were no WMD's in Iraq so the war turned out to be for oil after all.
I didn't believe it at first, but you need to look at things honestly if you want to find a real solution.Our government has done a lot of very, very bad things over the last few hundred years, and the chickens are coming home to roost.There is no winning a war on terror.
The best we can hope for is to stay alert, and someday learn from our mistakes.Time to stop training death squads and supporting any old asshole just because he has oil, or isn't a dirty commie, and start killing the world with kindness.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30658164</id>
	<title>better than pat-downs?</title>
	<author>buback</author>
	<datestamp>1262719200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1 Buy expensive screening machine<br>2 ???<br>3 Catch Terrorists!</p><p>If you're going to deal with all the privacy implications of this tech, is this expensive machine any better than a pat-down?<br>you would have to train and pay a human either way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 Buy expensive screening machine2 ? ?
? 3 Catch Terrorists ! If you 're going to deal with all the privacy implications of this tech , is this expensive machine any better than a pat-down ? you would have to train and pay a human either way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1 Buy expensive screening machine2 ??
?3 Catch Terrorists!If you're going to deal with all the privacy implications of this tech, is this expensive machine any better than a pat-down?you would have to train and pay a human either way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656054</id>
	<title>sure, mikey</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262712060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Michael Chertoff, the former homeland security secretary, told the New York Times, that if these scanners had been in place, they would have caught the would-be bomber.</i> <br>
<br>
Except the 'bomber' boarded a US-bound plane at an airport that the TSA doesn't have any jurisdiction over whatsoever. So even if the TSA and DHS had rolled these out at all the US airports years ago, they still wouldn't have done anything to stop the guy. Now, if Mikey is talking about airports and countries that he's never had any jurisdiction or say over, then that might be another story. But at that point he's just talking out of his ass (not like he wasn't before).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Michael Chertoff , the former homeland security secretary , told the New York Times , that if these scanners had been in place , they would have caught the would-be bomber .
Except the 'bomber ' boarded a US-bound plane at an airport that the TSA does n't have any jurisdiction over whatsoever .
So even if the TSA and DHS had rolled these out at all the US airports years ago , they still would n't have done anything to stop the guy .
Now , if Mikey is talking about airports and countries that he 's never had any jurisdiction or say over , then that might be another story .
But at that point he 's just talking out of his ass ( not like he was n't before ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Michael Chertoff, the former homeland security secretary, told the New York Times, that if these scanners had been in place, they would have caught the would-be bomber.
Except the 'bomber' boarded a US-bound plane at an airport that the TSA doesn't have any jurisdiction over whatsoever.
So even if the TSA and DHS had rolled these out at all the US airports years ago, they still wouldn't have done anything to stop the guy.
Now, if Mikey is talking about airports and countries that he's never had any jurisdiction or say over, then that might be another story.
But at that point he's just talking out of his ass (not like he wasn't before).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655954</id>
	<title>no it can't save us</title>
	<author>marcuz</author>
	<datestamp>1262711700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The government likes this war on terrorism so they will keep it going so they can do in the name of anti-terrorism whatever they like to do. Its like the neverending war from orwell's 1984.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The government likes this war on terrorism so they will keep it going so they can do in the name of anti-terrorism whatever they like to do .
Its like the neverending war from orwell 's 1984 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The government likes this war on terrorism so they will keep it going so they can do in the name of anti-terrorism whatever they like to do.
Its like the neverending war from orwell's 1984.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655940</id>
	<title>Terrorist will just use children</title>
	<author>Shivetya</author>
	<datestamp>1262711640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>because child porn laws are already being considered with these new machines, in the UK I believe no one under 18 can be scanned with one.</p><p>So, lets just hand them our playbook again.  Instead of looking for terrorist we are looking to naughty bits.</p><p>We are nearly suicidal in our attempts to not offend anyone.  What will it take to realize that feelings heal over time but death does not?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>because child porn laws are already being considered with these new machines , in the UK I believe no one under 18 can be scanned with one.So , lets just hand them our playbook again .
Instead of looking for terrorist we are looking to naughty bits.We are nearly suicidal in our attempts to not offend anyone .
What will it take to realize that feelings heal over time but death does not ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>because child porn laws are already being considered with these new machines, in the UK I believe no one under 18 can be scanned with one.So, lets just hand them our playbook again.
Instead of looking for terrorist we are looking to naughty bits.We are nearly suicidal in our attempts to not offend anyone.
What will it take to realize that feelings heal over time but death does not?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656040</id>
	<title>Kiddie Porn Laws Defeat Scanners</title>
	<author>scorp1us</author>
	<datestamp>1262712000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There was an <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jan/04/new-scanners-child-porn-laws" title="guardian.co.uk">article</a> [guardian.co.uk] that mentioned that use of these scanners violated GB laws on child porn. So now you have kids (up to 17) - very impressionable and angsty kids - that will become the target of recruitment by terrorist organizations. Epic FAIL.</p><p>What we need to do now is to accept that airline travel is not safe, and can never be safe. Everything in life that has the best rewards also has the greatest risks. Why can't we just factor risk into airline travel for the reward of being a timezone away in an hour? I would still fly. And those who wouldn't would push for a transcontinental high-speed train (Mag-Lev?) which would have a lower risk/reward, but just as cost effective.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There was an article [ guardian.co.uk ] that mentioned that use of these scanners violated GB laws on child porn .
So now you have kids ( up to 17 ) - very impressionable and angsty kids - that will become the target of recruitment by terrorist organizations .
Epic FAIL.What we need to do now is to accept that airline travel is not safe , and can never be safe .
Everything in life that has the best rewards also has the greatest risks .
Why ca n't we just factor risk into airline travel for the reward of being a timezone away in an hour ?
I would still fly .
And those who would n't would push for a transcontinental high-speed train ( Mag-Lev ?
) which would have a lower risk/reward , but just as cost effective .
   </tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was an article [guardian.co.uk] that mentioned that use of these scanners violated GB laws on child porn.
So now you have kids (up to 17) - very impressionable and angsty kids - that will become the target of recruitment by terrorist organizations.
Epic FAIL.What we need to do now is to accept that airline travel is not safe, and can never be safe.
Everything in life that has the best rewards also has the greatest risks.
Why can't we just factor risk into airline travel for the reward of being a timezone away in an hour?
I would still fly.
And those who wouldn't would push for a transcontinental high-speed train (Mag-Lev?
) which would have a lower risk/reward, but just as cost effective.
   </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657592</id>
	<title>Re:Kiddie Porn Laws Defeat Scanners</title>
	<author>fahrbot-bot</author>
	<datestamp>1262717220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>What we need to do now is to accept that airline travel is not safe, and can never be safe.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
For the Nth time, airport security measures are not to protect "us", they're to protect the multi-million dollar investments the airlines have in their airplanes and prevent the collateral damage that may occur if one crashes.  Protecting people is a secondary concern.  This also explains why there is less (or no) security checks for small private planes.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What we need to do now is to accept that airline travel is not safe , and can never be safe .
For the Nth time , airport security measures are not to protect " us " , they 're to protect the multi-million dollar investments the airlines have in their airplanes and prevent the collateral damage that may occur if one crashes .
Protecting people is a secondary concern .
This also explains why there is less ( or no ) security checks for small private planes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What we need to do now is to accept that airline travel is not safe, and can never be safe.
For the Nth time, airport security measures are not to protect "us", they're to protect the multi-million dollar investments the airlines have in their airplanes and prevent the collateral damage that may occur if one crashes.
Protecting people is a secondary concern.
This also explains why there is less (or no) security checks for small private planes.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656142</id>
	<title>Re:... but not if</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262712360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Say "Hello" to body cavity probes at the gate . . .</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Say " Hello " to body cavity probes at the gate .
. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Say "Hello" to body cavity probes at the gate .
. .</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656948</id>
	<title>Remain Rational</title>
	<author>Akita24</author>
	<datestamp>1262715060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Behaving like a rational human being instead of freaking out and pissing down your leg every time some incompetent, irrational wing-nut sets his pants on fire would be a better start. Spending millions more dollars on security theater isn't going to do a damn thing to make anybody any safer. If you were one of the sheep in the herd that was terrified that this happened, then by definition, the terrorist(s) already won.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Behaving like a rational human being instead of freaking out and pissing down your leg every time some incompetent , irrational wing-nut sets his pants on fire would be a better start .
Spending millions more dollars on security theater is n't going to do a damn thing to make anybody any safer .
If you were one of the sheep in the herd that was terrified that this happened , then by definition , the terrorist ( s ) already won .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Behaving like a rational human being instead of freaking out and pissing down your leg every time some incompetent, irrational wing-nut sets his pants on fire would be a better start.
Spending millions more dollars on security theater isn't going to do a damn thing to make anybody any safer.
If you were one of the sheep in the herd that was terrified that this happened, then by definition, the terrorist(s) already won.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655988</id>
	<title>Yeah right.</title>
	<author>Sean</author>
	<datestamp>1262711820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If only you give up more freedom and more privacy you will be safe!</p><p><a href="http://www.legitgov.org/northwest\_bomb\_plot\_oddities.html" title="legitgov.org" rel="nofollow">Northwest Bomb Plot 'Oddities'</a> [legitgov.org]</p><p>Were any provisions of the Patriot Act set to expire soon or something?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If only you give up more freedom and more privacy you will be safe ! Northwest Bomb Plot 'Oddities ' [ legitgov.org ] Were any provisions of the Patriot Act set to expire soon or something ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If only you give up more freedom and more privacy you will be safe!Northwest Bomb Plot 'Oddities' [legitgov.org]Were any provisions of the Patriot Act set to expire soon or something?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657270</id>
	<title>Re:They are another layer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262716080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The question is then whether investing money in these technologies is the most effective way of reducing physical attacks, given how utterly rare the events are in proportion to the number of people coming through.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The question is then whether investing money in these technologies is the most effective way of reducing physical attacks , given how utterly rare the events are in proportion to the number of people coming through .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The question is then whether investing money in these technologies is the most effective way of reducing physical attacks, given how utterly rare the events are in proportion to the number of people coming through.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657992</id>
	<title>Re:Just wait...</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1262718420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, we'll all just bike to different countries instead... I'm sure the airlines might care but they are used to failing anyways. And the government is more than happy for no one to leave the country with their money.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , we 'll all just bike to different countries instead... I 'm sure the airlines might care but they are used to failing anyways .
And the government is more than happy for no one to leave the country with their money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, we'll all just bike to different countries instead... I'm sure the airlines might care but they are used to failing anyways.
And the government is more than happy for no one to leave the country with their money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657858</id>
	<title>Re:They are another layer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262717940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A different AC, asking a question to the parent poster:</p><p>But what will this \_really\_ do for airport security and the whole immigration/customs process? Is this really about security or is it just another way for them to see who is trying to bring in too much money or other things that they are trying to hide on their person?</p><p>I can't see how this would detect "pirate" DVDs as opposed to legal/legit ones, but pardon my skepticism for thinking that this is more about customs enforcement and corporate interests than true security.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A different AC , asking a question to the parent poster : But what will this \ _really \ _ do for airport security and the whole immigration/customs process ?
Is this really about security or is it just another way for them to see who is trying to bring in too much money or other things that they are trying to hide on their person ? I ca n't see how this would detect " pirate " DVDs as opposed to legal/legit ones , but pardon my skepticism for thinking that this is more about customs enforcement and corporate interests than true security .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A different AC, asking a question to the parent poster:But what will this \_really\_ do for airport security and the whole immigration/customs process?
Is this really about security or is it just another way for them to see who is trying to bring in too much money or other things that they are trying to hide on their person?I can't see how this would detect "pirate" DVDs as opposed to legal/legit ones, but pardon my skepticism for thinking that this is more about customs enforcement and corporate interests than true security.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30658364</id>
	<title>Re:Just wait...</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1262720040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've read a newspaper article on just this - the controversy over installing better 3D imaging scanners to "catch more terrorists" (though that one was dealing specifically with Canada). There was an interesting take on the problem there offered by an Israeli airport security expert.</p><p>What he said was that, basically, extreme tech measures are still not good enough to battle the really creative terrorists, and, broadly speaking, only make things worse because they slow down processing, resulting in large numbers of people accumulating <em>before</em> security checkpoints. Which means that a would-be terrorist suicide bomber doesn't need to get to the plane anymore - if he detonates an explosive in the crowd, it's likely to have a very damaging effect already; and, since he didn't have to go through <em>any</em> screening yet, he can easily get a much more powerful explosive device that what he could otherwise smuggle on-board. In other words, instead of a theoretical minor increase in security and safety, we get a very real decrease!</p><p>He went on to explain that in Israel, they instead require all passengers to go through a brief interview (which, he claims, is faster with trained personnel than a proper - that is, actually able to thwart most attempts to conceal explosives - device scan), check the person's background file (collected beforehand), and look for certain cues (speech irregularities, facial expressions, and other similar signs) of instability when relevant topics are touched. He further claims that this has an extremely high detection rate for real threats, and a very marginal false positive rate, so a full scan using advanced imaging machinery has to be done on very few people in practice. In particular, from the description of the recent terrorist's behavior in the airport during departure, he is confident that the terrorist wouldn't have gotten past security in any Israeli airport.</p><p>Considering how Israelis generally have much more of a headache with terrorism, and their extremely good success rate at preventing it specifically on their airline and in their airports (there was precisely one successful hijacking of El Al airplane, for example), I would definitely trust them on this matter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've read a newspaper article on just this - the controversy over installing better 3D imaging scanners to " catch more terrorists " ( though that one was dealing specifically with Canada ) .
There was an interesting take on the problem there offered by an Israeli airport security expert.What he said was that , basically , extreme tech measures are still not good enough to battle the really creative terrorists , and , broadly speaking , only make things worse because they slow down processing , resulting in large numbers of people accumulating before security checkpoints .
Which means that a would-be terrorist suicide bomber does n't need to get to the plane anymore - if he detonates an explosive in the crowd , it 's likely to have a very damaging effect already ; and , since he did n't have to go through any screening yet , he can easily get a much more powerful explosive device that what he could otherwise smuggle on-board .
In other words , instead of a theoretical minor increase in security and safety , we get a very real decrease ! He went on to explain that in Israel , they instead require all passengers to go through a brief interview ( which , he claims , is faster with trained personnel than a proper - that is , actually able to thwart most attempts to conceal explosives - device scan ) , check the person 's background file ( collected beforehand ) , and look for certain cues ( speech irregularities , facial expressions , and other similar signs ) of instability when relevant topics are touched .
He further claims that this has an extremely high detection rate for real threats , and a very marginal false positive rate , so a full scan using advanced imaging machinery has to be done on very few people in practice .
In particular , from the description of the recent terrorist 's behavior in the airport during departure , he is confident that the terrorist would n't have gotten past security in any Israeli airport.Considering how Israelis generally have much more of a headache with terrorism , and their extremely good success rate at preventing it specifically on their airline and in their airports ( there was precisely one successful hijacking of El Al airplane , for example ) , I would definitely trust them on this matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've read a newspaper article on just this - the controversy over installing better 3D imaging scanners to "catch more terrorists" (though that one was dealing specifically with Canada).
There was an interesting take on the problem there offered by an Israeli airport security expert.What he said was that, basically, extreme tech measures are still not good enough to battle the really creative terrorists, and, broadly speaking, only make things worse because they slow down processing, resulting in large numbers of people accumulating before security checkpoints.
Which means that a would-be terrorist suicide bomber doesn't need to get to the plane anymore - if he detonates an explosive in the crowd, it's likely to have a very damaging effect already; and, since he didn't have to go through any screening yet, he can easily get a much more powerful explosive device that what he could otherwise smuggle on-board.
In other words, instead of a theoretical minor increase in security and safety, we get a very real decrease!He went on to explain that in Israel, they instead require all passengers to go through a brief interview (which, he claims, is faster with trained personnel than a proper - that is, actually able to thwart most attempts to conceal explosives - device scan), check the person's background file (collected beforehand), and look for certain cues (speech irregularities, facial expressions, and other similar signs) of instability when relevant topics are touched.
He further claims that this has an extremely high detection rate for real threats, and a very marginal false positive rate, so a full scan using advanced imaging machinery has to be done on very few people in practice.
In particular, from the description of the recent terrorist's behavior in the airport during departure, he is confident that the terrorist wouldn't have gotten past security in any Israeli airport.Considering how Israelis generally have much more of a headache with terrorism, and their extremely good success rate at preventing it specifically on their airline and in their airports (there was precisely one successful hijacking of El Al airplane, for example), I would definitely trust them on this matter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656456</id>
	<title>rat trap /idiot proof</title>
	<author>raymansean</author>
	<datestamp>1262713500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>building better rat trips leads to smarter rats/ building something that is idiot proof leads to better idiots.... No matter what we do in an attempt to keep the idiots or rats from terrorizing us, they will always find a work around. In the mean time life for 99.998\% gets exponentially more complicated for the rest of us.</htmltext>
<tokenext>building better rat trips leads to smarter rats/ building something that is idiot proof leads to better idiots.... No matter what we do in an attempt to keep the idiots or rats from terrorizing us , they will always find a work around .
In the mean time life for 99.998 \ % gets exponentially more complicated for the rest of us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>building better rat trips leads to smarter rats/ building something that is idiot proof leads to better idiots.... No matter what we do in an attempt to keep the idiots or rats from terrorizing us, they will always find a work around.
In the mean time life for 99.998\% gets exponentially more complicated for the rest of us.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656548</id>
	<title>Re:It was not a "failed" attack.</title>
	<author>timeOday</author>
	<datestamp>1262713860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>That there were no dead bodies or a mile-wide debris trail in downtown Detroit is trivial -- because there COULD have been.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Could have been, except existing airport security measures were adequate to prevent this terrorist from bringing a better bomb aboard.
</p><p>
Some have pointed out that the FBI demonstrated a fairly potent bomb with the same amount of explosive material, but that doesn't count if it used a fuse or shell that wouldn't have passed airport security.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That there were no dead bodies or a mile-wide debris trail in downtown Detroit is trivial -- because there COULD have been .
Could have been , except existing airport security measures were adequate to prevent this terrorist from bringing a better bomb aboard .
Some have pointed out that the FBI demonstrated a fairly potent bomb with the same amount of explosive material , but that does n't count if it used a fuse or shell that would n't have passed airport security .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That there were no dead bodies or a mile-wide debris trail in downtown Detroit is trivial -- because there COULD have been.
Could have been, except existing airport security measures were adequate to prevent this terrorist from bringing a better bomb aboard.
Some have pointed out that the FBI demonstrated a fairly potent bomb with the same amount of explosive material, but that doesn't count if it used a fuse or shell that wouldn't have passed airport security.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657686</id>
	<title>We don't need "saving"</title>
	<author>Somebody Is Using My</author>
	<datestamp>1262717460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think even the *title* of this article is quite indicative of the whole problem, and that problem doesn't have anything to do with the actual acts of terrorism.  The article implies that we need "saving" from the terrorists, as if terrorism is such an overwhelming threat that we are all constantly at risk. We aren't; the percentage of people killed by these criminals is insignificant when compared to, well, almost any other cause of death. We don't need to be "saved"; phrases like "protected from" or "help identify" would be more accurate but they don't use those because they doesn't push the same emotional buttons as a word as laden as "save" and thus they can  bypass rational thought about the issue. Politicos and journalists keep using this sort of hot-button terminology; watch out for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think even the * title * of this article is quite indicative of the whole problem , and that problem does n't have anything to do with the actual acts of terrorism .
The article implies that we need " saving " from the terrorists , as if terrorism is such an overwhelming threat that we are all constantly at risk .
We are n't ; the percentage of people killed by these criminals is insignificant when compared to , well , almost any other cause of death .
We do n't need to be " saved " ; phrases like " protected from " or " help identify " would be more accurate but they do n't use those because they does n't push the same emotional buttons as a word as laden as " save " and thus they can bypass rational thought about the issue .
Politicos and journalists keep using this sort of hot-button terminology ; watch out for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think even the *title* of this article is quite indicative of the whole problem, and that problem doesn't have anything to do with the actual acts of terrorism.
The article implies that we need "saving" from the terrorists, as if terrorism is such an overwhelming threat that we are all constantly at risk.
We aren't; the percentage of people killed by these criminals is insignificant when compared to, well, almost any other cause of death.
We don't need to be "saved"; phrases like "protected from" or "help identify" would be more accurate but they don't use those because they doesn't push the same emotional buttons as a word as laden as "save" and thus they can  bypass rational thought about the issue.
Politicos and journalists keep using this sort of hot-button terminology; watch out for it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656932</id>
	<title>Re:It was not a "failed" attack.</title>
	<author>mpe</author>
	<datestamp>1262715000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>That there were no dead bodies or a mile-wide debris trail in downtown Detroit is trivial -- because there COULD have been.</i> <br> <br>If this bomber had been sucessful in blowing up the plane it would most likely be the TSB/BST looking at the remains.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That there were no dead bodies or a mile-wide debris trail in downtown Detroit is trivial -- because there COULD have been .
If this bomber had been sucessful in blowing up the plane it would most likely be the TSB/BST looking at the remains .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That there were no dead bodies or a mile-wide debris trail in downtown Detroit is trivial -- because there COULD have been.
If this bomber had been sucessful in blowing up the plane it would most likely be the TSB/BST looking at the remains.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30658878</id>
	<title>Notice the shift in goals?</title>
	<author>DrVomact</author>
	<datestamp>1262722080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I notice that the terrorists have now shifted their goal back to simply blowing up airplanes, instead of taking them over and using them as weapons. That's because this was a trick that could only work once: passengers wouldn't tolerate it today&mdash;they know they're going to die anyway, so they'll take their chances and rush the hijackers. But terrorists have been merely blowing up planes for decades (it started back in the 70s, IIRC), and public hysteria was not nearly so profound. The worst imposition I remember is being asked whether I had packed my own baggage (a dumb reflex to some terrorist who slipped a bomb into his girflriend's luggage). An exploding plane is bad, but not nearly as bad as killing thousands by running it into a skyscraper.</p><p>
So where's the relief and optimism here? Surely this is progress? Shouldn't we be de-escalating the hysteria rather than screwing it up higher and higher? </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I notice that the terrorists have now shifted their goal back to simply blowing up airplanes , instead of taking them over and using them as weapons .
That 's because this was a trick that could only work once : passengers would n't tolerate it today    they know they 're going to die anyway , so they 'll take their chances and rush the hijackers .
But terrorists have been merely blowing up planes for decades ( it started back in the 70s , IIRC ) , and public hysteria was not nearly so profound .
The worst imposition I remember is being asked whether I had packed my own baggage ( a dumb reflex to some terrorist who slipped a bomb into his girflriend 's luggage ) .
An exploding plane is bad , but not nearly as bad as killing thousands by running it into a skyscraper .
So where 's the relief and optimism here ?
Surely this is progress ?
Should n't we be de-escalating the hysteria rather than screwing it up higher and higher ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I notice that the terrorists have now shifted their goal back to simply blowing up airplanes, instead of taking them over and using them as weapons.
That's because this was a trick that could only work once: passengers wouldn't tolerate it today—they know they're going to die anyway, so they'll take their chances and rush the hijackers.
But terrorists have been merely blowing up planes for decades (it started back in the 70s, IIRC), and public hysteria was not nearly so profound.
The worst imposition I remember is being asked whether I had packed my own baggage (a dumb reflex to some terrorist who slipped a bomb into his girflriend's luggage).
An exploding plane is bad, but not nearly as bad as killing thousands by running it into a skyscraper.
So where's the relief and optimism here?
Surely this is progress?
Shouldn't we be de-escalating the hysteria rather than screwing it up higher and higher? </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30660800</id>
	<title>Don't fear the panty-bomb</title>
	<author>prometx42</author>
	<datestamp>1262686740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Embrace the panty-bomb.</p><p>The seasons don't fear The Reaper<br>neither do the wind, the sun or the rain<br>we can be like they are<br>come on baby<br>don't fear The Reaper<br>baby take my (kevlar-mitted) hand...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Embrace the panty-bomb.The seasons do n't fear The Reaperneither do the wind , the sun or the rainwe can be like they arecome on babydo n't fear The Reaperbaby take my ( kevlar-mitted ) hand.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Embrace the panty-bomb.The seasons don't fear The Reaperneither do the wind, the sun or the rainwe can be like they arecome on babydon't fear The Reaperbaby take my (kevlar-mitted) hand...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655938</id>
	<title>On a related note. . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262711640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jan/04/new-scanners-child-porn-laws" title="guardian.co.uk" rel="nofollow">New scanners break child porn laws</a> [guardian.co.uk] </p><blockquote><div><p>The rapid introduction of full body scanners at British airports threatens to breach child protection laws which ban the creation of indecent images of children, the Guardian has learned.</p><p>Privacy campaigners claim the images created by the machines are so graphic they amount to "virtual strip-searching" and have called for safeguards to protect the privacy of passengers involved.</p><p>Ministers now face having to exempt under 18s from the scans or face the delays of introducing new legislation to ensure airport security staff do not commit offences under child pornography laws.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>New scanners break child porn laws [ guardian.co.uk ] The rapid introduction of full body scanners at British airports threatens to breach child protection laws which ban the creation of indecent images of children , the Guardian has learned.Privacy campaigners claim the images created by the machines are so graphic they amount to " virtual strip-searching " and have called for safeguards to protect the privacy of passengers involved.Ministers now face having to exempt under 18s from the scans or face the delays of introducing new legislation to ensure airport security staff do not commit offences under child pornography laws .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>New scanners break child porn laws [guardian.co.uk] The rapid introduction of full body scanners at British airports threatens to breach child protection laws which ban the creation of indecent images of children, the Guardian has learned.Privacy campaigners claim the images created by the machines are so graphic they amount to "virtual strip-searching" and have called for safeguards to protect the privacy of passengers involved.Ministers now face having to exempt under 18s from the scans or face the delays of introducing new legislation to ensure airport security staff do not commit offences under child pornography laws.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30660034</id>
	<title>Re:It was not a "failed" attack.</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1262684040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"because there COULD have been."</p><p>No, because people <i>believe</i> there could have been.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" because there COULD have been .
" No , because people believe there could have been .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"because there COULD have been.
"No, because people believe there could have been.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30661552</id>
	<title>Re:Just wait...</title>
	<author>KingTank</author>
	<datestamp>1262689680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If that flight were longer than 4-hours you would need immediate medical attention.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If that flight were longer than 4-hours you would need immediate medical attention .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If that flight were longer than 4-hours you would need immediate medical attention.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656704</id>
	<title>Re:Terrorist will just use children</title>
	<author>copponex</author>
	<datestamp>1262714400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What will it take to realize that feelings heal over time but death does not?</p></div><p>Yes. What would an Iraqi or a Palestinian or an Iranian or an Afghani or one of their fellow muslims <b>possibly</b> understand about that statement? Oh wait... they probably understand it thousands of times better than you could ever hope to.</p><p>Maybe if the West stopped invading Arab countries and killing their citizens for their natural resources, that would be more effective than covering up each mess with more newspaper. It's starting to reek in here.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What will it take to realize that feelings heal over time but death does not ? Yes .
What would an Iraqi or a Palestinian or an Iranian or an Afghani or one of their fellow muslims possibly understand about that statement ?
Oh wait... they probably understand it thousands of times better than you could ever hope to.Maybe if the West stopped invading Arab countries and killing their citizens for their natural resources , that would be more effective than covering up each mess with more newspaper .
It 's starting to reek in here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What will it take to realize that feelings heal over time but death does not?Yes.
What would an Iraqi or a Palestinian or an Iranian or an Afghani or one of their fellow muslims possibly understand about that statement?
Oh wait... they probably understand it thousands of times better than you could ever hope to.Maybe if the West stopped invading Arab countries and killing their citizens for their natural resources, that would be more effective than covering up each mess with more newspaper.
It's starting to reek in here.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655940</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657628</id>
	<title>Re:Had DHS not been so secretive...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262717340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I suspect the sad truth is that warnings that someone is a terrorist (or more specifically, has "terrorist sympathies" - no specific attack warning was given) from whatever source are as common as drops of rain. If you wanted to expand the No-Fly List with citizens of African/Middle Eastern countries, you could haul in names by the bucket and never run out. There's simply not the resources to "look into the matter".</p><p>If I sit at an internet cafe in London and someone listens to a turban-clad cleric talking about Israel and the US, should I notify the police? If so I would run out of minutes, because in certain parts of town there's PalTalk on every screen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suspect the sad truth is that warnings that someone is a terrorist ( or more specifically , has " terrorist sympathies " - no specific attack warning was given ) from whatever source are as common as drops of rain .
If you wanted to expand the No-Fly List with citizens of African/Middle Eastern countries , you could haul in names by the bucket and never run out .
There 's simply not the resources to " look into the matter " .If I sit at an internet cafe in London and someone listens to a turban-clad cleric talking about Israel and the US , should I notify the police ?
If so I would run out of minutes , because in certain parts of town there 's PalTalk on every screen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suspect the sad truth is that warnings that someone is a terrorist (or more specifically, has "terrorist sympathies" - no specific attack warning was given) from whatever source are as common as drops of rain.
If you wanted to expand the No-Fly List with citizens of African/Middle Eastern countries, you could haul in names by the bucket and never run out.
There's simply not the resources to "look into the matter".If I sit at an internet cafe in London and someone listens to a turban-clad cleric talking about Israel and the US, should I notify the police?
If so I would run out of minutes, because in certain parts of town there's PalTalk on every screen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30658888</id>
	<title>Re:Terrorist will just use children</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262722140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Welcome to Israel.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Welcome to Israel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Welcome to Israel.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655940</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657060</id>
	<title>"Excuse me... why does God need a Starship?" JTK</title>
	<author>starglider29a</author>
	<datestamp>1262715420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's another good question:</p><p>"How many airplane bombings have the TSA prevented?"</p><p>Ok, I know we can't know how many attempts were NEVER made. But, how many ATTEMPTS have been thwarted by TSA screening? Any?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's another good question : " How many airplane bombings have the TSA prevented ?
" Ok , I know we ca n't know how many attempts were NEVER made .
But , how many ATTEMPTS have been thwarted by TSA screening ?
Any ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's another good question:"How many airplane bombings have the TSA prevented?
"Ok, I know we can't know how many attempts were NEVER made.
But, how many ATTEMPTS have been thwarted by TSA screening?
Any?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30660242</id>
	<title>Re:Terrorist will just use children</title>
	<author>kalirion</author>
	<datestamp>1262684700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>because child porn laws are already being considered with these new machines, in the UK I believe no one under 18 can be scanned with one.</i></p><p>Which pretty much explains to all the common folk "hey, walking through this scanner is like starring in a porn film."  And people are still for this?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>because child porn laws are already being considered with these new machines , in the UK I believe no one under 18 can be scanned with one.Which pretty much explains to all the common folk " hey , walking through this scanner is like starring in a porn film .
" And people are still for this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>because child porn laws are already being considered with these new machines, in the UK I believe no one under 18 can be scanned with one.Which pretty much explains to all the common folk "hey, walking through this scanner is like starring in a porn film.
"  And people are still for this?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655940</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30658474</id>
	<title>Hey government! I've got the Infallible solution:</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1262720520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Get out of other nations&rsquo; business!<br>Stop fighting fake wars!<br>Meet them and listen. Listen good and listen long.<br>Start at <em>their</em> mindset and work your way towards yours, without <em>ever</em> saying something that conflicts with their reality. (The trick is to give them hints that makes them feel that that idea is fitting inside their reality, and that they <em>gain something</em> [that&rsquo;s second the key] with moving their mind in that direction. Then let them work out the re-wirings necessary for this to work.)<br>If you are successful, you got a friend and an ally, who trusts and respects you (because in the end, you gave him something valuable), while living with his and your mindset in harmony.</p><p>Yes, it&rsquo;s hard work. Yes, you have to be socially competent. Yes it takes time. But doing it right always is harder than botching up some sloppy job that falls apart five minutes later.</p><p>I tell you, if you start to get it right, it feels incredibly powerful. ^^</p><p>P.S.: No, I did not use that tactic for this comment, since I&rsquo;m not talking to people (you) whose mindset needs changing.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Get out of other nations    business ! Stop fighting fake wars ! Meet them and listen .
Listen good and listen long.Start at their mindset and work your way towards yours , without ever saying something that conflicts with their reality .
( The trick is to give them hints that makes them feel that that idea is fitting inside their reality , and that they gain something [ that    s second the key ] with moving their mind in that direction .
Then let them work out the re-wirings necessary for this to work .
) If you are successful , you got a friend and an ally , who trusts and respects you ( because in the end , you gave him something valuable ) , while living with his and your mindset in harmony.Yes , it    s hard work .
Yes , you have to be socially competent .
Yes it takes time .
But doing it right always is harder than botching up some sloppy job that falls apart five minutes later.I tell you , if you start to get it right , it feels incredibly powerful .
^ ^ P.S. : No , I did not use that tactic for this comment , since I    m not talking to people ( you ) whose mindset needs changing .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Get out of other nations’ business!Stop fighting fake wars!Meet them and listen.
Listen good and listen long.Start at their mindset and work your way towards yours, without ever saying something that conflicts with their reality.
(The trick is to give them hints that makes them feel that that idea is fitting inside their reality, and that they gain something [that’s second the key] with moving their mind in that direction.
Then let them work out the re-wirings necessary for this to work.
)If you are successful, you got a friend and an ally, who trusts and respects you (because in the end, you gave him something valuable), while living with his and your mindset in harmony.Yes, it’s hard work.
Yes, you have to be socially competent.
Yes it takes time.
But doing it right always is harder than botching up some sloppy job that falls apart five minutes later.I tell you, if you start to get it right, it feels incredibly powerful.
^^P.S.: No, I did not use that tactic for this comment, since I’m not talking to people (you) whose mindset needs changing.
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656622</id>
	<title>Re:... but not if</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262714100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or blew them up in the terminal before departure. What about a car bomb in Times Square? If airlines are immune to bombing, people will bomb elsewhere. Terrorism cannot be fought at this end.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or blew them up in the terminal before departure .
What about a car bomb in Times Square ?
If airlines are immune to bombing , people will bomb elsewhere .
Terrorism can not be fought at this end .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or blew them up in the terminal before departure.
What about a car bomb in Times Square?
If airlines are immune to bombing, people will bomb elsewhere.
Terrorism cannot be fought at this end.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657482</id>
	<title>Imaging Technologies?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262716800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about a decent foreign policy instead?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about a decent foreign policy instead ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about a decent foreign policy instead?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657150</id>
	<title>Re:RTFA</title>
	<author>profplump</author>
	<datestamp>1262715720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Radiation in general isn't the problem. There's some evidence that millimeter wave radiation in particular can un-zip DNA, even at its low energy, due to resonant effects.</p><p><a href="http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/24331/" title="technologyreview.com">http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/24331/</a> [technologyreview.com]</p><p>Now it's not yet clear *how* damaging regular exposure to a millimeter wave scan would be -- millimeter waves already exist in the natural environment and haven't killed us all yet -- so it's entirely possible that there is no real danger. But I'd like to see some of the billions spent on these machines used to verify that before we get too far along.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Radiation in general is n't the problem .
There 's some evidence that millimeter wave radiation in particular can un-zip DNA , even at its low energy , due to resonant effects.http : //www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/24331/ [ technologyreview.com ] Now it 's not yet clear * how * damaging regular exposure to a millimeter wave scan would be -- millimeter waves already exist in the natural environment and have n't killed us all yet -- so it 's entirely possible that there is no real danger .
But I 'd like to see some of the billions spent on these machines used to verify that before we get too far along .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Radiation in general isn't the problem.
There's some evidence that millimeter wave radiation in particular can un-zip DNA, even at its low energy, due to resonant effects.http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/24331/ [technologyreview.com]Now it's not yet clear *how* damaging regular exposure to a millimeter wave scan would be -- millimeter waves already exist in the natural environment and haven't killed us all yet -- so it's entirely possible that there is no real danger.
But I'd like to see some of the billions spent on these machines used to verify that before we get too far along.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30658404</id>
	<title>Re:No, nor should we expect it to</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1262720220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They do a decent job at making airports appear secure, which is all that should be expected of them.</p></div><p>I do not want the airport to <em>appear</em> secure. I want it to be <em>reasonably</em> secure, insofar as is possible to achieve without gross violations of personal privacy of travellers. And I most definitely do not want to suffer through any procedures that only make things <em>appear</em> secure, without actually making them secure.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They do a decent job at making airports appear secure , which is all that should be expected of them.I do not want the airport to appear secure .
I want it to be reasonably secure , insofar as is possible to achieve without gross violations of personal privacy of travellers .
And I most definitely do not want to suffer through any procedures that only make things appear secure , without actually making them secure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They do a decent job at making airports appear secure, which is all that should be expected of them.I do not want the airport to appear secure.
I want it to be reasonably secure, insofar as is possible to achieve without gross violations of personal privacy of travellers.
And I most definitely do not want to suffer through any procedures that only make things appear secure, without actually making them secure.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656100</id>
	<title>For heavens sake,</title>
	<author>santax</author>
	<datestamp>1262712240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>why won't somebody think of the children now!</htmltext>
<tokenext>why wo n't somebody think of the children now !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why won't somebody think of the children now!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30660756</id>
	<title>Re:It was not a "failed" attack.</title>
	<author>FiloEleven</author>
	<datestamp>1262686560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More dangerous, yet less onerous.  There's a lesson here.  Whenever someone brings up the necessity for invasive security screening at airports, they should be reminded of the relative dangers of automobiles.  I don't have the stats offhand, but it's common knowledge, as you wrote, that you're much more likely to die in an auto collision than any terrorist attack (not just limited to planes).</p><p>More significantly, there is nothing we can realistically do to reduce the risk of death in an auto collision to anywhere near the risk of death by terrorist attack.  Sure, we have driver's licenses, but there is necessarily too much autonomy for auto drivers to be "safe" by the rigorous standard applied to airline passengers.  That autonomy combined with bad judgment and human error means getting into a car is very risky behavior when compared to getting on a plane, even with no security screening whatsoever.</p><p>Logically, then, people who advocate current and increased security measures for airline passengers should never set foot in an automobile because it is too dangerous.  I have not had the opportunity to confront anyone with this reasoning, but I would be interested to see how they would respond.  I don't think it would change anyone's mind by itself, but it could lead to interesting discussion of acceptable risk and convenience, and hopefully get them to rethink their assumptions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More dangerous , yet less onerous .
There 's a lesson here .
Whenever someone brings up the necessity for invasive security screening at airports , they should be reminded of the relative dangers of automobiles .
I do n't have the stats offhand , but it 's common knowledge , as you wrote , that you 're much more likely to die in an auto collision than any terrorist attack ( not just limited to planes ) .More significantly , there is nothing we can realistically do to reduce the risk of death in an auto collision to anywhere near the risk of death by terrorist attack .
Sure , we have driver 's licenses , but there is necessarily too much autonomy for auto drivers to be " safe " by the rigorous standard applied to airline passengers .
That autonomy combined with bad judgment and human error means getting into a car is very risky behavior when compared to getting on a plane , even with no security screening whatsoever.Logically , then , people who advocate current and increased security measures for airline passengers should never set foot in an automobile because it is too dangerous .
I have not had the opportunity to confront anyone with this reasoning , but I would be interested to see how they would respond .
I do n't think it would change anyone 's mind by itself , but it could lead to interesting discussion of acceptable risk and convenience , and hopefully get them to rethink their assumptions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More dangerous, yet less onerous.
There's a lesson here.
Whenever someone brings up the necessity for invasive security screening at airports, they should be reminded of the relative dangers of automobiles.
I don't have the stats offhand, but it's common knowledge, as you wrote, that you're much more likely to die in an auto collision than any terrorist attack (not just limited to planes).More significantly, there is nothing we can realistically do to reduce the risk of death in an auto collision to anywhere near the risk of death by terrorist attack.
Sure, we have driver's licenses, but there is necessarily too much autonomy for auto drivers to be "safe" by the rigorous standard applied to airline passengers.
That autonomy combined with bad judgment and human error means getting into a car is very risky behavior when compared to getting on a plane, even with no security screening whatsoever.Logically, then, people who advocate current and increased security measures for airline passengers should never set foot in an automobile because it is too dangerous.
I have not had the opportunity to confront anyone with this reasoning, but I would be interested to see how they would respond.
I don't think it would change anyone's mind by itself, but it could lead to interesting discussion of acceptable risk and convenience, and hopefully get them to rethink their assumptions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657662</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657796</id>
	<title>Re:No.</title>
	<author>izomiac</author>
	<datestamp>1262717760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>IMHO each piece of airport security should be evaluated by number of lives saved VS cost, both monetary and in man-hours for the TSA and passengers.  Overall, the TSA has a budget of about $8 Billion, so if it prevents 40 planes from being destroyed per year then it's still $1 Million per life saved (~7 man-years per life as well).  Dumping that money into health care, or general law enforcement would probably be a lot more cost-effective.</htmltext>
<tokenext>IMHO each piece of airport security should be evaluated by number of lives saved VS cost , both monetary and in man-hours for the TSA and passengers .
Overall , the TSA has a budget of about $ 8 Billion , so if it prevents 40 planes from being destroyed per year then it 's still $ 1 Million per life saved ( ~ 7 man-years per life as well ) .
Dumping that money into health care , or general law enforcement would probably be a lot more cost-effective .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IMHO each piece of airport security should be evaluated by number of lives saved VS cost, both monetary and in man-hours for the TSA and passengers.
Overall, the TSA has a budget of about $8 Billion, so if it prevents 40 planes from being destroyed per year then it's still $1 Million per life saved (~7 man-years per life as well).
Dumping that money into health care, or general law enforcement would probably be a lot more cost-effective.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657516</id>
	<title>similar argument against Star Wars</title>
	<author>peter303</author>
	<datestamp>1262716920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Say you have have a technology that is 99\% effective. (neither Star Wars nor scanning is close to this).
<br> <br>
Then the detractors say: "Why bother? The 1\% that can evade it can cause incalculable harm!".
<br> <br>
But the promoters counter: "The enemy is not going to waste their time on this approach anymore if it mostly succeeds. They'll develop other attacks."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Say you have have a technology that is 99 \ % effective .
( neither Star Wars nor scanning is close to this ) .
Then the detractors say : " Why bother ?
The 1 \ % that can evade it can cause incalculable harm ! " .
But the promoters counter : " The enemy is not going to waste their time on this approach anymore if it mostly succeeds .
They 'll develop other attacks .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Say you have have a technology that is 99\% effective.
(neither Star Wars nor scanning is close to this).
Then the detractors say: "Why bother?
The 1\% that can evade it can cause incalculable harm!".
But the promoters counter: "The enemy is not going to waste their time on this approach anymore if it mostly succeeds.
They'll develop other attacks.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656496</id>
	<title>Re:... but not if</title>
	<author>gedrin</author>
	<datestamp>1262713680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>A Saudi prince was recently targetted in this way.  The bomber was meeting with the prince, and smuggled in a device in his rectum.  When the device detonated, the bomber's body dampened the effect and the target recieved relatively minor wounds.  It's a method that has not had the best success in the past.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A Saudi prince was recently targetted in this way .
The bomber was meeting with the prince , and smuggled in a device in his rectum .
When the device detonated , the bomber 's body dampened the effect and the target recieved relatively minor wounds .
It 's a method that has not had the best success in the past .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A Saudi prince was recently targetted in this way.
The bomber was meeting with the prince, and smuggled in a device in his rectum.
When the device detonated, the bomber's body dampened the effect and the target recieved relatively minor wounds.
It's a method that has not had the best success in the past.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656870</id>
	<title>only image tech needed to display terrorists</title>
	<author>jollyreaper</author>
	<datestamp>1262714820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Send mirrors to everyone supporting the TSA, anti-terror overreaction and hysteria. Look in the mirror. You're the people who are helping terrorists win. When the terrorists give it their best shot, kill a few thousand and we shrug it off like nothing and go about our lives with no change, THAT is winning the war on terror. Turning ourselves into a police state while bombing the fuck out of random civilians in their country is giving them everything they could ask for short of sodomizing ourselves with a lit stick of dynamite.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Send mirrors to everyone supporting the TSA , anti-terror overreaction and hysteria .
Look in the mirror .
You 're the people who are helping terrorists win .
When the terrorists give it their best shot , kill a few thousand and we shrug it off like nothing and go about our lives with no change , THAT is winning the war on terror .
Turning ourselves into a police state while bombing the fuck out of random civilians in their country is giving them everything they could ask for short of sodomizing ourselves with a lit stick of dynamite .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Send mirrors to everyone supporting the TSA, anti-terror overreaction and hysteria.
Look in the mirror.
You're the people who are helping terrorists win.
When the terrorists give it their best shot, kill a few thousand and we shrug it off like nothing and go about our lives with no change, THAT is winning the war on terror.
Turning ourselves into a police state while bombing the fuck out of random civilians in their country is giving them everything they could ask for short of sodomizing ourselves with a lit stick of dynamite.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656518</id>
	<title>Re:wha</title>
	<author>epp\_b</author>
	<datestamp>1262713800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As someone who must undergo plenty of radiation for a chronic medical condition, I will not stand for having deliberate radiation being put through my body when it is of no direct medical benefit to me.  Much less so for some useless, tax-draining government agency to create an illusion of effectiveness.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As someone who must undergo plenty of radiation for a chronic medical condition , I will not stand for having deliberate radiation being put through my body when it is of no direct medical benefit to me .
Much less so for some useless , tax-draining government agency to create an illusion of effectiveness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As someone who must undergo plenty of radiation for a chronic medical condition, I will not stand for having deliberate radiation being put through my body when it is of no direct medical benefit to me.
Much less so for some useless, tax-draining government agency to create an illusion of effectiveness.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655880</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657128</id>
	<title>Defense can't work.</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1262715660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The whole point of terrorism is to deny the enemy use of his or her resources.  The moment you've got the enemy spending loads more than you are, then you are winning, and the fact that you are winning will attract others to your cause.  It's simple economics.  The USA, for example, may have 20 trillion dollars in physical assets, or even 100 trillion, so, any tiny fraction the potential of an idiot with a bomb up his rear can deny those assets is an automatic win for the bad guys.</p><p>To his credit, Bush did at least see this point.  His answer, to invade everybody, was directly because he saw that defending everything that has to be defended is a no win proposition, and therefor, the obvious answer was to essentially create wars everywhere and make the terrorists attack soldiers rather than civilians.  The big question is, really, is it less expensive to defend 100 trillion dollars of domestic assets, than it is to spend 100 billion a year on a bunch of wars?  And, perhaps Bush's biggest failing was that, knowing that he's following the strategy of attacking everybody abroad to not have to eat the big bill at home, why not just dispense with even the dumbness of TSA and homeland security... like, he could not resist the unfortunate temptation to do something in the name of security when his own stated policy goals said that it couldn't work.  He didn't trust himself, and by extension, could not trust his country, and that is why he failed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The whole point of terrorism is to deny the enemy use of his or her resources .
The moment you 've got the enemy spending loads more than you are , then you are winning , and the fact that you are winning will attract others to your cause .
It 's simple economics .
The USA , for example , may have 20 trillion dollars in physical assets , or even 100 trillion , so , any tiny fraction the potential of an idiot with a bomb up his rear can deny those assets is an automatic win for the bad guys.To his credit , Bush did at least see this point .
His answer , to invade everybody , was directly because he saw that defending everything that has to be defended is a no win proposition , and therefor , the obvious answer was to essentially create wars everywhere and make the terrorists attack soldiers rather than civilians .
The big question is , really , is it less expensive to defend 100 trillion dollars of domestic assets , than it is to spend 100 billion a year on a bunch of wars ?
And , perhaps Bush 's biggest failing was that , knowing that he 's following the strategy of attacking everybody abroad to not have to eat the big bill at home , why not just dispense with even the dumbness of TSA and homeland security... like , he could not resist the unfortunate temptation to do something in the name of security when his own stated policy goals said that it could n't work .
He did n't trust himself , and by extension , could not trust his country , and that is why he failed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The whole point of terrorism is to deny the enemy use of his or her resources.
The moment you've got the enemy spending loads more than you are, then you are winning, and the fact that you are winning will attract others to your cause.
It's simple economics.
The USA, for example, may have 20 trillion dollars in physical assets, or even 100 trillion, so, any tiny fraction the potential of an idiot with a bomb up his rear can deny those assets is an automatic win for the bad guys.To his credit, Bush did at least see this point.
His answer, to invade everybody, was directly because he saw that defending everything that has to be defended is a no win proposition, and therefor, the obvious answer was to essentially create wars everywhere and make the terrorists attack soldiers rather than civilians.
The big question is, really, is it less expensive to defend 100 trillion dollars of domestic assets, than it is to spend 100 billion a year on a bunch of wars?
And, perhaps Bush's biggest failing was that, knowing that he's following the strategy of attacking everybody abroad to not have to eat the big bill at home, why not just dispense with even the dumbness of TSA and homeland security... like, he could not resist the unfortunate temptation to do something in the name of security when his own stated policy goals said that it couldn't work.
He didn't trust himself, and by extension, could not trust his country, and that is why he failed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30660604</id>
	<title>Re:Just wait...</title>
	<author>TermV</author>
	<datestamp>1262685900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why would a terrorist even have to do that? You can opt for a pat-down search instead. Has security started groping people in their underwear area?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would a terrorist even have to do that ?
You can opt for a pat-down search instead .
Has security started groping people in their underwear area ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would a terrorist even have to do that?
You can opt for a pat-down search instead.
Has security started groping people in their underwear area?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30658050</id>
	<title>Is their slowness inherent?</title>
	<author>mdmkolbe</author>
	<datestamp>1262718660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Observing the lines at the airport, I've noticed that the imaging machines are much slower than the rest of the line.  They were only pulling 1 in 5 people out of the regular line to go into the imaging machine and the machine was still at full capacity.  Is there anything in the works to make these machines process people faster?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Observing the lines at the airport , I 've noticed that the imaging machines are much slower than the rest of the line .
They were only pulling 1 in 5 people out of the regular line to go into the imaging machine and the machine was still at full capacity .
Is there anything in the works to make these machines process people faster ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Observing the lines at the airport, I've noticed that the imaging machines are much slower than the rest of the line.
They were only pulling 1 in 5 people out of the regular line to go into the imaging machine and the machine was still at full capacity.
Is there anything in the works to make these machines process people faster?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657950</id>
	<title>Re:wha</title>
	<author>jimbolauski</author>
	<datestamp>1262718300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm guessing you don't fly then with all the x-rays you recieve from being at a higher altitude so problem solved.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm guessing you do n't fly then with all the x-rays you recieve from being at a higher altitude so problem solved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm guessing you don't fly then with all the x-rays you recieve from being at a higher altitude so problem solved.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30659554</id>
	<title>Re:terrorist not much of a problem</title>
	<author>BobMcD</author>
	<datestamp>1262682000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Figure you are being taken for a ride.</p></div><p>I figured this from the very beginning.  I'm not certain we're looking at a change of subject as much as a new 'necessity' presenting itself to the TSA.  I actually said this to anyone who would listen on the day it happened.  With all the body scanning buzz after the fact, I can only assume this is the plan:</p><p>1)  Plant the underwear bomber<br>2)  Catch the same before any real harm is done<br>3)  Watch as we willingly surrender our personal privacy where we would have screamed bloody murder before...</p><p>I also think this has nothing to do with seeing under the clothing.  I think it has everything to do with DOMINANCE.  After they have forced you to strip nude you're no longer likely to fight much else.  After having your genitals imaged why would you resist any other privacy intrusion?</p><p>Now whether or not every liberty lost was done in this way isn't the point.  These could easily be, and likely are, separate issues.  However, once the powers-that-be got a deep drink of the juice that they gained after 9/11 do we honestly think they aren't sufficiently motivated to stage something like this?  And it isn't like they lack the means.  They could simply have taken over a terrorist cell, via killing the true head, and be impersonating via email or some other means.  Denying this as 'possible' would mean ignoring the fact that the CIA created Osama Bin Laden as a weapon against the Soviets, that they overthrew the rightful leader of Iran, etc, etc, etc.</p><p>This seems like a no-brainer to me.  I just can't grasp how any reasonable person thinks that body scans will improve much of anything.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Figure you are being taken for a ride.I figured this from the very beginning .
I 'm not certain we 're looking at a change of subject as much as a new 'necessity ' presenting itself to the TSA .
I actually said this to anyone who would listen on the day it happened .
With all the body scanning buzz after the fact , I can only assume this is the plan : 1 ) Plant the underwear bomber2 ) Catch the same before any real harm is done3 ) Watch as we willingly surrender our personal privacy where we would have screamed bloody murder before...I also think this has nothing to do with seeing under the clothing .
I think it has everything to do with DOMINANCE .
After they have forced you to strip nude you 're no longer likely to fight much else .
After having your genitals imaged why would you resist any other privacy intrusion ? Now whether or not every liberty lost was done in this way is n't the point .
These could easily be , and likely are , separate issues .
However , once the powers-that-be got a deep drink of the juice that they gained after 9/11 do we honestly think they are n't sufficiently motivated to stage something like this ?
And it is n't like they lack the means .
They could simply have taken over a terrorist cell , via killing the true head , and be impersonating via email or some other means .
Denying this as 'possible ' would mean ignoring the fact that the CIA created Osama Bin Laden as a weapon against the Soviets , that they overthrew the rightful leader of Iran , etc , etc , etc.This seems like a no-brainer to me .
I just ca n't grasp how any reasonable person thinks that body scans will improve much of anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Figure you are being taken for a ride.I figured this from the very beginning.
I'm not certain we're looking at a change of subject as much as a new 'necessity' presenting itself to the TSA.
I actually said this to anyone who would listen on the day it happened.
With all the body scanning buzz after the fact, I can only assume this is the plan:1)  Plant the underwear bomber2)  Catch the same before any real harm is done3)  Watch as we willingly surrender our personal privacy where we would have screamed bloody murder before...I also think this has nothing to do with seeing under the clothing.
I think it has everything to do with DOMINANCE.
After they have forced you to strip nude you're no longer likely to fight much else.
After having your genitals imaged why would you resist any other privacy intrusion?Now whether or not every liberty lost was done in this way isn't the point.
These could easily be, and likely are, separate issues.
However, once the powers-that-be got a deep drink of the juice that they gained after 9/11 do we honestly think they aren't sufficiently motivated to stage something like this?
And it isn't like they lack the means.
They could simply have taken over a terrorist cell, via killing the true head, and be impersonating via email or some other means.
Denying this as 'possible' would mean ignoring the fact that the CIA created Osama Bin Laden as a weapon against the Soviets, that they overthrew the rightful leader of Iran, etc, etc, etc.This seems like a no-brainer to me.
I just can't grasp how any reasonable person thinks that body scans will improve much of anything.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656640</id>
	<title>Re:... but not if</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1262714160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>First we had the "shoe bomber", then the "crotch bomber"... yes, the "ass bomber" would seem to be the next logical progression. However, one wonders how difficult it would be to spot someone at the gate walking as if they had a stick (of dynamite) up their ass...</htmltext>
<tokenext>First we had the " shoe bomber " , then the " crotch bomber " ... yes , the " ass bomber " would seem to be the next logical progression .
However , one wonders how difficult it would be to spot someone at the gate walking as if they had a stick ( of dynamite ) up their ass.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First we had the "shoe bomber", then the "crotch bomber"... yes, the "ass bomber" would seem to be the next logical progression.
However, one wonders how difficult it would be to spot someone at the gate walking as if they had a stick (of dynamite) up their ass...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30667462</id>
	<title>Re:Just wait...</title>
	<author>Tom</author>
	<datestamp>1262777400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We'd lose our minds. But they aren't doing this, are they?</p></div><p>No, and for two reasons. One is indeed that most terrorists aren't especially smart, and also remember that they aren't usually people well-integrated into western society. So they are blind to some of the "obvious" weaknesses, because they view it all from an outside perspective. They just aren't familiar with the ease of blowing up a McD because they don't eat at McD, to use a simple example.</p><p>The second reason is that while terrorism aims to terrorize, it also needs the big, visible thing. That's because its other main target is the home population. The 9/11 attacks were successful precisely because the TV images were shown again and again and <b>around the world</b>. It showed everyone that they had the biggest... err, explosion. Terrorism isn't just about terrorizing one population, it's also about demonstrating your power to another population - the one you're recruiting from.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We 'd lose our minds .
But they are n't doing this , are they ? No , and for two reasons .
One is indeed that most terrorists are n't especially smart , and also remember that they are n't usually people well-integrated into western society .
So they are blind to some of the " obvious " weaknesses , because they view it all from an outside perspective .
They just are n't familiar with the ease of blowing up a McD because they do n't eat at McD , to use a simple example.The second reason is that while terrorism aims to terrorize , it also needs the big , visible thing .
That 's because its other main target is the home population .
The 9/11 attacks were successful precisely because the TV images were shown again and again and around the world .
It showed everyone that they had the biggest... err , explosion .
Terrorism is n't just about terrorizing one population , it 's also about demonstrating your power to another population - the one you 're recruiting from .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We'd lose our minds.
But they aren't doing this, are they?No, and for two reasons.
One is indeed that most terrorists aren't especially smart, and also remember that they aren't usually people well-integrated into western society.
So they are blind to some of the "obvious" weaknesses, because they view it all from an outside perspective.
They just aren't familiar with the ease of blowing up a McD because they don't eat at McD, to use a simple example.The second reason is that while terrorism aims to terrorize, it also needs the big, visible thing.
That's because its other main target is the home population.
The 9/11 attacks were successful precisely because the TV images were shown again and again and around the world.
It showed everyone that they had the biggest... err, explosion.
Terrorism isn't just about terrorizing one population, it's also about demonstrating your power to another population - the one you're recruiting from.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30667566</id>
	<title>Cheaper, more effective alternative</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262778360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why not just use sniffer dogs instead? Cheaper, friendlier, less invasive, and can detect a far wider range of explosives than these stupid scannermabobs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not just use sniffer dogs instead ?
Cheaper , friendlier , less invasive , and can detect a far wider range of explosives than these stupid scannermabobs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not just use sniffer dogs instead?
Cheaper, friendlier, less invasive, and can detect a far wider range of explosives than these stupid scannermabobs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30660930</id>
	<title>Body image scanners vulnerability</title>
	<author>failedlogic</author>
	<datestamp>1262687160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unless the airports do a *full* body search, I've notice that the body image scanners leave out imaging the genetalia. It would seem a determined terrorist decide to hide an object on the body in this region  knowing that will not be imaged.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless the airports do a * full * body search , I 've notice that the body image scanners leave out imaging the genetalia .
It would seem a determined terrorist decide to hide an object on the body in this region knowing that will not be imaged .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless the airports do a *full* body search, I've notice that the body image scanners leave out imaging the genetalia.
It would seem a determined terrorist decide to hide an object on the body in this region  knowing that will not be imaged.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656344</id>
	<title>Radiation</title>
	<author>Andypcguy</author>
	<datestamp>1262713080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I like the idea of these scanners and think they will make it more difficult for the crazies to do stupid stuff.  My concern however is with radiation exposure.  How much exposure is there from a single scan.  What about all those frequent fliers and what about the screeners themselves.  Next time I travel I'm bringing my gieger counter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I like the idea of these scanners and think they will make it more difficult for the crazies to do stupid stuff .
My concern however is with radiation exposure .
How much exposure is there from a single scan .
What about all those frequent fliers and what about the screeners themselves .
Next time I travel I 'm bringing my gieger counter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like the idea of these scanners and think they will make it more difficult for the crazies to do stupid stuff.
My concern however is with radiation exposure.
How much exposure is there from a single scan.
What about all those frequent fliers and what about the screeners themselves.
Next time I travel I'm bringing my gieger counter.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656582</id>
	<title>great idea</title>
	<author>snarkh</author>
	<datestamp>1262713980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's spend a few billion of taxpayers' money on an unproven technology of dubious benefit.<br>Nothing stimulates the economy better during these hard times.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's spend a few billion of taxpayers ' money on an unproven technology of dubious benefit.Nothing stimulates the economy better during these hard times .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's spend a few billion of taxpayers' money on an unproven technology of dubious benefit.Nothing stimulates the economy better during these hard times.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656448</id>
	<title>Re:It was not a "failed" attack.</title>
	<author>Abcd1234</author>
	<datestamp>1262713500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>That there were no dead bodies or a mile-wide debris trail in downtown Detroit is trivial -- because there COULD have been.</i></p><p>Could there?  Has this actually been looked at?  Because this guy wasn't carrying that much explosive.  It may be that the worst case is a few people die and the cabin decompresses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That there were no dead bodies or a mile-wide debris trail in downtown Detroit is trivial -- because there COULD have been.Could there ?
Has this actually been looked at ?
Because this guy was n't carrying that much explosive .
It may be that the worst case is a few people die and the cabin decompresses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That there were no dead bodies or a mile-wide debris trail in downtown Detroit is trivial -- because there COULD have been.Could there?
Has this actually been looked at?
Because this guy wasn't carrying that much explosive.
It may be that the worst case is a few people die and the cabin decompresses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656664</id>
	<title>Chain of evidence?</title>
	<author>warmflatsprite</author>
	<datestamp>1262714280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This state-of-the-art technology cannot store, print, transmit or save the image. In fact, all machines are delivered to airports with these functions disabled...Each image is automatically deleted from the system after it is cleared by the remotely located security officer.</p></div><p>There are two interesting issues at play here.  The first is obvious and of personal concern: privacy.  The above, a statement issued by the TSA, is meant to alleviate concerns that the TSA employees will be swapping weird nudie photos of you, your spouse, or your children.  There's a contradicting concern here.  Ignoring the issue of whether or not the use of this device constitutes "search" under the 4th amendment, I assume they are using this machine to establish probable cause for an "actual" search?  If so, the fact that images are not stored both opens the system up to the potential for abuse and fails to protect the TSA when they search someone who is a false positive.</p><p>Regarding the 4th amendment -- don't you have to consent to you and your property being searched before purchasing or checking into a flight?  If that's the case then these machines are just a means for the TSA to carry out said search in a more efficient manor.</p><p>Regardless of the above, I don't like this one bit.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This state-of-the-art technology can not store , print , transmit or save the image .
In fact , all machines are delivered to airports with these functions disabled...Each image is automatically deleted from the system after it is cleared by the remotely located security officer.There are two interesting issues at play here .
The first is obvious and of personal concern : privacy .
The above , a statement issued by the TSA , is meant to alleviate concerns that the TSA employees will be swapping weird nudie photos of you , your spouse , or your children .
There 's a contradicting concern here .
Ignoring the issue of whether or not the use of this device constitutes " search " under the 4th amendment , I assume they are using this machine to establish probable cause for an " actual " search ?
If so , the fact that images are not stored both opens the system up to the potential for abuse and fails to protect the TSA when they search someone who is a false positive.Regarding the 4th amendment -- do n't you have to consent to you and your property being searched before purchasing or checking into a flight ?
If that 's the case then these machines are just a means for the TSA to carry out said search in a more efficient manor.Regardless of the above , I do n't like this one bit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This state-of-the-art technology cannot store, print, transmit or save the image.
In fact, all machines are delivered to airports with these functions disabled...Each image is automatically deleted from the system after it is cleared by the remotely located security officer.There are two interesting issues at play here.
The first is obvious and of personal concern: privacy.
The above, a statement issued by the TSA, is meant to alleviate concerns that the TSA employees will be swapping weird nudie photos of you, your spouse, or your children.
There's a contradicting concern here.
Ignoring the issue of whether or not the use of this device constitutes "search" under the 4th amendment, I assume they are using this machine to establish probable cause for an "actual" search?
If so, the fact that images are not stored both opens the system up to the potential for abuse and fails to protect the TSA when they search someone who is a false positive.Regarding the 4th amendment -- don't you have to consent to you and your property being searched before purchasing or checking into a flight?
If that's the case then these machines are just a means for the TSA to carry out said search in a more efficient manor.Regardless of the above, I don't like this one bit.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30662714</id>
	<title>The scanners were there, just not used</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262695440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They had the scanners.  In fact, the US bought them for just this use.  They were not used.</p><p>Using this as an excuse to use full body millimeter scanning in the US against US citizens (and everyone else flying) is something that should not be allowed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They had the scanners .
In fact , the US bought them for just this use .
They were not used.Using this as an excuse to use full body millimeter scanning in the US against US citizens ( and everyone else flying ) is something that should not be allowed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They had the scanners.
In fact, the US bought them for just this use.
They were not used.Using this as an excuse to use full body millimeter scanning in the US against US citizens (and everyone else flying) is something that should not be allowed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657440</id>
	<title>bombers can still hide their bombs.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262716680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>seal some semtex up in glass with wire leads coming out, then shove it up your butt. take out your normal cellphone and stick the wire leads to the battery. boom! nothing would detect it.</p><p>also, testers from various agencies still smuggle knives, guns, and large assortments of implements which could be used in an attack like on 9/11 (box cutters anyone?). this is expensive misdirection. it's also really annoying and makes flights take much longer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>seal some semtex up in glass with wire leads coming out , then shove it up your butt .
take out your normal cellphone and stick the wire leads to the battery .
boom ! nothing would detect it.also , testers from various agencies still smuggle knives , guns , and large assortments of implements which could be used in an attack like on 9/11 ( box cutters anyone ? ) .
this is expensive misdirection .
it 's also really annoying and makes flights take much longer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>seal some semtex up in glass with wire leads coming out, then shove it up your butt.
take out your normal cellphone and stick the wire leads to the battery.
boom! nothing would detect it.also, testers from various agencies still smuggle knives, guns, and large assortments of implements which could be used in an attack like on 9/11 (box cutters anyone?).
this is expensive misdirection.
it's also really annoying and makes flights take much longer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656050</id>
	<title>to bad having under 18 is child porn and they may</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262712060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>to bad having under 18 is child porn and they may be forced to not get scanned and how long before they seek a bomb / gun in?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>to bad having under 18 is child porn and they may be forced to not get scanned and how long before they seek a bomb / gun in ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>to bad having under 18 is child porn and they may be forced to not get scanned and how long before they seek a bomb / gun in?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30659336</id>
	<title>Re:On a related note. . .</title>
	<author>Tisha\_AH</author>
	<datestamp>1262724240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are about as anatomically correct as the dancing baby animations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are about as anatomically correct as the dancing baby animations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are about as anatomically correct as the dancing baby animations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30661438</id>
	<title>It will do nothing.</title>
	<author>arthurpaliden</author>
	<datestamp>1262689320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The most common type of terrorist attack is the car/truck bomb.  This will do nothing to stop them.</p><p>How many people were killed by car/truck bombs in the last year. Now how many were killed in blown up aircraft.</p><p>Soon this method of attack will come to North America and by then it will be too late.</p><p>Air terrorism is so sexy it gets all the attention.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The most common type of terrorist attack is the car/truck bomb .
This will do nothing to stop them.How many people were killed by car/truck bombs in the last year .
Now how many were killed in blown up aircraft.Soon this method of attack will come to North America and by then it will be too late.Air terrorism is so sexy it gets all the attention .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The most common type of terrorist attack is the car/truck bomb.
This will do nothing to stop them.How many people were killed by car/truck bombs in the last year.
Now how many were killed in blown up aircraft.Soon this method of attack will come to North America and by then it will be too late.Air terrorism is so sexy it gets all the attention.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657662</id>
	<title>Re:It was not a "failed" attack.</title>
	<author>mpe</author>
	<datestamp>1262717400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Luckily for me, I have no place I need to go that is more than 500 miles away, and driving is probably faster and cheaper anyway...</i> <br> <br>But also more dangerous than flying, even with the "terrorists"...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Luckily for me , I have no place I need to go that is more than 500 miles away , and driving is probably faster and cheaper anyway... But also more dangerous than flying , even with the " terrorists " .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Luckily for me, I have no place I need to go that is more than 500 miles away, and driving is probably faster and cheaper anyway...  But also more dangerous than flying, even with the "terrorists"...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30658616</id>
	<title>Re:They are another layer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262721060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"...for obvious reasons. "<br>such as?</p><p>It only detects 'unusual' shapes. Usually to be determined by the manufacture, and thus woefully out of date.</p><p>"those individuals carrying dangerous/unknown objects or materials outside their body, "<br>Again, this is incorrect.<br>this is more correct:</p><p>"those individuals carrying unexpected/unknown objects or materials outside their body, "<br>It has know way of determining and odd fold in the underwear, anal beads or an actual dangerous weapon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...for obvious reasons .
" such as ? It only detects 'unusual ' shapes .
Usually to be determined by the manufacture , and thus woefully out of date .
" those individuals carrying dangerous/unknown objects or materials outside their body , " Again , this is incorrect.this is more correct : " those individuals carrying unexpected/unknown objects or materials outside their body , " It has know way of determining and odd fold in the underwear , anal beads or an actual dangerous weapon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...for obvious reasons.
"such as?It only detects 'unusual' shapes.
Usually to be determined by the manufacture, and thus woefully out of date.
"those individuals carrying dangerous/unknown objects or materials outside their body, "Again, this is incorrect.this is more correct:"those individuals carrying unexpected/unknown objects or materials outside their body, "It has know way of determining and odd fold in the underwear, anal beads or an actual dangerous weapon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655894</id>
	<title>yeah, and?</title>
	<author>girlintraining</author>
	<datestamp>1262711520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Ben Wallace, the Conservative Member of Parliament in the United Kingdom, disagrees, saying that the technologies can't detect the kind of low-density explosive that the would-be terrorist tried to use on December 25th."</p></div><p>Since when has a technology that doesn't work deterred the US from using it anyway?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ben Wallace , the Conservative Member of Parliament in the United Kingdom , disagrees , saying that the technologies ca n't detect the kind of low-density explosive that the would-be terrorist tried to use on December 25th .
" Since when has a technology that does n't work deterred the US from using it anyway ?
: (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ben Wallace, the Conservative Member of Parliament in the United Kingdom, disagrees, saying that the technologies can't detect the kind of low-density explosive that the would-be terrorist tried to use on December 25th.
"Since when has a technology that doesn't work deterred the US from using it anyway?
:(
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30667314</id>
	<title>Re:Just wait...</title>
	<author>Tom</author>
	<datestamp>1262775960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>large numbers of people accumulating before security checkpoints. Which means that a would-be terrorist suicide bomber doesn't need to get to the plane anymore - if he detonates an explosive in the crowd,</p></div><p>...then at least he didn't damage any of the expensive airplanes.</p><p>Oh, you thought they worry about dead consumers? Not likely, their money will still be spent, by their heirs.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>large numbers of people accumulating before security checkpoints .
Which means that a would-be terrorist suicide bomber does n't need to get to the plane anymore - if he detonates an explosive in the crowd,...then at least he did n't damage any of the expensive airplanes.Oh , you thought they worry about dead consumers ?
Not likely , their money will still be spent , by their heirs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>large numbers of people accumulating before security checkpoints.
Which means that a would-be terrorist suicide bomber doesn't need to get to the plane anymore - if he detonates an explosive in the crowd,...then at least he didn't damage any of the expensive airplanes.Oh, you thought they worry about dead consumers?
Not likely, their money will still be spent, by their heirs.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30658364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30659852</id>
	<title>Full Body Scanners are legalized CHILD PORN!</title>
	<author>gabrieltss</author>
	<datestamp>1262683440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Those full body scanners show EVERYTHING - you really want your KIDS going through those? Do you want to and have your naked body images stored on computer systems? Just think those perverts watching you and mentally and physically m@$turb@ting over you and your kids?</p><p>Airports Set To Become Primary Peddlers Of Child Porn<br><a href="http://www.prisonplanet.com/airports-set-to-become-primary-peddlers-of-child-porn.html" title="prisonplanet.com">http://www.prisonplanet.com/airports-set-to-become-primary-peddlers-of-child-porn.html</a> [prisonplanet.com]</p><p>New scanners break child porn laws<br><a href="http://www.prisonplanet.com/new-scanners-break-child-porn-laws.html" title="prisonplanet.com">http://www.prisonplanet.com/new-scanners-break-child-porn-laws.html</a> [prisonplanet.com]</p><p>Group slams Chertoff on scanner promotion<br><a href="http://www.prisonplanet.com/group-slams-chertoff-on-scanner-promotion.html" title="prisonplanet.com">http://www.prisonplanet.com/group-slams-chertoff-on-scanner-promotion.html</a> [prisonplanet.com]</p><p>Alex Jones Calls For Mass Resistance To Implementation Of Body Scanners<br><a href="http://www.prisonplanet.com/alex-jones-calls-for-mass-resistance-to-implementation-of-body-scanners.html" title="prisonplanet.com">http://www.prisonplanet.com/alex-jones-calls-for-mass-resistance-to-implementation-of-body-scanners.html</a> [prisonplanet.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Those full body scanners show EVERYTHING - you really want your KIDS going through those ?
Do you want to and have your naked body images stored on computer systems ?
Just think those perverts watching you and mentally and physically m @ $ turb @ ting over you and your kids ? Airports Set To Become Primary Peddlers Of Child Pornhttp : //www.prisonplanet.com/airports-set-to-become-primary-peddlers-of-child-porn.html [ prisonplanet.com ] New scanners break child porn lawshttp : //www.prisonplanet.com/new-scanners-break-child-porn-laws.html [ prisonplanet.com ] Group slams Chertoff on scanner promotionhttp : //www.prisonplanet.com/group-slams-chertoff-on-scanner-promotion.html [ prisonplanet.com ] Alex Jones Calls For Mass Resistance To Implementation Of Body Scannershttp : //www.prisonplanet.com/alex-jones-calls-for-mass-resistance-to-implementation-of-body-scanners.html [ prisonplanet.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those full body scanners show EVERYTHING - you really want your KIDS going through those?
Do you want to and have your naked body images stored on computer systems?
Just think those perverts watching you and mentally and physically m@$turb@ting over you and your kids?Airports Set To Become Primary Peddlers Of Child Pornhttp://www.prisonplanet.com/airports-set-to-become-primary-peddlers-of-child-porn.html [prisonplanet.com]New scanners break child porn lawshttp://www.prisonplanet.com/new-scanners-break-child-porn-laws.html [prisonplanet.com]Group slams Chertoff on scanner promotionhttp://www.prisonplanet.com/group-slams-chertoff-on-scanner-promotion.html [prisonplanet.com]Alex Jones Calls For Mass Resistance To Implementation Of Body Scannershttp://www.prisonplanet.com/alex-jones-calls-for-mass-resistance-to-implementation-of-body-scanners.html [prisonplanet.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30659152</id>
	<title>Surely not</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262723520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As long as the us foreign policy is based on fear no technological aid can stop angry people.</p><p>This is social issue rather than technological. Or not, if you folks at at united states of americka are willing to continue harrassing and provoking those easily harrassed and provoked, you're going to need to deploy more tech to not prevent your ass getting kicked from time to time.</p><p>How about being nice for a while? Doesn't it fit well with interests of weapon industry or what is the reason?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As long as the us foreign policy is based on fear no technological aid can stop angry people.This is social issue rather than technological .
Or not , if you folks at at united states of americka are willing to continue harrassing and provoking those easily harrassed and provoked , you 're going to need to deploy more tech to not prevent your ass getting kicked from time to time.How about being nice for a while ?
Does n't it fit well with interests of weapon industry or what is the reason ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As long as the us foreign policy is based on fear no technological aid can stop angry people.This is social issue rather than technological.
Or not, if you folks at at united states of americka are willing to continue harrassing and provoking those easily harrassed and provoked, you're going to need to deploy more tech to not prevent your ass getting kicked from time to time.How about being nice for a while?
Doesn't it fit well with interests of weapon industry or what is the reason?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657768</id>
	<title>No</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262717700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anybody who thinks anything can "save them from terrorists" is naive and, frankly, stupid.  Or a publicly accountable organisation pretending that it cares.</p><p>If you lock down your environment to the point where no terrorist can take any action, then the terrorist has won. Welcome to your police state.</p><p>If you don't " " " ", then the terrorist can take action.</p><p>That's it. Two options. If/else. Either/or.</p><p>But don't worry, there's still some good news: you're still more likely to die in a car crash on the way to the airport than you are to die in any air incident.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anybody who thinks anything can " save them from terrorists " is naive and , frankly , stupid .
Or a publicly accountable organisation pretending that it cares.If you lock down your environment to the point where no terrorist can take any action , then the terrorist has won .
Welcome to your police state.If you do n't " " " " , then the terrorist can take action.That 's it .
Two options .
If/else. Either/or.But do n't worry , there 's still some good news : you 're still more likely to die in a car crash on the way to the airport than you are to die in any air incident .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anybody who thinks anything can "save them from terrorists" is naive and, frankly, stupid.
Or a publicly accountable organisation pretending that it cares.If you lock down your environment to the point where no terrorist can take any action, then the terrorist has won.
Welcome to your police state.If you don't " " " ", then the terrorist can take action.That's it.
Two options.
If/else. Either/or.But don't worry, there's still some good news: you're still more likely to die in a car crash on the way to the airport than you are to die in any air incident.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656176</id>
	<title>What about examples from other smugglers??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262712480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Terrorists aren't the only ones who smuggle things on airplanes.  I think that drug mulls have pretty much proven that if someone wants to get a banned item onto an airplane badly enough, they're going to.</p><p>For example, will this technology find things that a person has swallowed?  I might point out that the most recent attempt used an acid based chemical detonator.  We have acid in our bodies.  I don't know if it's enough to detonate an explosive material but I have to wonder.</p><p>Will this technology find things in other orifices?  I think not.  In fact, I doubt that anything short of a computer aided full body X-Ray (ala Total Recall) will actually give us 100\% protection.  Even that could be beaten by implanting devices that look innocent on the surface.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Terrorists are n't the only ones who smuggle things on airplanes .
I think that drug mulls have pretty much proven that if someone wants to get a banned item onto an airplane badly enough , they 're going to.For example , will this technology find things that a person has swallowed ?
I might point out that the most recent attempt used an acid based chemical detonator .
We have acid in our bodies .
I do n't know if it 's enough to detonate an explosive material but I have to wonder.Will this technology find things in other orifices ?
I think not .
In fact , I doubt that anything short of a computer aided full body X-Ray ( ala Total Recall ) will actually give us 100 \ % protection .
Even that could be beaten by implanting devices that look innocent on the surface .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Terrorists aren't the only ones who smuggle things on airplanes.
I think that drug mulls have pretty much proven that if someone wants to get a banned item onto an airplane badly enough, they're going to.For example, will this technology find things that a person has swallowed?
I might point out that the most recent attempt used an acid based chemical detonator.
We have acid in our bodies.
I don't know if it's enough to detonate an explosive material but I have to wonder.Will this technology find things in other orifices?
I think not.
In fact, I doubt that anything short of a computer aided full body X-Ray (ala Total Recall) will actually give us 100\% protection.
Even that could be beaten by implanting devices that look innocent on the surface.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30659176</id>
	<title>Re:They are another layer</title>
	<author>infalliable</author>
	<datestamp>1262723640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The biggest issue is the special scanners will stop what they did last time.  It's the same issue the TSA and their counterparts have with each iteration of security practices.</p><p>They all assume the terrorist will use the same method as they have already done.  What happens when they don't?  You get what happened over the holiday.  The heightened security  fights the last attack, not the upcoming one.</p><p>- The original 9/11 plot had terrorists taking over the plane, so the put in super doors and other measures to keep people out of the cockpit.<br>- A potential attack had liquid explosives, so no more liquids over 3.4 oz (which is a joke measure anyway)<br>- Next attack used a shoe bomb, so we take off our shoes<br>- Next attack used a underpants bomb...</p><p>No security method will keep you perfectly safe.  All methods have their weaknesses and it is ultimately up to the passengers to assist in combating those wishing to do harm to them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The biggest issue is the special scanners will stop what they did last time .
It 's the same issue the TSA and their counterparts have with each iteration of security practices.They all assume the terrorist will use the same method as they have already done .
What happens when they do n't ?
You get what happened over the holiday .
The heightened security fights the last attack , not the upcoming one.- The original 9/11 plot had terrorists taking over the plane , so the put in super doors and other measures to keep people out of the cockpit.- A potential attack had liquid explosives , so no more liquids over 3.4 oz ( which is a joke measure anyway ) - Next attack used a shoe bomb , so we take off our shoes- Next attack used a underpants bomb...No security method will keep you perfectly safe .
All methods have their weaknesses and it is ultimately up to the passengers to assist in combating those wishing to do harm to them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The biggest issue is the special scanners will stop what they did last time.
It's the same issue the TSA and their counterparts have with each iteration of security practices.They all assume the terrorist will use the same method as they have already done.
What happens when they don't?
You get what happened over the holiday.
The heightened security  fights the last attack, not the upcoming one.- The original 9/11 plot had terrorists taking over the plane, so the put in super doors and other measures to keep people out of the cockpit.- A potential attack had liquid explosives, so no more liquids over 3.4 oz (which is a joke measure anyway)- Next attack used a shoe bomb, so we take off our shoes- Next attack used a underpants bomb...No security method will keep you perfectly safe.
All methods have their weaknesses and it is ultimately up to the passengers to assist in combating those wishing to do harm to them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656478</id>
	<title>nope.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262713620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Can Imaging Technologies Save Us From Terrorists?</p></div></blockquote><p>Short answer:  No.</p><blockquote><div><p>Michael Chertoff, the former homeland security secretary, told the New York Times, that if these scanners had been in place, they would have caught the would-be bomber. Ben Wallace, the Conservative Member of Parliament in the United Kingdom, disagrees, saying that the technologies can't detect the kind of low-density explosive that the would-be terrorist tried to use on December 25th.</p></div></blockquote><p>Whether or not these scanners can actually detect such explosives is largely irrelevant.</p><p>This specific bomber was on watch lists, bought a one-way ticket with cash, and had worried his father enough for him to contact authorities.  There are plenty of things already in-place that could have caught the would-be bomber, but didn't.</p><p>These new gadgets might very well <i>help</i> catch terrorists...  But they aren't going to magically eliminate all terrorism.</p><p>They'll find an explosive that isn't detected.  Or they'll carry it on in some way that isn't detected.  Or they'll bribe the right people to get past security un-screened.  Or they'll get people hired in the right places to bypass security entirely.  Or maybe they'll blow up something instead of a plane - another building, or a train, or a boat.</p><p>We're still looking at treating the symptoms, rather than the disease itself.  We're addressing specific actions - he tried to blow up a plane with a bomb in his underwear - rather than the root cause of these actions - religious extremism that's willing to sacrifice plenty of lives to make a statement.</p><p>As long as that extremism exists...  And especially when we're willing to give their statements so much attention...  Terrorism will persist, regardless of what technological gadgetry we put in place.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can Imaging Technologies Save Us From Terrorists ? Short answer : No.Michael Chertoff , the former homeland security secretary , told the New York Times , that if these scanners had been in place , they would have caught the would-be bomber .
Ben Wallace , the Conservative Member of Parliament in the United Kingdom , disagrees , saying that the technologies ca n't detect the kind of low-density explosive that the would-be terrorist tried to use on December 25th.Whether or not these scanners can actually detect such explosives is largely irrelevant.This specific bomber was on watch lists , bought a one-way ticket with cash , and had worried his father enough for him to contact authorities .
There are plenty of things already in-place that could have caught the would-be bomber , but did n't.These new gadgets might very well help catch terrorists... But they are n't going to magically eliminate all terrorism.They 'll find an explosive that is n't detected .
Or they 'll carry it on in some way that is n't detected .
Or they 'll bribe the right people to get past security un-screened .
Or they 'll get people hired in the right places to bypass security entirely .
Or maybe they 'll blow up something instead of a plane - another building , or a train , or a boat.We 're still looking at treating the symptoms , rather than the disease itself .
We 're addressing specific actions - he tried to blow up a plane with a bomb in his underwear - rather than the root cause of these actions - religious extremism that 's willing to sacrifice plenty of lives to make a statement.As long as that extremism exists... And especially when we 're willing to give their statements so much attention... Terrorism will persist , regardless of what technological gadgetry we put in place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can Imaging Technologies Save Us From Terrorists?Short answer:  No.Michael Chertoff, the former homeland security secretary, told the New York Times, that if these scanners had been in place, they would have caught the would-be bomber.
Ben Wallace, the Conservative Member of Parliament in the United Kingdom, disagrees, saying that the technologies can't detect the kind of low-density explosive that the would-be terrorist tried to use on December 25th.Whether or not these scanners can actually detect such explosives is largely irrelevant.This specific bomber was on watch lists, bought a one-way ticket with cash, and had worried his father enough for him to contact authorities.
There are plenty of things already in-place that could have caught the would-be bomber, but didn't.These new gadgets might very well help catch terrorists...  But they aren't going to magically eliminate all terrorism.They'll find an explosive that isn't detected.
Or they'll carry it on in some way that isn't detected.
Or they'll bribe the right people to get past security un-screened.
Or they'll get people hired in the right places to bypass security entirely.
Or maybe they'll blow up something instead of a plane - another building, or a train, or a boat.We're still looking at treating the symptoms, rather than the disease itself.
We're addressing specific actions - he tried to blow up a plane with a bomb in his underwear - rather than the root cause of these actions - religious extremism that's willing to sacrifice plenty of lives to make a statement.As long as that extremism exists...  And especially when we're willing to give their statements so much attention...  Terrorism will persist, regardless of what technological gadgetry we put in place.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656520</id>
	<title>Considering the recent bomber BYPASSED security...</title>
	<author>d474</author>
	<datestamp>1262713800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>...or at least, there is witness testimony strongly suggesting the bomber had inside help in the airport to get him past normal security, the answer is "No, full body scanners will not stop terrorists."  What good is a full body scan if you have people on the inside that can get you past the scanner?

<br> <br>Don't take my word for it, listen to this NPR interview:  <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121983246" title="npr.org">Attorney witnessed bomber before flight had already bypassed security with no Passport</a> [npr.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>...or at least , there is witness testimony strongly suggesting the bomber had inside help in the airport to get him past normal security , the answer is " No , full body scanners will not stop terrorists .
" What good is a full body scan if you have people on the inside that can get you past the scanner ?
Do n't take my word for it , listen to this NPR interview : Attorney witnessed bomber before flight had already bypassed security with no Passport [ npr.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...or at least, there is witness testimony strongly suggesting the bomber had inside help in the airport to get him past normal security, the answer is "No, full body scanners will not stop terrorists.
"  What good is a full body scan if you have people on the inside that can get you past the scanner?
Don't take my word for it, listen to this NPR interview:  Attorney witnessed bomber before flight had already bypassed security with no Passport [npr.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30664218</id>
	<title>Don't need to RTFA to know the answer to its title</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262703300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In a western world where now most every law-abiding citizen must have at least one government-issued identity document on them at all times and with that will end up irrevocably on several, ever larger, ever more privacy sensitive and consequently more easily abused databases, this very clumsy would-be terrorist managed to successfully board a plane with no passport and while listed on at least one "terrorist watch list" and with a recent warning from his own father to intelligence services that he was up to something. What does this tell us?</p><p>I think at this point we don't need to discuss the fallacies of the technology touted above. And fallacies they are, for the belief that throwing ever more privacy invading technology at the problem was laughable on its face from the start, as the attacks that this technology tries to secure against are without fail amazingly low-tech in nature, so there is no technology gap to bridge. Quite the contrary: If there was a gap it was one of high-tech being caught out by sheer down-to-earth practicality, and all the government did was widening the gap by fleeing into complexity. The accompanying restrictions are direct damage to civic liberties and thus themselves spell out terrorist success.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In a western world where now most every law-abiding citizen must have at least one government-issued identity document on them at all times and with that will end up irrevocably on several , ever larger , ever more privacy sensitive and consequently more easily abused databases , this very clumsy would-be terrorist managed to successfully board a plane with no passport and while listed on at least one " terrorist watch list " and with a recent warning from his own father to intelligence services that he was up to something .
What does this tell us ? I think at this point we do n't need to discuss the fallacies of the technology touted above .
And fallacies they are , for the belief that throwing ever more privacy invading technology at the problem was laughable on its face from the start , as the attacks that this technology tries to secure against are without fail amazingly low-tech in nature , so there is no technology gap to bridge .
Quite the contrary : If there was a gap it was one of high-tech being caught out by sheer down-to-earth practicality , and all the government did was widening the gap by fleeing into complexity .
The accompanying restrictions are direct damage to civic liberties and thus themselves spell out terrorist success .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In a western world where now most every law-abiding citizen must have at least one government-issued identity document on them at all times and with that will end up irrevocably on several, ever larger, ever more privacy sensitive and consequently more easily abused databases, this very clumsy would-be terrorist managed to successfully board a plane with no passport and while listed on at least one "terrorist watch list" and with a recent warning from his own father to intelligence services that he was up to something.
What does this tell us?I think at this point we don't need to discuss the fallacies of the technology touted above.
And fallacies they are, for the belief that throwing ever more privacy invading technology at the problem was laughable on its face from the start, as the attacks that this technology tries to secure against are without fail amazingly low-tech in nature, so there is no technology gap to bridge.
Quite the contrary: If there was a gap it was one of high-tech being caught out by sheer down-to-earth practicality, and all the government did was widening the gap by fleeing into complexity.
The accompanying restrictions are direct damage to civic liberties and thus themselves spell out terrorist success.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657718</id>
	<title>Re:Kiddie Porn Laws Defeat Scanners</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262717580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe this is a stupid question, but if the scanners violate laws against child porn, how do they not also violate other privacy laws that protect people from this kind of intrusion?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe this is a stupid question , but if the scanners violate laws against child porn , how do they not also violate other privacy laws that protect people from this kind of intrusion ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe this is a stupid question, but if the scanners violate laws against child porn, how do they not also violate other privacy laws that protect people from this kind of intrusion?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657166</id>
	<title>Re:Just wait...</title>
	<author>jollyreaper</author>
	<datestamp>1262715780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As soon as these scanners are deployed terrorists will simply start to carry the explosives in an internal cavity. 80g of explosives - the amount used on the 25th - only has a volume of 36x36x36 mm^3. There are plenty of places where this could be hidden - just look at the drug mules..</p><p>So you will still need to be searched, even if you are travelling in the nude. But at least the searches would take less time.</p></div><p>Do they inspect false limbs? If you're blowing yourself up for Allah anyway, why not give up your leg a few months early? Martyrdom candidate gets leg amputated below knee, heals up, is fitted with prosthetic. Interior of prosthetic is filled with explosive and is completely sealed. Cell phone is the wireless detonator for the bomb. Take seat in plane, wait until cruising altitude is reached so breaching the pressure vessel will cause maximum damage, detonate leg. How do you check for that? And what if the guy has a wheelchair. That's chock full of metal. What if the tubes that make it up were packed and sealed with plastique?</p><p>I never understood the appeal of suicide bombings but I guess it makes things simpler on the operational end. There's the old saying about making the hit is easy, getting out alive is the hard part. A shoulder-fired SAM is hard to buy, hard to smuggle, and even if you blow up the plane, now there's an operative on the ground trying to evade the cops. The suicide bomber will be dead unless the bomb fails, nobody to interrogate, much harder to find his support people. But if bombs are simpler than missiles, why not just do what the Libyans did with Pan-Am 103 and check luggage with the bomb in it, then not get on the plane? Even if the bomb is caught in scanning, your guy presumably used a false ID and won't be caught.</p><p>The only thing that's really encouraging throughout all of this is that the terrorists don't appear to be really smart. This country is full of gaping vulnerabilities that would be frightfully easy to exploit but aren't just because there aren't as many terrorists out there as we think and they don't have the Lex Luthor plotting skills we give them credit for. Just look at our power grid. Terrorists knocking down a few long-haul towers could make the country go crazier than 9-11. Even if they didn't manage to replicate that giant New York blackout from a few years back, just imagine the expense of patrolling all the lines now, especially through remote areas. It would cost a fortune. How difficult would it be to get a dozen crews modeled after the DC Snipers running around the country? We'd lose our minds. But they aren't doing this, are they?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As soon as these scanners are deployed terrorists will simply start to carry the explosives in an internal cavity .
80g of explosives - the amount used on the 25th - only has a volume of 36x36x36 mm ^ 3 .
There are plenty of places where this could be hidden - just look at the drug mules..So you will still need to be searched , even if you are travelling in the nude .
But at least the searches would take less time.Do they inspect false limbs ?
If you 're blowing yourself up for Allah anyway , why not give up your leg a few months early ?
Martyrdom candidate gets leg amputated below knee , heals up , is fitted with prosthetic .
Interior of prosthetic is filled with explosive and is completely sealed .
Cell phone is the wireless detonator for the bomb .
Take seat in plane , wait until cruising altitude is reached so breaching the pressure vessel will cause maximum damage , detonate leg .
How do you check for that ?
And what if the guy has a wheelchair .
That 's chock full of metal .
What if the tubes that make it up were packed and sealed with plastique ? I never understood the appeal of suicide bombings but I guess it makes things simpler on the operational end .
There 's the old saying about making the hit is easy , getting out alive is the hard part .
A shoulder-fired SAM is hard to buy , hard to smuggle , and even if you blow up the plane , now there 's an operative on the ground trying to evade the cops .
The suicide bomber will be dead unless the bomb fails , nobody to interrogate , much harder to find his support people .
But if bombs are simpler than missiles , why not just do what the Libyans did with Pan-Am 103 and check luggage with the bomb in it , then not get on the plane ?
Even if the bomb is caught in scanning , your guy presumably used a false ID and wo n't be caught.The only thing that 's really encouraging throughout all of this is that the terrorists do n't appear to be really smart .
This country is full of gaping vulnerabilities that would be frightfully easy to exploit but are n't just because there are n't as many terrorists out there as we think and they do n't have the Lex Luthor plotting skills we give them credit for .
Just look at our power grid .
Terrorists knocking down a few long-haul towers could make the country go crazier than 9-11 .
Even if they did n't manage to replicate that giant New York blackout from a few years back , just imagine the expense of patrolling all the lines now , especially through remote areas .
It would cost a fortune .
How difficult would it be to get a dozen crews modeled after the DC Snipers running around the country ?
We 'd lose our minds .
But they are n't doing this , are they ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As soon as these scanners are deployed terrorists will simply start to carry the explosives in an internal cavity.
80g of explosives - the amount used on the 25th - only has a volume of 36x36x36 mm^3.
There are plenty of places where this could be hidden - just look at the drug mules..So you will still need to be searched, even if you are travelling in the nude.
But at least the searches would take less time.Do they inspect false limbs?
If you're blowing yourself up for Allah anyway, why not give up your leg a few months early?
Martyrdom candidate gets leg amputated below knee, heals up, is fitted with prosthetic.
Interior of prosthetic is filled with explosive and is completely sealed.
Cell phone is the wireless detonator for the bomb.
Take seat in plane, wait until cruising altitude is reached so breaching the pressure vessel will cause maximum damage, detonate leg.
How do you check for that?
And what if the guy has a wheelchair.
That's chock full of metal.
What if the tubes that make it up were packed and sealed with plastique?I never understood the appeal of suicide bombings but I guess it makes things simpler on the operational end.
There's the old saying about making the hit is easy, getting out alive is the hard part.
A shoulder-fired SAM is hard to buy, hard to smuggle, and even if you blow up the plane, now there's an operative on the ground trying to evade the cops.
The suicide bomber will be dead unless the bomb fails, nobody to interrogate, much harder to find his support people.
But if bombs are simpler than missiles, why not just do what the Libyans did with Pan-Am 103 and check luggage with the bomb in it, then not get on the plane?
Even if the bomb is caught in scanning, your guy presumably used a false ID and won't be caught.The only thing that's really encouraging throughout all of this is that the terrorists don't appear to be really smart.
This country is full of gaping vulnerabilities that would be frightfully easy to exploit but aren't just because there aren't as many terrorists out there as we think and they don't have the Lex Luthor plotting skills we give them credit for.
Just look at our power grid.
Terrorists knocking down a few long-haul towers could make the country go crazier than 9-11.
Even if they didn't manage to replicate that giant New York blackout from a few years back, just imagine the expense of patrolling all the lines now, especially through remote areas.
It would cost a fortune.
How difficult would it be to get a dozen crews modeled after the DC Snipers running around the country?
We'd lose our minds.
But they aren't doing this, are they?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656876</id>
	<title>As a technological question?</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1262714880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Probably. As a social, political and economic question, no.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Probably .
As a social , political and economic question , no .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Probably.
As a social, political and economic question, no.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657932</id>
	<title>Re:... but not if</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262718240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I always thought bombing planes was a prestige thing. Like... hitting the pentagon or some such. Doing it purely because it is a little difficult.<br> <br>If they wanted to do damage hit a few double-decker tour buses. The cost to the tourism industry would far outweigh w/e planes cost. Doubled up with the shit you have to go through to get to the US anyways less and less people would bother. Plus there are as many people in a mid sized plane as there are in a bus... (50~60people).<br> <br>I suppose it makes less of an anti-america statement though.... perhaps blow up the liberty bell? That has like 1 guard and you can get within a few feet of it... hell, you could probably ram it with a car no problem.<br> <br>Man, terrorists are dumb. Maybe it's just the problem solver in me, but I'm sure I could do a way better job. Same with school shooters.... I mean if you were going for a record or something, shooting yourself in the head halfway through isn't the best plan... I wonder if this type of thinking comes with some label I could get put in a small white room for...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I always thought bombing planes was a prestige thing .
Like... hitting the pentagon or some such .
Doing it purely because it is a little difficult .
If they wanted to do damage hit a few double-decker tour buses .
The cost to the tourism industry would far outweigh w/e planes cost .
Doubled up with the shit you have to go through to get to the US anyways less and less people would bother .
Plus there are as many people in a mid sized plane as there are in a bus... ( 50 ~ 60people ) . I suppose it makes less of an anti-america statement though.... perhaps blow up the liberty bell ?
That has like 1 guard and you can get within a few feet of it... hell , you could probably ram it with a car no problem .
Man , terrorists are dumb .
Maybe it 's just the problem solver in me , but I 'm sure I could do a way better job .
Same with school shooters.... I mean if you were going for a record or something , shooting yourself in the head halfway through is n't the best plan... I wonder if this type of thinking comes with some label I could get put in a small white room for.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I always thought bombing planes was a prestige thing.
Like... hitting the pentagon or some such.
Doing it purely because it is a little difficult.
If they wanted to do damage hit a few double-decker tour buses.
The cost to the tourism industry would far outweigh w/e planes cost.
Doubled up with the shit you have to go through to get to the US anyways less and less people would bother.
Plus there are as many people in a mid sized plane as there are in a bus... (50~60people). I suppose it makes less of an anti-america statement though.... perhaps blow up the liberty bell?
That has like 1 guard and you can get within a few feet of it... hell, you could probably ram it with a car no problem.
Man, terrorists are dumb.
Maybe it's just the problem solver in me, but I'm sure I could do a way better job.
Same with school shooters.... I mean if you were going for a record or something, shooting yourself in the head halfway through isn't the best plan... I wonder if this type of thinking comes with some label I could get put in a small white room for...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657312</id>
	<title>The government seems to be forgetting something...</title>
	<author>Syberz</author>
	<datestamp>1262716320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even with the terrorist attacks, air travel is the safest form of transportation on the planet.</p><p>More people die in car crashes than in terrorist attacks, so why not use all of those gazillions of dollars to find ways to make cars safer?</p><p>Soon we'll have to strip naked to take a flight to make sure we're not carrying explosives, but nothing is preventing anyone from driving completely blitzed. On the latter, even getting caught isn't much of a deterrent, up here (Quebec) we have people who are caught driving completely plowed 6+ times and the penalties aren't doing squat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even with the terrorist attacks , air travel is the safest form of transportation on the planet.More people die in car crashes than in terrorist attacks , so why not use all of those gazillions of dollars to find ways to make cars safer ? Soon we 'll have to strip naked to take a flight to make sure we 're not carrying explosives , but nothing is preventing anyone from driving completely blitzed .
On the latter , even getting caught is n't much of a deterrent , up here ( Quebec ) we have people who are caught driving completely plowed 6 + times and the penalties are n't doing squat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even with the terrorist attacks, air travel is the safest form of transportation on the planet.More people die in car crashes than in terrorist attacks, so why not use all of those gazillions of dollars to find ways to make cars safer?Soon we'll have to strip naked to take a flight to make sure we're not carrying explosives, but nothing is preventing anyone from driving completely blitzed.
On the latter, even getting caught isn't much of a deterrent, up here (Quebec) we have people who are caught driving completely plowed 6+ times and the penalties aren't doing squat.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655858</id>
	<title>... but not if</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262711340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He stuck them up his bum.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He stuck them up his bum .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He stuck them up his bum.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30659522</id>
	<title>OMg yes please I'm so terrified, oh please saaaave</title>
	<author>gd23ka</author>
	<datestamp>1262725080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>meeee<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... there's people wearing turbans out to kill me waaaah wahhh uuuuuh uuuh I'm sooo scared baah baaaah please scan my cock with your terahertz scanners so I can be saaaafe</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>meeee .... there 's people wearing turbans out to kill me waaaah wahhh uuuuuh uuuh I 'm sooo scared baah baaaah please scan my cock with your terahertz scanners so I can be saaaafe</tokentext>
<sentencetext>meeee .... there's people wearing turbans out to kill me waaaah wahhh uuuuuh uuuh I'm sooo scared baah baaaah please scan my cock with your terahertz scanners so I can be saaaafe</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30658396</id>
	<title>Re:... but not if</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262720220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Shouldn't the title be:</p><p>"Can Imaging Technologies Save Us From Muslims"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Should n't the title be : " Can Imaging Technologies Save Us From Muslims " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shouldn't the title be:"Can Imaging Technologies Save Us From Muslims"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656406</id>
	<title>its about perception</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1262713260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>people are concerned about the issue of terrorism on airlines, so there's money and effort pushed towards this problem. it doesn't mean the effort or the technology is effective, its more like a groping in the dark to get something done, and more importantly, the perception that people are trying to solve the problem, regardless of how intractable the problem is</p><p>now a lot of people on slashdot might gripe and groan about lack of effectiveness, but you have to think about this from a political perspective: effectiveness is less important than perception that you are trying to be effective</p><p>that is, your average citizen, concerned about terrorism on airplanes, doesn't want to see zero screening and the pat answer "well, we have no effective technology to screen for this, so take your chances". then they get angry. they want to see barking dogs, stern men in uniform with stun guns, and people passing through electronic sniffing doodads. even if its not going to prevent something like the crotchbomber</p><p>actually preventing bombings isn't an issue, perception of an effort to try to prevent such bombings is the issue</p><p>so all of the inevitable griping on slashdot about technological ineffectiveness is completely besides the point. you are 100\% correct. but it doesn't mean we won't get millions spent on ineffective technology</p><p>peace of mind, though resting on a flimsy foundation, is better than no peace of mind at all</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>people are concerned about the issue of terrorism on airlines , so there 's money and effort pushed towards this problem .
it does n't mean the effort or the technology is effective , its more like a groping in the dark to get something done , and more importantly , the perception that people are trying to solve the problem , regardless of how intractable the problem isnow a lot of people on slashdot might gripe and groan about lack of effectiveness , but you have to think about this from a political perspective : effectiveness is less important than perception that you are trying to be effectivethat is , your average citizen , concerned about terrorism on airplanes , does n't want to see zero screening and the pat answer " well , we have no effective technology to screen for this , so take your chances " .
then they get angry .
they want to see barking dogs , stern men in uniform with stun guns , and people passing through electronic sniffing doodads .
even if its not going to prevent something like the crotchbomberactually preventing bombings is n't an issue , perception of an effort to try to prevent such bombings is the issueso all of the inevitable griping on slashdot about technological ineffectiveness is completely besides the point .
you are 100 \ % correct .
but it does n't mean we wo n't get millions spent on ineffective technologypeace of mind , though resting on a flimsy foundation , is better than no peace of mind at all</tokentext>
<sentencetext>people are concerned about the issue of terrorism on airlines, so there's money and effort pushed towards this problem.
it doesn't mean the effort or the technology is effective, its more like a groping in the dark to get something done, and more importantly, the perception that people are trying to solve the problem, regardless of how intractable the problem isnow a lot of people on slashdot might gripe and groan about lack of effectiveness, but you have to think about this from a political perspective: effectiveness is less important than perception that you are trying to be effectivethat is, your average citizen, concerned about terrorism on airplanes, doesn't want to see zero screening and the pat answer "well, we have no effective technology to screen for this, so take your chances".
then they get angry.
they want to see barking dogs, stern men in uniform with stun guns, and people passing through electronic sniffing doodads.
even if its not going to prevent something like the crotchbomberactually preventing bombings isn't an issue, perception of an effort to try to prevent such bombings is the issueso all of the inevitable griping on slashdot about technological ineffectiveness is completely besides the point.
you are 100\% correct.
but it doesn't mean we won't get millions spent on ineffective technologypeace of mind, though resting on a flimsy foundation, is better than no peace of mind at all</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656238</id>
	<title>Re:Just wait...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262712720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>If so, I refuse to fly...</i> <br> <br>
Good idea. Actually, it would be a better idea if everybody refused to fly until the airlines recognised that their customers deserve a modicum of respect. The whole business of flying anywhere has become so universally unpleasant, there's no point bothering any more, and it's high time the airlines realised that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If so , I refuse to fly.. . Good idea .
Actually , it would be a better idea if everybody refused to fly until the airlines recognised that their customers deserve a modicum of respect .
The whole business of flying anywhere has become so universally unpleasant , there 's no point bothering any more , and it 's high time the airlines realised that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If so, I refuse to fly...  
Good idea.
Actually, it would be a better idea if everybody refused to fly until the airlines recognised that their customers deserve a modicum of respect.
The whole business of flying anywhere has become so universally unpleasant, there's no point bothering any more, and it's high time the airlines realised that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657956</id>
	<title>What materials can't they see through?</title>
	<author>mdmkolbe</author>
	<datestamp>1262718300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I sew a lead lining into my pants, would it be able to see through that?  What about leather?  Other materials?  Sequins (their reflections would sometimes overload early TV camera's)?  Chainmail? What mm-wave opaque or reflective materials are out there?</p><p>(Hmm, I'm not sure what the status of meta-materials at mm length is but you might be able to build a cloak out of these.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I sew a lead lining into my pants , would it be able to see through that ?
What about leather ?
Other materials ?
Sequins ( their reflections would sometimes overload early TV camera 's ) ?
Chainmail ? What mm-wave opaque or reflective materials are out there ?
( Hmm , I 'm not sure what the status of meta-materials at mm length is but you might be able to build a cloak out of these .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I sew a lead lining into my pants, would it be able to see through that?
What about leather?
Other materials?
Sequins (their reflections would sometimes overload early TV camera's)?
Chainmail? What mm-wave opaque or reflective materials are out there?
(Hmm, I'm not sure what the status of meta-materials at mm length is but you might be able to build a cloak out of these.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655958</id>
	<title>The scanners were already in place</title>
	<author>Finallyjoined!!!</author>
	<datestamp>1262711700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>in Holland! However they weren't used to <i>avoid embarrassment</i> to US passengers.<br> <br>
Also, having them in place in US airports won't scan someone flying in from Timbuktu, now would they?</htmltext>
<tokenext>in Holland !
However they were n't used to avoid embarrassment to US passengers .
Also , having them in place in US airports wo n't scan someone flying in from Timbuktu , now would they ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in Holland!
However they weren't used to avoid embarrassment to US passengers.
Also, having them in place in US airports won't scan someone flying in from Timbuktu, now would they?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657346</id>
	<title>Re:They are another layer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262716380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Your comment may come across as facetious to some, but you have (perhaps unknowingly) correctly pointed out that technology is just a band-aid, and the wound remains infected.  The source of these problems is a clash of ideologies, and no technology will ever remedy that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your comment may come across as facetious to some , but you have ( perhaps unknowingly ) correctly pointed out that technology is just a band-aid , and the wound remains infected .
The source of these problems is a clash of ideologies , and no technology will ever remedy that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your comment may come across as facetious to some, but you have (perhaps unknowingly) correctly pointed out that technology is just a band-aid, and the wound remains infected.
The source of these problems is a clash of ideologies, and no technology will ever remedy that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656650</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30658916</id>
	<title>Re:Kiddie Porn Laws Defeat Scanners</title>
	<author>BitterOak</author>
	<datestamp>1262722320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There was an <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jan/04/new-scanners-child-porn-laws" title="guardian.co.uk">article</a> [guardian.co.uk] that mentioned that use of these scanners violated GB laws on child porn. </p></div><p>The U.K. must have some very weird laws on pornography then.  In most civilized countries, including the U.S., nudity!=pornography.  Do people in the U.K. get arrested for taking family photos at nude beaches?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There was an article [ guardian.co.uk ] that mentioned that use of these scanners violated GB laws on child porn .
The U.K. must have some very weird laws on pornography then .
In most civilized countries , including the U.S. , nudity ! = pornography .
Do people in the U.K. get arrested for taking family photos at nude beaches ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was an article [guardian.co.uk] that mentioned that use of these scanners violated GB laws on child porn.
The U.K. must have some very weird laws on pornography then.
In most civilized countries, including the U.S., nudity!=pornography.
Do people in the U.K. get arrested for taking family photos at nude beaches?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656816</id>
	<title>Re:They are another layer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262714700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>All imaging technologies can (help) save us from (some) terrorists.  Specifically, those individuals carrying dangerous/unknown objects or materials outside their body, whether integrated with their clothes or simply bound to their body.</p></div><p>I'm not disagreeing with you, but since the scanners are allegedly being installed to prevent future crotch bombers, does this technology detect the specific explosive used? Or is Ben Wallace correct and all this nonsense is all for show?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>All imaging technologies can ( help ) save us from ( some ) terrorists .
Specifically , those individuals carrying dangerous/unknown objects or materials outside their body , whether integrated with their clothes or simply bound to their body.I 'm not disagreeing with you , but since the scanners are allegedly being installed to prevent future crotch bombers , does this technology detect the specific explosive used ?
Or is Ben Wallace correct and all this nonsense is all for show ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All imaging technologies can (help) save us from (some) terrorists.
Specifically, those individuals carrying dangerous/unknown objects or materials outside their body, whether integrated with their clothes or simply bound to their body.I'm not disagreeing with you, but since the scanners are allegedly being installed to prevent future crotch bombers, does this technology detect the specific explosive used?
Or is Ben Wallace correct and all this nonsense is all for show?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657412</id>
	<title>Is there even some terrorists out there?</title>
	<author>GPLHost-Thomas</author>
	<datestamp>1262716560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who still believe the crap on TV? The so-called terrorist on the last attack went through security check escorted (so he was NOT checked) and didn't even show his passport, according to many witnesses. Nobody believe the official 9/11 version anymore. So why are we getting this "naked scanners" for? This is INSANE, and the insanity is going further and further...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who still believe the crap on TV ?
The so-called terrorist on the last attack went through security check escorted ( so he was NOT checked ) and did n't even show his passport , according to many witnesses .
Nobody believe the official 9/11 version anymore .
So why are we getting this " naked scanners " for ?
This is INSANE , and the insanity is going further and further.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who still believe the crap on TV?
The so-called terrorist on the last attack went through security check escorted (so he was NOT checked) and didn't even show his passport, according to many witnesses.
Nobody believe the official 9/11 version anymore.
So why are we getting this "naked scanners" for?
This is INSANE, and the insanity is going further and further...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30658066</id>
	<title>We need to look at old tech...</title>
	<author>chipperdog</author>
	<datestamp>1262718720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From what I've heard, most bomb sniffing dogs would have detected the explosive. I think instead of an unproven technology, train more dogs...
Also, the guy paid CASH for his ticket (I think I heard it was a one way ticket), didn't check any luggage, and had a few other flags that should have put him under suspicion...More of the millimeter scanners will only be good for L3 IMHO.</htmltext>
<tokenext>From what I 've heard , most bomb sniffing dogs would have detected the explosive .
I think instead of an unproven technology , train more dogs.. . Also , the guy paid CASH for his ticket ( I think I heard it was a one way ticket ) , did n't check any luggage , and had a few other flags that should have put him under suspicion...More of the millimeter scanners will only be good for L3 IMHO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From what I've heard, most bomb sniffing dogs would have detected the explosive.
I think instead of an unproven technology, train more dogs...
Also, the guy paid CASH for his ticket (I think I heard it was a one way ticket), didn't check any luggage, and had a few other flags that should have put him under suspicion...More of the millimeter scanners will only be good for L3 IMHO.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657492</id>
	<title>It Can Work!</title>
	<author>Hoi Polloi</author>
	<datestamp>1262716800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The more miserable and abusive the air travel experience the more people will want to avoid air travel as much as possible.  Then air travel will be absolutely safe from terrorists because the planes will be empty and on the ground.</p><p>I suspect Amtrak and Greyhound are behind this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The more miserable and abusive the air travel experience the more people will want to avoid air travel as much as possible .
Then air travel will be absolutely safe from terrorists because the planes will be empty and on the ground.I suspect Amtrak and Greyhound are behind this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The more miserable and abusive the air travel experience the more people will want to avoid air travel as much as possible.
Then air travel will be absolutely safe from terrorists because the planes will be empty and on the ground.I suspect Amtrak and Greyhound are behind this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655932</id>
	<title>At Best It's A Static Defense...</title>
	<author>gedrin</author>
	<datestamp>1262711640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...like the Maginot Line.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...like the Maginot Line .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...like the Maginot Line.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656300</id>
	<title>terrorist not much of a problem</title>
	<author>astar</author>
	<datestamp>1262712960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unless they have nukes or something, terrorists are not much of a threat to the country.  Recognize that governments never assume an actual responsibility to say protect you from crime.  So what is happening here?</p><p>I suggest we are having a wave of terrorism to change the subject from the collapse of copenhagen.  Some psych warfare.</p><p>Here is something to think about.  There is a lot of talk about Yemen.  So they talk about the underware bomber and Yemen.  But the obvious factoid that he was recruited in Londonistan is never mentioned.  And then we have supposedly released gitmo detainees to yemen with bad rsults.  Of course, it is not mentioned that these people were released to the saudis.  And sometimes the 9/11 people nationalities have actually been mentioned in the past.</p><p>Figure you are being taken for a ride.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless they have nukes or something , terrorists are not much of a threat to the country .
Recognize that governments never assume an actual responsibility to say protect you from crime .
So what is happening here ? I suggest we are having a wave of terrorism to change the subject from the collapse of copenhagen .
Some psych warfare.Here is something to think about .
There is a lot of talk about Yemen .
So they talk about the underware bomber and Yemen .
But the obvious factoid that he was recruited in Londonistan is never mentioned .
And then we have supposedly released gitmo detainees to yemen with bad rsults .
Of course , it is not mentioned that these people were released to the saudis .
And sometimes the 9/11 people nationalities have actually been mentioned in the past.Figure you are being taken for a ride .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless they have nukes or something, terrorists are not much of a threat to the country.
Recognize that governments never assume an actual responsibility to say protect you from crime.
So what is happening here?I suggest we are having a wave of terrorism to change the subject from the collapse of copenhagen.
Some psych warfare.Here is something to think about.
There is a lot of talk about Yemen.
So they talk about the underware bomber and Yemen.
But the obvious factoid that he was recruited in Londonistan is never mentioned.
And then we have supposedly released gitmo detainees to yemen with bad rsults.
Of course, it is not mentioned that these people were released to the saudis.
And sometimes the 9/11 people nationalities have actually been mentioned in the past.Figure you are being taken for a ride.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656244</id>
	<title>Re:... but not if</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262712720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They've already used this technique successfully to kill someone.  Used a cell phone to detonate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 've already used this technique successfully to kill someone .
Used a cell phone to detonate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They've already used this technique successfully to kill someone.
Used a cell phone to detonate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656574</id>
	<title>Re:wha</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262713980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So a woman bomber fills her maxi-pad with this powder.... the scanner sees she has a feminine napkin in place..... Now what?<br>Don&rsquo;t forget the other chemical say let&rsquo;s put that on a string</p><p>Once again style over substance.<br>Sell some machines... justify more personnel... remove a bit more liberty and freedom....no real results. Exert more power and make sure the youth never remember to get offended when someone wants to invade your privacy. One more generation and it&rsquo;s just about done.</p><p>In my book it started with a pee test. (Its not an invasion of privacy with no probable cause says our highest court. Intellectually bankrupt tards.)</p><p>
&nbsp; Same as it ever was.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So a woman bomber fills her maxi-pad with this powder.... the scanner sees she has a feminine napkin in place..... Now what ? Don    t forget the other chemical say let    s put that on a stringOnce again style over substance.Sell some machines... justify more personnel... remove a bit more liberty and freedom....no real results .
Exert more power and make sure the youth never remember to get offended when someone wants to invade your privacy .
One more generation and it    s just about done.In my book it started with a pee test .
( Its not an invasion of privacy with no probable cause says our highest court .
Intellectually bankrupt tards .
)   Same as it ever was .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So a woman bomber fills her maxi-pad with this powder.... the scanner sees she has a feminine napkin in place..... Now what?Don’t forget the other chemical say let’s put that on a stringOnce again style over substance.Sell some machines... justify more personnel... remove a bit more liberty and freedom....no real results.
Exert more power and make sure the youth never remember to get offended when someone wants to invade your privacy.
One more generation and it’s just about done.In my book it started with a pee test.
(Its not an invasion of privacy with no probable cause says our highest court.
Intellectually bankrupt tards.
)
  Same as it ever was.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655880</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657446</id>
	<title>Bombers actually aren't a big deal...</title>
	<author>MobyDisk</author>
	<datestamp>1262716680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think people forget that 9/11 wasn't caused by terrorists with bombs.  It was caused by hijackers.  We've fixed the hijacking problem.  A bomber can't do nearly the damage that the 9/11 hijackers did.  So instead, airport security should focus on what is important: hijackings.  If once every 10 years, a plane explodes from an underwear bomb, then we have succeeded.  We lose more people due to car crashes or swimming pools or tripping over a loaf of bread.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think people forget that 9/11 was n't caused by terrorists with bombs .
It was caused by hijackers .
We 've fixed the hijacking problem .
A bomber ca n't do nearly the damage that the 9/11 hijackers did .
So instead , airport security should focus on what is important : hijackings .
If once every 10 years , a plane explodes from an underwear bomb , then we have succeeded .
We lose more people due to car crashes or swimming pools or tripping over a loaf of bread .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think people forget that 9/11 wasn't caused by terrorists with bombs.
It was caused by hijackers.
We've fixed the hijacking problem.
A bomber can't do nearly the damage that the 9/11 hijackers did.
So instead, airport security should focus on what is important: hijackings.
If once every 10 years, a plane explodes from an underwear bomb, then we have succeeded.
We lose more people due to car crashes or swimming pools or tripping over a loaf of bread.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30659328</id>
	<title>Re:No, nor should we expect it to</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262724240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We can't make the world 100\% safe; I don't see why people are so critical of the TSA. They do a decent job at making airports appear secure, which is all that should be expected of them.</p></div><p>Key word here being, "appear"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We ca n't make the world 100 \ % safe ; I do n't see why people are so critical of the TSA .
They do a decent job at making airports appear secure , which is all that should be expected of them.Key word here being , " appear "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We can't make the world 100\% safe; I don't see why people are so critical of the TSA.
They do a decent job at making airports appear secure, which is all that should be expected of them.Key word here being, "appear"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657580</id>
	<title>Re:Kiddie Porn Laws Defeat Scanners</title>
	<author>caffeinemessiah</author>
	<datestamp>1262717160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I would still fly. And those who wouldn't would push for a transcontinental high-speed train (Mag-Lev?) which would have a lower risk/reward, but just as cost effective.</p></div><p>
I for one am waiting for the first New York - London Maglev train, or even the first Paris - Dubai Maglev train. The point is that some of us don't have a choice *but* to fly. That's why people who go an about "but flying isn't a right!" irritate the hell out of me. What am I supposed to do? Take a bloody ship?
</p><p>
And although rail is an excellent solution in theory, you only need to look at Eurail to see why it won't work. Gross incompatibilities between, say French and Spanish train systems mean that I have to switch over at the border. Modern systems like the Chunnel are the exception, and any solution that advocates building an entirely new, international, high-speed train system is doomed to fail at the drawing board, for political as much as economic reasons.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would still fly .
And those who would n't would push for a transcontinental high-speed train ( Mag-Lev ?
) which would have a lower risk/reward , but just as cost effective .
I for one am waiting for the first New York - London Maglev train , or even the first Paris - Dubai Maglev train .
The point is that some of us do n't have a choice * but * to fly .
That 's why people who go an about " but flying is n't a right !
" irritate the hell out of me .
What am I supposed to do ?
Take a bloody ship ?
And although rail is an excellent solution in theory , you only need to look at Eurail to see why it wo n't work .
Gross incompatibilities between , say French and Spanish train systems mean that I have to switch over at the border .
Modern systems like the Chunnel are the exception , and any solution that advocates building an entirely new , international , high-speed train system is doomed to fail at the drawing board , for political as much as economic reasons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would still fly.
And those who wouldn't would push for a transcontinental high-speed train (Mag-Lev?
) which would have a lower risk/reward, but just as cost effective.
I for one am waiting for the first New York - London Maglev train, or even the first Paris - Dubai Maglev train.
The point is that some of us don't have a choice *but* to fly.
That's why people who go an about "but flying isn't a right!
" irritate the hell out of me.
What am I supposed to do?
Take a bloody ship?
And although rail is an excellent solution in theory, you only need to look at Eurail to see why it won't work.
Gross incompatibilities between, say French and Spanish train systems mean that I have to switch over at the border.
Modern systems like the Chunnel are the exception, and any solution that advocates building an entirely new, international, high-speed train system is doomed to fail at the drawing board, for political as much as economic reasons.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655908</id>
	<title>Just wait...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262711580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>...until some terrorist manages to get his underwear bomb past the millimeter wave.  After that, will we all be required to fly in the nude?  (If so, I refuse to fly unless I'm flying in a plane full of nothing but attractive young female swimsuit models)</htmltext>
<tokenext>...until some terrorist manages to get his underwear bomb past the millimeter wave .
After that , will we all be required to fly in the nude ?
( If so , I refuse to fly unless I 'm flying in a plane full of nothing but attractive young female swimsuit models )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...until some terrorist manages to get his underwear bomb past the millimeter wave.
After that, will we all be required to fly in the nude?
(If so, I refuse to fly unless I'm flying in a plane full of nothing but attractive young female swimsuit models)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657138</id>
	<title>Re:The scanners were already in place</title>
	<author>ICLKennyG</author>
	<datestamp>1262715720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can't believe it took this far to get someone to point out this logical hole.  US security wasn't breached.  The guy was flying into the US from the Netherlands... where they are already using these scanners. <br> <br>

Why is it that we need to beef up American security if it isn't American Security that failed.  Security theater doesn't actually make us safer, in actuality it likely makes us less safe by assuming its working.<br> <br> They keep successfully bombing us every day... with poor logic.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't believe it took this far to get someone to point out this logical hole .
US security was n't breached .
The guy was flying into the US from the Netherlands... where they are already using these scanners .
Why is it that we need to beef up American security if it is n't American Security that failed .
Security theater does n't actually make us safer , in actuality it likely makes us less safe by assuming its working .
They keep successfully bombing us every day... with poor logic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't believe it took this far to get someone to point out this logical hole.
US security wasn't breached.
The guy was flying into the US from the Netherlands... where they are already using these scanners.
Why is it that we need to beef up American security if it isn't American Security that failed.
Security theater doesn't actually make us safer, in actuality it likely makes us less safe by assuming its working.
They keep successfully bombing us every day... with poor logic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657032</id>
	<title>No news here</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1262715300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Michael Chertoff, the former homeland security secretary, told the New York Times, that if these scanners had been in place, they would have caught the would-be bomber.</i> What would you expect him to say? "Yes, this is a method that is guaranteed to make you successful in smuggling explosives onto planes -- keep using it, chaps!" Arguably, one of the few parts of "security theater" that is actually effective at discouraging attacks is not letting the bad guys know what does and does not work.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Michael Chertoff , the former homeland security secretary , told the New York Times , that if these scanners had been in place , they would have caught the would-be bomber .
What would you expect him to say ?
" Yes , this is a method that is guaranteed to make you successful in smuggling explosives onto planes -- keep using it , chaps !
" Arguably , one of the few parts of " security theater " that is actually effective at discouraging attacks is not letting the bad guys know what does and does not work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Michael Chertoff, the former homeland security secretary, told the New York Times, that if these scanners had been in place, they would have caught the would-be bomber.
What would you expect him to say?
"Yes, this is a method that is guaranteed to make you successful in smuggling explosives onto planes -- keep using it, chaps!
" Arguably, one of the few parts of "security theater" that is actually effective at discouraging attacks is not letting the bad guys know what does and does not work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30659144</id>
	<title>Re:Terrorist will just use children</title>
	<author>Xelios</author>
	<datestamp>1262723460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There comes a point where we just have to draw the line and accept any further risks as simply being a part of life in this world. I would prefer to draw this line somewhere <i>before</i> being digitally strip searched just to be able to get on the flight I just paid $1200 for.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There comes a point where we just have to draw the line and accept any further risks as simply being a part of life in this world .
I would prefer to draw this line somewhere before being digitally strip searched just to be able to get on the flight I just paid $ 1200 for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There comes a point where we just have to draw the line and accept any further risks as simply being a part of life in this world.
I would prefer to draw this line somewhere before being digitally strip searched just to be able to get on the flight I just paid $1200 for.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655940</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656144</id>
	<title>Re:Just wait...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262712360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...until some terrorist manages to get his underwear bomb past the millimeter wave.  After that, will we all be required to fly in the nude?  (If so, I refuse to fly unless I'm flying in a plane full of nothing but attractive young female swimsuit models)</p></div><p>I think you would be disappointed to discover how much of the magic of the swimsuit edition lies in the photography, lighting, and touch-up.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...until some terrorist manages to get his underwear bomb past the millimeter wave .
After that , will we all be required to fly in the nude ?
( If so , I refuse to fly unless I 'm flying in a plane full of nothing but attractive young female swimsuit models ) I think you would be disappointed to discover how much of the magic of the swimsuit edition lies in the photography , lighting , and touch-up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...until some terrorist manages to get his underwear bomb past the millimeter wave.
After that, will we all be required to fly in the nude?
(If so, I refuse to fly unless I'm flying in a plane full of nothing but attractive young female swimsuit models)I think you would be disappointed to discover how much of the magic of the swimsuit edition lies in the photography, lighting, and touch-up.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30658098</id>
	<title>Re:Kiddie Porn Laws Defeat Scanners</title>
	<author>c6gunner</author>
	<datestamp>1262718900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps if you'd actually read the article, you'd have noticed that the under-18-exemption is only in place temporarily, while the scanners are being trialed.  If they are approved for use after the trial period, you can bet that the exemption will go away.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps if you 'd actually read the article , you 'd have noticed that the under-18-exemption is only in place temporarily , while the scanners are being trialed .
If they are approved for use after the trial period , you can bet that the exemption will go away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps if you'd actually read the article, you'd have noticed that the under-18-exemption is only in place temporarily, while the scanners are being trialed.
If they are approved for use after the trial period, you can bet that the exemption will go away.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657926</id>
	<title>Re:... but not if</title>
	<author>bennomatic</author>
	<datestamp>1262718180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No pun intended, right?</htmltext>
<tokenext>No pun intended , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No pun intended, right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656130</id>
	<title>They are another layer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262712360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Disclaimer: I am an expert in millimeter-wave and terahertz imaging technology, both passive and active.  I have posted here many times before, also as AC, for obvious reasons.
<br> <br>
The short answer is a qualified YES.  All imaging technologies can (help) save us from (some) terrorists.  Specifically, those individuals carrying dangerous/unknown objects or materials outside their body, whether integrated with their clothes or simply bound to their body.  The proof is in the images.  I will provide examples if asked.
<br> <br>
As far as safety concerns, the active millimeter-wave systems are safer than your cell phone or laptop wifi.  The x-ray backscatter systems give you a dose of radiation that is far less than what you receive while flying over a few states at 39,000'.
<br> <br>
The ultimate issue for most people is privacy.  I won't get into that here; I just know the phenomenology and implementation side.  I will answer any questions now, so please respond.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Disclaimer : I am an expert in millimeter-wave and terahertz imaging technology , both passive and active .
I have posted here many times before , also as AC , for obvious reasons .
The short answer is a qualified YES .
All imaging technologies can ( help ) save us from ( some ) terrorists .
Specifically , those individuals carrying dangerous/unknown objects or materials outside their body , whether integrated with their clothes or simply bound to their body .
The proof is in the images .
I will provide examples if asked .
As far as safety concerns , the active millimeter-wave systems are safer than your cell phone or laptop wifi .
The x-ray backscatter systems give you a dose of radiation that is far less than what you receive while flying over a few states at 39,000' .
The ultimate issue for most people is privacy .
I wo n't get into that here ; I just know the phenomenology and implementation side .
I will answer any questions now , so please respond .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Disclaimer: I am an expert in millimeter-wave and terahertz imaging technology, both passive and active.
I have posted here many times before, also as AC, for obvious reasons.
The short answer is a qualified YES.
All imaging technologies can (help) save us from (some) terrorists.
Specifically, those individuals carrying dangerous/unknown objects or materials outside their body, whether integrated with their clothes or simply bound to their body.
The proof is in the images.
I will provide examples if asked.
As far as safety concerns, the active millimeter-wave systems are safer than your cell phone or laptop wifi.
The x-ray backscatter systems give you a dose of radiation that is far less than what you receive while flying over a few states at 39,000'.
The ultimate issue for most people is privacy.
I won't get into that here; I just know the phenomenology and implementation side.
I will answer any questions now, so please respond.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657272</id>
	<title>Why not try....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262716140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why doesn't the USA stop telling the rest of the world how to live and maybe the rest of the world will stop trying to kill us.<br>Isn't that what the Obama campaign implied they would do?<br>Instead we have more and more liberties being taken away in the name of saving us from the boogieman.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does n't the USA stop telling the rest of the world how to live and maybe the rest of the world will stop trying to kill us.Is n't that what the Obama campaign implied they would do ? Instead we have more and more liberties being taken away in the name of saving us from the boogieman .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why doesn't the USA stop telling the rest of the world how to live and maybe the rest of the world will stop trying to kill us.Isn't that what the Obama campaign implied they would do?Instead we have more and more liberties being taken away in the name of saving us from the boogieman.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30660304</id>
	<title>Simple answer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262684880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No.</p><p>More detailed answer - almost certainly not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No.More detailed answer - almost certainly not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.More detailed answer - almost certainly not.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656650</id>
	<title>Re:They are another layer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262714220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>The short answer is a qualified YES. All imaging technologies can (help) save us from (some) terrorists. Specifically, those individuals carrying dangerous/unknown objects or materials outside their body,</i>
<p>
Hmm, if only there were some orifice the terrorists could stuff their explosives to defeat this technology.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The short answer is a qualified YES .
All imaging technologies can ( help ) save us from ( some ) terrorists .
Specifically , those individuals carrying dangerous/unknown objects or materials outside their body , Hmm , if only there were some orifice the terrorists could stuff their explosives to defeat this technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The short answer is a qualified YES.
All imaging technologies can (help) save us from (some) terrorists.
Specifically, those individuals carrying dangerous/unknown objects or materials outside their body,

Hmm, if only there were some orifice the terrorists could stuff their explosives to defeat this technology.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30659574</id>
	<title>Chertoff is a Corporate Whore Now</title>
	<author>frank\_adrian314159</author>
	<datestamp>1262682120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He admitted on an NPR interview where he was touting these things that he consults with the companies that make them and is paid by the companies to "consult" on security issues.  Read this as, "Because I used to work for the Federal government in a high position, stupid news-people like you give me credibility that I haven't earned.  BTW, I get paid money by these companies to say how great these machines are, but you would never question my motives other than via a mealy-mouthed disclaimer, so you're obviously too stupid to catch me even if I do lie about how good the machines are.  And did I mention that they work, really, reaaaaally great?."</p><p>Most of the crap that you get in travel these days came via this sumbitch and I wouldn't trust him if he said the sky was blue.  In fact, if he says these machines can detect explosives, I'd believe that they actually paint your ass blue and give you hemorrhoids.  But it's OK, we all get to pay for them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He admitted on an NPR interview where he was touting these things that he consults with the companies that make them and is paid by the companies to " consult " on security issues .
Read this as , " Because I used to work for the Federal government in a high position , stupid news-people like you give me credibility that I have n't earned .
BTW , I get paid money by these companies to say how great these machines are , but you would never question my motives other than via a mealy-mouthed disclaimer , so you 're obviously too stupid to catch me even if I do lie about how good the machines are .
And did I mention that they work , really , reaaaaally great ? .
" Most of the crap that you get in travel these days came via this sumbitch and I would n't trust him if he said the sky was blue .
In fact , if he says these machines can detect explosives , I 'd believe that they actually paint your ass blue and give you hemorrhoids .
But it 's OK , we all get to pay for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He admitted on an NPR interview where he was touting these things that he consults with the companies that make them and is paid by the companies to "consult" on security issues.
Read this as, "Because I used to work for the Federal government in a high position, stupid news-people like you give me credibility that I haven't earned.
BTW, I get paid money by these companies to say how great these machines are, but you would never question my motives other than via a mealy-mouthed disclaimer, so you're obviously too stupid to catch me even if I do lie about how good the machines are.
And did I mention that they work, really, reaaaaally great?.
"Most of the crap that you get in travel these days came via this sumbitch and I wouldn't trust him if he said the sky was blue.
In fact, if he says these machines can detect explosives, I'd believe that they actually paint your ass blue and give you hemorrhoids.
But it's OK, we all get to pay for them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656674</id>
	<title>Re:Kiddie Porn Laws Defeat Scanners</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262714280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What we need to do now is to accept that airline travel is not safe, and can never be safe.</p> </div><p>But it IS safe. Not perfectly safe, of course, but for any reasonable, practical definition of "safe", it is - much more so than alternative forms of travel, such as going by car.</p><p>This is not something that's new or that's changed, either. Terrorists attacks are so exceedingly unlikely that there's a bigger chance you'll be struck by lightning, and you're MUCH more likely to die on the road, not to speak of EVEN more likely ways of going, including deadly accidents in your own home, medical conditions and so on.</p><p>The whole focus on terrorism is stupid. Air travel was and still is perfectly safe - and the flurry of regulations has about as much to do with that as Lisa's rock has with the continued absence of tigers in Springfield.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What we need to do now is to accept that airline travel is not safe , and can never be safe .
But it IS safe .
Not perfectly safe , of course , but for any reasonable , practical definition of " safe " , it is - much more so than alternative forms of travel , such as going by car.This is not something that 's new or that 's changed , either .
Terrorists attacks are so exceedingly unlikely that there 's a bigger chance you 'll be struck by lightning , and you 're MUCH more likely to die on the road , not to speak of EVEN more likely ways of going , including deadly accidents in your own home , medical conditions and so on.The whole focus on terrorism is stupid .
Air travel was and still is perfectly safe - and the flurry of regulations has about as much to do with that as Lisa 's rock has with the continued absence of tigers in Springfield .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What we need to do now is to accept that airline travel is not safe, and can never be safe.
But it IS safe.
Not perfectly safe, of course, but for any reasonable, practical definition of "safe", it is - much more so than alternative forms of travel, such as going by car.This is not something that's new or that's changed, either.
Terrorists attacks are so exceedingly unlikely that there's a bigger chance you'll be struck by lightning, and you're MUCH more likely to die on the road, not to speak of EVEN more likely ways of going, including deadly accidents in your own home, medical conditions and so on.The whole focus on terrorism is stupid.
Air travel was and still is perfectly safe - and the flurry of regulations has about as much to do with that as Lisa's rock has with the continued absence of tigers in Springfield.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657730</id>
	<title>Re:... but not if</title>
	<author>Chabil Ha'</author>
	<datestamp>1262717580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That and "Is that a bomb or a colostomy bag?".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That and " Is that a bomb or a colostomy bag ?
" .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That and "Is that a bomb or a colostomy bag?
".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655880</id>
	<title>wha</title>
	<author>poetmatt</author>
	<datestamp>1262711460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>aren't these the scanners known to <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-27083\_3-10423199-247.html" title="cnet.com">have health risks and/or not work?</a> [cnet.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>are n't these the scanners known to have health risks and/or not work ?
[ cnet.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>aren't these the scanners known to have health risks and/or not work?
[cnet.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30660390</id>
	<title>Armed And Dangerous</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262685180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.whitehouse.org/" title="whitehouse.org" rel="nofollow">Person Of Interest</a> [whitehouse.org]</p><p>Yours In Ashgabat,<br>K. Trout</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Person Of Interest [ whitehouse.org ] Yours In Ashgabat,K .
Trout</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Person Of Interest [whitehouse.org]Yours In Ashgabat,K.
Trout</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30658612</id>
	<title>Yes, it can</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1262721060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The answer is "yes, it can". Devil is in the details, which, in this case, is the raw numbers. How many terrorists per given time span will it save us from? One per five years? One per ten?..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The answer is " yes , it can " .
Devil is in the details , which , in this case , is the raw numbers .
How many terrorists per given time span will it save us from ?
One per five years ?
One per ten ? . .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The answer is "yes, it can".
Devil is in the details, which, in this case, is the raw numbers.
How many terrorists per given time span will it save us from?
One per five years?
One per ten?..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30659626</id>
	<title>Re:On a related note. . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262682300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Scanner software is being modified so that it will display a stylized body without resemblance to the actual body shape in the scanner.  Or so they say.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Scanner software is being modified so that it will display a stylized body without resemblance to the actual body shape in the scanner .
Or so they say .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Scanner software is being modified so that it will display a stylized body without resemblance to the actual body shape in the scanner.
Or so they say.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656624</id>
	<title>Re:No.</title>
	<author>timeOday</author>
	<datestamp>1262714160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Murder is murder, why should political murder scare you more than some thug doing a drive-by shooting?</p></div></blockquote><p>

Liberals have hate crimes, conservatives have terrorists.  They're essentially the same thing - a crime thought to be worse due to the motive.
</p><p>
IMHO, what does distinguish these crimes from the garden variety is if the attack was sponsored by a larger organization (whether a homegrown militia or Al Qaeda), since that means further attacks are likely in the offing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Murder is murder , why should political murder scare you more than some thug doing a drive-by shooting ?
Liberals have hate crimes , conservatives have terrorists .
They 're essentially the same thing - a crime thought to be worse due to the motive .
IMHO , what does distinguish these crimes from the garden variety is if the attack was sponsored by a larger organization ( whether a homegrown militia or Al Qaeda ) , since that means further attacks are likely in the offing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Murder is murder, why should political murder scare you more than some thug doing a drive-by shooting?
Liberals have hate crimes, conservatives have terrorists.
They're essentially the same thing - a crime thought to be worse due to the motive.
IMHO, what does distinguish these crimes from the garden variety is if the attack was sponsored by a larger organization (whether a homegrown militia or Al Qaeda), since that means further attacks are likely in the offing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30660400</id>
	<title>WBI video in action here</title>
	<author>ProfBooty</author>
	<datestamp>1262685180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=972\_1262283908" title="liveleak.com">http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=972\_1262283908</a> [liveleak.com]</p><p>have a look at it yourself. You can quite clearly make out portions of a persons anatomy yet you could conceal contraband inside the body or even folds of skin.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.liveleak.com/view ? i = 972 \ _1262283908 [ liveleak.com ] have a look at it yourself .
You can quite clearly make out portions of a persons anatomy yet you could conceal contraband inside the body or even folds of skin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=972\_1262283908 [liveleak.com]have a look at it yourself.
You can quite clearly make out portions of a persons anatomy yet you could conceal contraband inside the body or even folds of skin.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30661378</id>
	<title>Re:No, nor should we expect it to</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262689080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>why people are so critical of the TSA. They do a decent job at making airports appear secure</p></div><p>Their job is to make the airport secure.  People are critical because they keeping making decisions the cost tax payer dollars while never fixing the security problems.  Image scanners like this one would not have stopped the X-Mas Bomber because they would never have bother to give him a second look.  He could have just disguised his explosives are an adult diaper and not one of the TSA agents would have wanted to mess with that.  How about the Intelligence agencies start acting intelligent.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>why people are so critical of the TSA .
They do a decent job at making airports appear secureTheir job is to make the airport secure .
People are critical because they keeping making decisions the cost tax payer dollars while never fixing the security problems .
Image scanners like this one would not have stopped the X-Mas Bomber because they would never have bother to give him a second look .
He could have just disguised his explosives are an adult diaper and not one of the TSA agents would have wanted to mess with that .
How about the Intelligence agencies start acting intelligent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why people are so critical of the TSA.
They do a decent job at making airports appear secureTheir job is to make the airport secure.
People are critical because they keeping making decisions the cost tax payer dollars while never fixing the security problems.
Image scanners like this one would not have stopped the X-Mas Bomber because they would never have bother to give him a second look.
He could have just disguised his explosives are an adult diaper and not one of the TSA agents would have wanted to mess with that.
How about the Intelligence agencies start acting intelligent.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655994</id>
	<title>Health Care Model</title>
	<author>conureman</author>
	<datestamp>1262711880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Expensive new imaging devices generate fees. Tax dollars FTW!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Expensive new imaging devices generate fees .
Tax dollars FTW !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Expensive new imaging devices generate fees.
Tax dollars FTW!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30662572</id>
	<title>Re:They are another layer</title>
	<author>winwar</author>
	<datestamp>1262694720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The medical field learned from the therac-25 incident..."</p><p>That machines that use radiation can kill.  They didn't however do much about it.  Exposure to radiation in the medical field still can be highly variable:</p><p><a href="http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=3154#more-3154" title="sciencebasedmedicine.org">http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=3154#more-3154</a> [sciencebasedmedicine.org]</p><p>In any case, if we want to detect explosives, then maybe we should actually use a machine that would detect explosives.  Not a fancy imaging machine.</p><p>Having said that, the problem with the machines is that it is a technological solution to a non-technological problem.  Flying is really safe.  We could spend less money on air safety and not change that fact.  Instead we want to spend more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The medical field learned from the therac-25 incident... " That machines that use radiation can kill .
They did n't however do much about it .
Exposure to radiation in the medical field still can be highly variable : http : //www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/ ? p = 3154 # more-3154 [ sciencebasedmedicine.org ] In any case , if we want to detect explosives , then maybe we should actually use a machine that would detect explosives .
Not a fancy imaging machine.Having said that , the problem with the machines is that it is a technological solution to a non-technological problem .
Flying is really safe .
We could spend less money on air safety and not change that fact .
Instead we want to spend more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The medical field learned from the therac-25 incident..."That machines that use radiation can kill.
They didn't however do much about it.
Exposure to radiation in the medical field still can be highly variable:http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=3154#more-3154 [sciencebasedmedicine.org]In any case, if we want to detect explosives, then maybe we should actually use a machine that would detect explosives.
Not a fancy imaging machine.Having said that, the problem with the machines is that it is a technological solution to a non-technological problem.
Flying is really safe.
We could spend less money on air safety and not change that fact.
Instead we want to spend more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30658540</id>
	<title>Re:They are another layer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262720820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Specifically, those individuals carrying dangerous/unknown objects or materials outside their body, whether integrated with their clothes or simply bound to their body."</p><p>Actually, I was wondering about that.  Would plastic explosives molded to *look* like the shape of someone's body still be detectable?  Obviously these techniques can pick up huge X-ray or millimetre-radio differences in material's density (e.g., the metal of a gun or knife), and I've seen pictures demonstrating that fact, but are explosives that distinct?  Could things be hidden behind surface barriers that reflect like skin?  I don't know enough about the technology to know if that's possible, but if it would be that easy to defeat, then what would be the point?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Specifically , those individuals carrying dangerous/unknown objects or materials outside their body , whether integrated with their clothes or simply bound to their body .
" Actually , I was wondering about that .
Would plastic explosives molded to * look * like the shape of someone 's body still be detectable ?
Obviously these techniques can pick up huge X-ray or millimetre-radio differences in material 's density ( e.g. , the metal of a gun or knife ) , and I 've seen pictures demonstrating that fact , but are explosives that distinct ?
Could things be hidden behind surface barriers that reflect like skin ?
I do n't know enough about the technology to know if that 's possible , but if it would be that easy to defeat , then what would be the point ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Specifically, those individuals carrying dangerous/unknown objects or materials outside their body, whether integrated with their clothes or simply bound to their body.
"Actually, I was wondering about that.
Would plastic explosives molded to *look* like the shape of someone's body still be detectable?
Obviously these techniques can pick up huge X-ray or millimetre-radio differences in material's density (e.g., the metal of a gun or knife), and I've seen pictures demonstrating that fact, but are explosives that distinct?
Could things be hidden behind surface barriers that reflect like skin?
I don't know enough about the technology to know if that's possible, but if it would be that easy to defeat, then what would be the point?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656908</id>
	<title>Re:Terrorist will just use children</title>
	<author>jameskojiro</author>
	<datestamp>1262714940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The solution is obvious then, in order not to make anyone offended we will make everyone undead...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The solution is obvious then , in order not to make anyone offended we will make everyone undead.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The solution is obvious then, in order not to make anyone offended we will make everyone undead...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655940</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30658632</id>
	<title>Re:They are another layer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262721120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm with you Frank.  If the thing is going to blow up, so be it, but I will not sit there and watch helplessly.</p><p>Nor do I fly anymore if I can avoid it because the technology doesn't prevent real problems, it just is a big PITA to the rest of us normal people.  Everybody knows now that there is a risk involved with flying.  I resent the taxpayer dollars going to waste.</p><p>I've heard that Israel has some of the best security in the world, and you don't even know you're being screened.  Is that true, and if so, how do they do it without being a PITA to the passengers?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm with you Frank .
If the thing is going to blow up , so be it , but I will not sit there and watch helplessly.Nor do I fly anymore if I can avoid it because the technology does n't prevent real problems , it just is a big PITA to the rest of us normal people .
Everybody knows now that there is a risk involved with flying .
I resent the taxpayer dollars going to waste.I 've heard that Israel has some of the best security in the world , and you do n't even know you 're being screened .
Is that true , and if so , how do they do it without being a PITA to the passengers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm with you Frank.
If the thing is going to blow up, so be it, but I will not sit there and watch helplessly.Nor do I fly anymore if I can avoid it because the technology doesn't prevent real problems, it just is a big PITA to the rest of us normal people.
Everybody knows now that there is a risk involved with flying.
I resent the taxpayer dollars going to waste.I've heard that Israel has some of the best security in the world, and you don't even know you're being screened.
Is that true, and if so, how do they do it without being a PITA to the passengers?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657572</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657798</id>
	<title>Terrorists are human...</title>
	<author>rgviza</author>
	<datestamp>1262717760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... and no system is human proof.</p><p>They will figure out a way. We can make it harder for them, and this is a good thing to do because we'll catch more of them, but they'll still find a way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... and no system is human proof.They will figure out a way .
We can make it harder for them , and this is a good thing to do because we 'll catch more of them , but they 'll still find a way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... and no system is human proof.They will figure out a way.
We can make it harder for them, and this is a good thing to do because we'll catch more of them, but they'll still find a way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30663270</id>
	<title>This might be unpopular</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262697960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Won't scanning be unpopular with people who are very reluctant to expose their body to view - such as (notably) Islamic folk?<br>Also, it might be upsetting to some of the American Christian right.</p><p>And - damn - that corrresponds fairly closely to the largest groups of people that want to blow things up, if history is any judge.</p><p>Euopeans (perhaps not Brits) will be quite unaffected, especially Scandinavians and Germans, who would be quite happy to travel naked in a sauna plane.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wo n't scanning be unpopular with people who are very reluctant to expose their body to view - such as ( notably ) Islamic folk ? Also , it might be upsetting to some of the American Christian right.And - damn - that corrresponds fairly closely to the largest groups of people that want to blow things up , if history is any judge.Euopeans ( perhaps not Brits ) will be quite unaffected , especially Scandinavians and Germans , who would be quite happy to travel naked in a sauna plane .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Won't scanning be unpopular with people who are very reluctant to expose their body to view - such as (notably) Islamic folk?Also, it might be upsetting to some of the American Christian right.And - damn - that corrresponds fairly closely to the largest groups of people that want to blow things up, if history is any judge.Euopeans (perhaps not Brits) will be quite unaffected, especially Scandinavians and Germans, who would be quite happy to travel naked in a sauna plane.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655880</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657230</id>
	<title>Re:Just wait...</title>
	<author>MobyDisk</author>
	<datestamp>1262715960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This isn't funny.  This is inevitable.</p><p>What these "experts" refuse to acknowledge is that there is ALWAYS a way to get by, if you are willing to go to extremes.  This guy was willing to burn his private parts off to hide his bomb.  What's next?  Surgically building a bomb-storage cavity in your chest?  What if a female terrorist stucks a bomb in her uterus?  At what point do we decide "yeah, we just can't prevent that" and live with it.</p><p>Every security measure has a price.  If the price for stopping the uterus bomber is that all women must be vaginally searched, then that's okay -- I'd rather take the risk, or just never fly.  So... where will we draw this line?  Because of the underpants bomber, that line has moved closer to the absurd.  All to stop a minimal bomb threat that didn't actually work.</p><p>I saw we draw the line now.  No more.  If I die by the uterus bomber on my next flight, so be it.  It was the price I paid for freedom.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't funny .
This is inevitable.What these " experts " refuse to acknowledge is that there is ALWAYS a way to get by , if you are willing to go to extremes .
This guy was willing to burn his private parts off to hide his bomb .
What 's next ?
Surgically building a bomb-storage cavity in your chest ?
What if a female terrorist stucks a bomb in her uterus ?
At what point do we decide " yeah , we just ca n't prevent that " and live with it.Every security measure has a price .
If the price for stopping the uterus bomber is that all women must be vaginally searched , then that 's okay -- I 'd rather take the risk , or just never fly .
So... where will we draw this line ?
Because of the underpants bomber , that line has moved closer to the absurd .
All to stop a minimal bomb threat that did n't actually work.I saw we draw the line now .
No more .
If I die by the uterus bomber on my next flight , so be it .
It was the price I paid for freedom .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't funny.
This is inevitable.What these "experts" refuse to acknowledge is that there is ALWAYS a way to get by, if you are willing to go to extremes.
This guy was willing to burn his private parts off to hide his bomb.
What's next?
Surgically building a bomb-storage cavity in your chest?
What if a female terrorist stucks a bomb in her uterus?
At what point do we decide "yeah, we just can't prevent that" and live with it.Every security measure has a price.
If the price for stopping the uterus bomber is that all women must be vaginally searched, then that's okay -- I'd rather take the risk, or just never fly.
So... where will we draw this line?
Because of the underpants bomber, that line has moved closer to the absurd.
All to stop a minimal bomb threat that didn't actually work.I saw we draw the line now.
No more.
If I die by the uterus bomber on my next flight, so be it.
It was the price I paid for freedom.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30659714</id>
	<title>Re:Just wait...</title>
	<author>ShooterNeo</author>
	<datestamp>1262682720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yep.  The most logical conclusion that can be reached is that since there are NOT bunches of terrorists attacking our vulnerabilities, there are NOT very many international terrorists willing and able to attack the United States in the world.  From the evidence, there are probably less than 100 people out of 6.5 billion who fit the description.  If there were more, there would be more attacks, and some of them would be successful.  Instead, there hasn't been a successful attack for many years.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep .
The most logical conclusion that can be reached is that since there are NOT bunches of terrorists attacking our vulnerabilities , there are NOT very many international terrorists willing and able to attack the United States in the world .
From the evidence , there are probably less than 100 people out of 6.5 billion who fit the description .
If there were more , there would be more attacks , and some of them would be successful .
Instead , there has n't been a successful attack for many years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep.
The most logical conclusion that can be reached is that since there are NOT bunches of terrorists attacking our vulnerabilities, there are NOT very many international terrorists willing and able to attack the United States in the world.
From the evidence, there are probably less than 100 people out of 6.5 billion who fit the description.
If there were more, there would be more attacks, and some of them would be successful.
Instead, there hasn't been a successful attack for many years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30667278</id>
	<title>it's all misdirection</title>
	<author>Tom</author>
	<datestamp>1262775420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>None of this has any impact on security worth mentioning. So you raised the security value X from 96.567\% to 96.571\% for just a few million bucks? Good boy, here's a cookie.</p><p>The main impact is that terrorists now have access to these machines as well. If I were to plan a major terrorist attack (say, multiple planes), I'd buy a few of those machines and experiment with them until I found out how to bypass them.</p><p>The problem is that the idiots at the security checkpoints really are idiots, and rely almost 100\% on the technology. So the game has changed from bypassing human security personal to bypassing security technology and a few fools who are challenged using it properly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>None of this has any impact on security worth mentioning .
So you raised the security value X from 96.567 \ % to 96.571 \ % for just a few million bucks ?
Good boy , here 's a cookie.The main impact is that terrorists now have access to these machines as well .
If I were to plan a major terrorist attack ( say , multiple planes ) , I 'd buy a few of those machines and experiment with them until I found out how to bypass them.The problem is that the idiots at the security checkpoints really are idiots , and rely almost 100 \ % on the technology .
So the game has changed from bypassing human security personal to bypassing security technology and a few fools who are challenged using it properly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>None of this has any impact on security worth mentioning.
So you raised the security value X from 96.567\% to 96.571\% for just a few million bucks?
Good boy, here's a cookie.The main impact is that terrorists now have access to these machines as well.
If I were to plan a major terrorist attack (say, multiple planes), I'd buy a few of those machines and experiment with them until I found out how to bypass them.The problem is that the idiots at the security checkpoints really are idiots, and rely almost 100\% on the technology.
So the game has changed from bypassing human security personal to bypassing security technology and a few fools who are challenged using it properly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30659112</id>
	<title>Humans could be better than gadgets in this case</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262723280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We should look at what the Israeli's are doing in their airports as a possible model for what we are doing.  They are one of the bigger reasons Islamic extremists are upset, and thus have been dealing with this stuff for a longer time.   Instead of looking at things, they are looking at people's behaviors and reactions to benign questions.  It involves looking into peoples eyes more so than looking into their pockets.  It might mean having to train and pay more airport security people well which could be more expensive than the next gadget, but it has been fairly effective at Ben Gurion.  The bigger downside, which doesn't seem to be mentioned often, is what happens to people who fail the interviews with the Israelis.  Is it better or worse than what is happening to people now with do not fly lists and the like.  I've seen it written that it takes 25 minutes to go from curb to gate and Ben Gurion, and nothing's been hijacked out of there in 30 years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We should look at what the Israeli 's are doing in their airports as a possible model for what we are doing .
They are one of the bigger reasons Islamic extremists are upset , and thus have been dealing with this stuff for a longer time .
Instead of looking at things , they are looking at people 's behaviors and reactions to benign questions .
It involves looking into peoples eyes more so than looking into their pockets .
It might mean having to train and pay more airport security people well which could be more expensive than the next gadget , but it has been fairly effective at Ben Gurion .
The bigger downside , which does n't seem to be mentioned often , is what happens to people who fail the interviews with the Israelis .
Is it better or worse than what is happening to people now with do not fly lists and the like .
I 've seen it written that it takes 25 minutes to go from curb to gate and Ben Gurion , and nothing 's been hijacked out of there in 30 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We should look at what the Israeli's are doing in their airports as a possible model for what we are doing.
They are one of the bigger reasons Islamic extremists are upset, and thus have been dealing with this stuff for a longer time.
Instead of looking at things, they are looking at people's behaviors and reactions to benign questions.
It involves looking into peoples eyes more so than looking into their pockets.
It might mean having to train and pay more airport security people well which could be more expensive than the next gadget, but it has been fairly effective at Ben Gurion.
The bigger downside, which doesn't seem to be mentioned often, is what happens to people who fail the interviews with the Israelis.
Is it better or worse than what is happening to people now with do not fly lists and the like.
I've seen it written that it takes 25 minutes to go from curb to gate and Ben Gurion, and nothing's been hijacked out of there in 30 years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656020</id>
	<title>No</title>
	<author>hypergreatthing</author>
	<datestamp>1262711940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Simple no.  Terrorism induces fear, mostly irrational fear which trumps any technology or logic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Simple no .
Terrorism induces fear , mostly irrational fear which trumps any technology or logic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Simple no.
Terrorism induces fear, mostly irrational fear which trumps any technology or logic.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656950</id>
	<title>Re:yeah, and?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262715060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well - sounds better than the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/04/world/middleeast/04sensors.html" title="nytimes.com">magic wand</a> [nytimes.com] the Iraqis are using.</p><p>Even so - the millimeter wave approach would probably identify any wiring or fuses that are secondary to the explosives in the crotch.  In the end though, the only real solution is full body X-ray scans.</p><p>Maybe they can offer the option to send the scan to your Doctor's office if requested.  Probably catch all sorts of undiagnosed medical problems for every person who gets on a plane.  You're probably going to get a similar dose on a high altitude flight anyway...</p><p>The idea of having a huge database of full body x-ray scans could be a medical researchers dream.  I'd start with making a visual recognition system for tumours, pneumonia, spinal issues - the results could be pretty awesome.</p><p>X-ray densities just need to be kept really low, and with modern digital detectors, it's likely to be easily achieved.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well - sounds better than the magic wand [ nytimes.com ] the Iraqis are using.Even so - the millimeter wave approach would probably identify any wiring or fuses that are secondary to the explosives in the crotch .
In the end though , the only real solution is full body X-ray scans.Maybe they can offer the option to send the scan to your Doctor 's office if requested .
Probably catch all sorts of undiagnosed medical problems for every person who gets on a plane .
You 're probably going to get a similar dose on a high altitude flight anyway...The idea of having a huge database of full body x-ray scans could be a medical researchers dream .
I 'd start with making a visual recognition system for tumours , pneumonia , spinal issues - the results could be pretty awesome.X-ray densities just need to be kept really low , and with modern digital detectors , it 's likely to be easily achieved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well - sounds better than the magic wand [nytimes.com] the Iraqis are using.Even so - the millimeter wave approach would probably identify any wiring or fuses that are secondary to the explosives in the crotch.
In the end though, the only real solution is full body X-ray scans.Maybe they can offer the option to send the scan to your Doctor's office if requested.
Probably catch all sorts of undiagnosed medical problems for every person who gets on a plane.
You're probably going to get a similar dose on a high altitude flight anyway...The idea of having a huge database of full body x-ray scans could be a medical researchers dream.
I'd start with making a visual recognition system for tumours, pneumonia, spinal issues - the results could be pretty awesome.X-ray densities just need to be kept really low, and with modern digital detectors, it's likely to be easily achieved.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656918</id>
	<title>Technology cannot "save us from the terrorists"</title>
	<author>gweihir</author>
	<datestamp>1262714940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is a dead and, and a very expensive one. In fact nothing can "save us from the terrorists" except reducing their numbers. The way to do this is to start to undertsnd what makes them terrorists and remove that motivation. This does not mean bowing to certain extremist organizations, it does however mean finding out why people are willing to support them and doing something about that.</p><p>One consequence is that there is nothing that can be done about true fanatics and the mentally disturbed. However with no or only small support they can do only limited damage and that can be well tolerated by the general population, unless fearmongering is done on present levels. The problem here is that far too many people have to gain something by playing into the terrorists hands: Security providers economically, intelligence community by getting more fnds and power, politicians by appearing to do something about the problem, etc.. In effect the people we task with "doing something" have a lot to loose if they wver manage to effectively fight terrorism, hence they do not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is a dead and , and a very expensive one .
In fact nothing can " save us from the terrorists " except reducing their numbers .
The way to do this is to start to undertsnd what makes them terrorists and remove that motivation .
This does not mean bowing to certain extremist organizations , it does however mean finding out why people are willing to support them and doing something about that.One consequence is that there is nothing that can be done about true fanatics and the mentally disturbed .
However with no or only small support they can do only limited damage and that can be well tolerated by the general population , unless fearmongering is done on present levels .
The problem here is that far too many people have to gain something by playing into the terrorists hands : Security providers economically , intelligence community by getting more fnds and power , politicians by appearing to do something about the problem , etc.. In effect the people we task with " doing something " have a lot to loose if they wver manage to effectively fight terrorism , hence they do not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is a dead and, and a very expensive one.
In fact nothing can "save us from the terrorists" except reducing their numbers.
The way to do this is to start to undertsnd what makes them terrorists and remove that motivation.
This does not mean bowing to certain extremist organizations, it does however mean finding out why people are willing to support them and doing something about that.One consequence is that there is nothing that can be done about true fanatics and the mentally disturbed.
However with no or only small support they can do only limited damage and that can be well tolerated by the general population, unless fearmongering is done on present levels.
The problem here is that far too many people have to gain something by playing into the terrorists hands: Security providers economically, intelligence community by getting more fnds and power, politicians by appearing to do something about the problem, etc.. In effect the people we task with "doing something" have a lot to loose if they wver manage to effectively fight terrorism, hence they do not.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657804</id>
	<title>If the bomb has reached the airport it's too late</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262717760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tech is not the solution to everything.  This and sex are two things that come to mind...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tech is not the solution to everything .
This and sex are two things that come to mind.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tech is not the solution to everything.
This and sex are two things that come to mind...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656416</id>
	<title>Re:... but not if</title>
	<author>sycodon</author>
	<datestamp>1262713320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Takes the activity of lighting your farts to a new level.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Takes the activity of lighting your farts to a new level .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Takes the activity of lighting your farts to a new level.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656230</id>
	<title>Re:Just wait...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262712660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
As soon as these scanners are deployed terrorists will simply start to carry the explosives in an internal cavity.  80g of explosives - the amount used on the 25th - only has a volume of 36x36x36 mm^3.  There are plenty of places where this could be hidden - just look at the drug mules..
</p><p>
So you will still need to be searched, even if you are travelling in the nude.  But at least the searches would take less time.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As soon as these scanners are deployed terrorists will simply start to carry the explosives in an internal cavity .
80g of explosives - the amount used on the 25th - only has a volume of 36x36x36 mm ^ 3 .
There are plenty of places where this could be hidden - just look at the drug mules. . So you will still need to be searched , even if you are travelling in the nude .
But at least the searches would take less time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
As soon as these scanners are deployed terrorists will simply start to carry the explosives in an internal cavity.
80g of explosives - the amount used on the 25th - only has a volume of 36x36x36 mm^3.
There are plenty of places where this could be hidden - just look at the drug mules..

So you will still need to be searched, even if you are travelling in the nude.
But at least the searches would take less time.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656426</id>
	<title>Air line security is based on STUPID ideas</title>
	<author>gurps\_npc</author>
	<datestamp>1262713380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>1.  You can not under ANY circumstances provide 100\% security for an airplane for a blow it up scenario.  Remember, the terrorist can always buy a Rocket launchers and set it up in the parking lot.  They might even manage to get away alive.   The incredibly excessive and stupid idea of stopping people from taking explosive devices onto a plane is moronic.   So you force the terrorists to spend $20,000 instead of $5,000 for an underware bomb.  Big deal, you do it by spending billions on scanners.  Worse, the terrorists can afford it.  They paid more than that to teach all the 911 pilots how to fly.  But they don't need to do that, there are a hundred other ways to sneak explosives on board a plane and there is nothing anyone can do about several of them.  To stop that we would require excessive measures - passengers traveling without any luggage, using loaner clothing, phone and PC provided by the airline - at a profit - for the duration of their trip, travelling while sedated by airline provided drugs.
<p>
2.  The real problem is stopping another hijacking, not an explosion.  Hijacking is much CHEAPER to defend against with a reinforced titanium door (light weight and strong) and the willingness to blow up the plane ourselves rather than let terrorists turn it into a weapon against a ground target.
</p><p>The moronic TSA crap does not and can never stop terrorists, but it can delay, annoy and cost the flying public huge amounts of cash in an attempt to 'look like we are doing something'.

</p><p>In my opinion, the terrorists have won.  They destroyed our airline industry and convinced too many scared fools to willing give up their freedom in the 5 years directly after 9/11.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
You can not under ANY circumstances provide 100 \ % security for an airplane for a blow it up scenario .
Remember , the terrorist can always buy a Rocket launchers and set it up in the parking lot .
They might even manage to get away alive .
The incredibly excessive and stupid idea of stopping people from taking explosive devices onto a plane is moronic .
So you force the terrorists to spend $ 20,000 instead of $ 5,000 for an underware bomb .
Big deal , you do it by spending billions on scanners .
Worse , the terrorists can afford it .
They paid more than that to teach all the 911 pilots how to fly .
But they do n't need to do that , there are a hundred other ways to sneak explosives on board a plane and there is nothing anyone can do about several of them .
To stop that we would require excessive measures - passengers traveling without any luggage , using loaner clothing , phone and PC provided by the airline - at a profit - for the duration of their trip , travelling while sedated by airline provided drugs .
2. The real problem is stopping another hijacking , not an explosion .
Hijacking is much CHEAPER to defend against with a reinforced titanium door ( light weight and strong ) and the willingness to blow up the plane ourselves rather than let terrorists turn it into a weapon against a ground target .
The moronic TSA crap does not and can never stop terrorists , but it can delay , annoy and cost the flying public huge amounts of cash in an attempt to 'look like we are doing something' .
In my opinion , the terrorists have won .
They destroyed our airline industry and convinced too many scared fools to willing give up their freedom in the 5 years directly after 9/11 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
You can not under ANY circumstances provide 100\% security for an airplane for a blow it up scenario.
Remember, the terrorist can always buy a Rocket launchers and set it up in the parking lot.
They might even manage to get away alive.
The incredibly excessive and stupid idea of stopping people from taking explosive devices onto a plane is moronic.
So you force the terrorists to spend $20,000 instead of $5,000 for an underware bomb.
Big deal, you do it by spending billions on scanners.
Worse, the terrorists can afford it.
They paid more than that to teach all the 911 pilots how to fly.
But they don't need to do that, there are a hundred other ways to sneak explosives on board a plane and there is nothing anyone can do about several of them.
To stop that we would require excessive measures - passengers traveling without any luggage, using loaner clothing, phone and PC provided by the airline - at a profit - for the duration of their trip, travelling while sedated by airline provided drugs.
2.  The real problem is stopping another hijacking, not an explosion.
Hijacking is much CHEAPER to defend against with a reinforced titanium door (light weight and strong) and the willingness to blow up the plane ourselves rather than let terrorists turn it into a weapon against a ground target.
The moronic TSA crap does not and can never stop terrorists, but it can delay, annoy and cost the flying public huge amounts of cash in an attempt to 'look like we are doing something'.
In my opinion, the terrorists have won.
They destroyed our airline industry and convinced too many scared fools to willing give up their freedom in the 5 years directly after 9/11.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657894</id>
	<title>Re:It was not a "failed" attack.</title>
	<author>Gudeldar</author>
	<datestamp>1262718060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>That there were no dead bodies or a mile-wide debris trail in downtown Detroit is trivial -- because there COULD have been.</p></div></blockquote><p>

I know at least 289 people who would disagree.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That there were no dead bodies or a mile-wide debris trail in downtown Detroit is trivial -- because there COULD have been .
I know at least 289 people who would disagree .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That there were no dead bodies or a mile-wide debris trail in downtown Detroit is trivial -- because there COULD have been.
I know at least 289 people who would disagree.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30666952</id>
	<title>Terrorism is not a threat. Actual odds follow:</title>
	<author>w0mprat</author>
	<datestamp>1262771340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here are the odds of being killed by a airborne terrorist in a handy infographic - It's about 1 in 10 million. Wow, you're orders of magnitude more likely to die by the plain falling out of the sky by itself... which they do.
<br> <br>
Ten million to one:<br> <br>
<a href="http://www.boingboing.net/200912301009.jpg" title="boingboing.net">http://www.boingboing.net/200912301009.jpg</a> [boingboing.net] <br> <br>
Original post:<br> <br>
<a href="http://www.boingboing.net/2009/12/30/odds-of-being-a-terr.html" title="boingboing.net">http://www.boingboing.net/2009/12/30/odds-of-being-a-terr.html</a> [boingboing.net] <br> <br>
Food for thought no? Bare it all in mind next time your at the airport being harassed by security - it's all for show.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here are the odds of being killed by a airborne terrorist in a handy infographic - It 's about 1 in 10 million .
Wow , you 're orders of magnitude more likely to die by the plain falling out of the sky by itself... which they do .
Ten million to one : http : //www.boingboing.net/200912301009.jpg [ boingboing.net ] Original post : http : //www.boingboing.net/2009/12/30/odds-of-being-a-terr.html [ boingboing.net ] Food for thought no ?
Bare it all in mind next time your at the airport being harassed by security - it 's all for show .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here are the odds of being killed by a airborne terrorist in a handy infographic - It's about 1 in 10 million.
Wow, you're orders of magnitude more likely to die by the plain falling out of the sky by itself... which they do.
Ten million to one: 
http://www.boingboing.net/200912301009.jpg [boingboing.net]  
Original post: 
http://www.boingboing.net/2009/12/30/odds-of-being-a-terr.html [boingboing.net]  
Food for thought no?
Bare it all in mind next time your at the airport being harassed by security - it's all for show.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30662770</id>
	<title>It's about time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262695620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that some hacker shows how to fit a netbook's logic board (to pass security checks) into a large multimedia laptop, replace the content of the battery, hard drive and dvd drive with a plastic-like substance (shielding it from the scanners), add an igniter to the package.</p><p>And then, we'll get it: <b>no more electronic devices as carry on!</b></p><p>Hopefully the uproar will be enough to convince security to revert their insane policies to lighweight, formality checks, and focus on the effective methods that protect us from terrorism: field intelligence, and bringing a bit of social and economical justice in this world!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that some hacker shows how to fit a netbook 's logic board ( to pass security checks ) into a large multimedia laptop , replace the content of the battery , hard drive and dvd drive with a plastic-like substance ( shielding it from the scanners ) , add an igniter to the package.And then , we 'll get it : no more electronic devices as carry on ! Hopefully the uproar will be enough to convince security to revert their insane policies to lighweight , formality checks , and focus on the effective methods that protect us from terrorism : field intelligence , and bringing a bit of social and economical justice in this world !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that some hacker shows how to fit a netbook's logic board (to pass security checks) into a large multimedia laptop, replace the content of the battery, hard drive and dvd drive with a plastic-like substance (shielding it from the scanners), add an igniter to the package.And then, we'll get it: no more electronic devices as carry on!Hopefully the uproar will be enough to convince security to revert their insane policies to lighweight, formality checks, and focus on the effective methods that protect us from terrorism: field intelligence, and bringing a bit of social and economical justice in this world!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657746</id>
	<title>Re:They are another layer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262717640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The ultimate issue for most people is privacy. I won't get into that here; I just know the phenomenology and implementation side. I will answer any questions now, so please respond.</p></div><p>Safety interlock design -- is the operator capable of increasing the radiation dosage, and if so what interlocks are present to prevent the person being scanned from being exposed multiple times or at a higher level than intended? The medical field learned from the therac-25 incident, but this is an airport scanner, not a medical scanner. Are the safety standards and review process comparable? How tamper-evident is the system, and what are the possible failure modes that could endanger the operator or person being scanned? Is there a sound or visual indicator the person being scanned can hear to indicate when it is in-use or when it is being activated multiple times?</p><p>I have read these scanners are capable of covertly scanning large crowds in real-time. That implies a steady-state emission -- while a single use of this device may be quite low, what are the risks to continual exposure over, say, a 45 minute timeframe? What about frequent travelers -- at what point are the safety margins compromised?</p><p>There are statements that the device will not be enabled for the transmission/storage of images -- but while those devices may be shipped with that disabled by default, it makes no sense from an employee-training perspective not to have records and auditing in place. Is it safe to assume this is just hyperbole to reassure people and the machines can be easily configured to do this?</p><p>Why millimeter wave over other frequencies in the RF spectrum? Is this just a shortcut from a computational standpoint, or is there an advantage here that can only be realized by this technology? Why not use IR scanners? They can see through many types of clothing as well: and have the added benefit of being a lot safer.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The ultimate issue for most people is privacy .
I wo n't get into that here ; I just know the phenomenology and implementation side .
I will answer any questions now , so please respond.Safety interlock design -- is the operator capable of increasing the radiation dosage , and if so what interlocks are present to prevent the person being scanned from being exposed multiple times or at a higher level than intended ?
The medical field learned from the therac-25 incident , but this is an airport scanner , not a medical scanner .
Are the safety standards and review process comparable ?
How tamper-evident is the system , and what are the possible failure modes that could endanger the operator or person being scanned ?
Is there a sound or visual indicator the person being scanned can hear to indicate when it is in-use or when it is being activated multiple times ? I have read these scanners are capable of covertly scanning large crowds in real-time .
That implies a steady-state emission -- while a single use of this device may be quite low , what are the risks to continual exposure over , say , a 45 minute timeframe ?
What about frequent travelers -- at what point are the safety margins compromised ? There are statements that the device will not be enabled for the transmission/storage of images -- but while those devices may be shipped with that disabled by default , it makes no sense from an employee-training perspective not to have records and auditing in place .
Is it safe to assume this is just hyperbole to reassure people and the machines can be easily configured to do this ? Why millimeter wave over other frequencies in the RF spectrum ?
Is this just a shortcut from a computational standpoint , or is there an advantage here that can only be realized by this technology ?
Why not use IR scanners ?
They can see through many types of clothing as well : and have the added benefit of being a lot safer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The ultimate issue for most people is privacy.
I won't get into that here; I just know the phenomenology and implementation side.
I will answer any questions now, so please respond.Safety interlock design -- is the operator capable of increasing the radiation dosage, and if so what interlocks are present to prevent the person being scanned from being exposed multiple times or at a higher level than intended?
The medical field learned from the therac-25 incident, but this is an airport scanner, not a medical scanner.
Are the safety standards and review process comparable?
How tamper-evident is the system, and what are the possible failure modes that could endanger the operator or person being scanned?
Is there a sound or visual indicator the person being scanned can hear to indicate when it is in-use or when it is being activated multiple times?I have read these scanners are capable of covertly scanning large crowds in real-time.
That implies a steady-state emission -- while a single use of this device may be quite low, what are the risks to continual exposure over, say, a 45 minute timeframe?
What about frequent travelers -- at what point are the safety margins compromised?There are statements that the device will not be enabled for the transmission/storage of images -- but while those devices may be shipped with that disabled by default, it makes no sense from an employee-training perspective not to have records and auditing in place.
Is it safe to assume this is just hyperbole to reassure people and the machines can be easily configured to do this?Why millimeter wave over other frequencies in the RF spectrum?
Is this just a shortcut from a computational standpoint, or is there an advantage here that can only be realized by this technology?
Why not use IR scanners?
They can see through many types of clothing as well: and have the added benefit of being a lot safer.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656594</id>
	<title>How many more cancer deaths will be created</title>
	<author>strangeattraction</author>
	<datestamp>1262714040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How many more cancer deaths will be created due to constant exposure to x-rays? I for one would rather get the frisk.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How many more cancer deaths will be created due to constant exposure to x-rays ?
I for one would rather get the frisk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many more cancer deaths will be created due to constant exposure to x-rays?
I for one would rather get the frisk.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30662224</id>
	<title>Re:They are another layer</title>
	<author>slodan</author>
	<datestamp>1262692860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The reasons that you are posting anonymously are not obvious.  Real experts aren't ashamed of their knowledge.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The reasons that you are posting anonymously are not obvious .
Real experts are n't ashamed of their knowledge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reasons that you are posting anonymously are not obvious.
Real experts aren't ashamed of their knowledge.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657548</id>
	<title>Re:On a related note. . .</title>
	<author>DJ Particle</author>
	<datestamp>1262716980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That just means terrorists will start using kids for their dirty work.<br> <br>

There is always going to be a loophole.  ALWAYS.<br> <br>

Then again, they could just start saying that kids are no longer allowed to fly.   -.-</htmltext>
<tokenext>That just means terrorists will start using kids for their dirty work .
There is always going to be a loophole .
ALWAYS . Then again , they could just start saying that kids are no longer allowed to fly .
-.-</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That just means terrorists will start using kids for their dirty work.
There is always going to be a loophole.
ALWAYS. 

Then again, they could just start saying that kids are no longer allowed to fly.
-.-</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30663368</id>
	<title>Re:The price you're willing to pay?</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1262698440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where's your evidence that most people think that way?</p><p>I think chances are a lot of people are pissed off by the nonsense. There's just nothing they can do.</p><p><i>Try telling some 40-year-old mother from Peoria that you'd rather sacrifice security for freedom.</i></p><p>I wouldn't tell her that at all, because the whole security vs freedom thing is a false dichotomy in the first place. I would tell her that if she's worried about the small risk of dying, she's far better off not getting on a plane in the first place.</p><p><i>She'll tell you that no price is too high to make sure her children, and other people's children remain safe.</i></p><p>If she's a "OMG Think Of The Children" type, just point out that these scanners mean complete strangers will be having naked photos of her underage children. "What if one's a pedophile?" tell her, "What if an image gets sneaked out?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where 's your evidence that most people think that way ? I think chances are a lot of people are pissed off by the nonsense .
There 's just nothing they can do.Try telling some 40-year-old mother from Peoria that you 'd rather sacrifice security for freedom.I would n't tell her that at all , because the whole security vs freedom thing is a false dichotomy in the first place .
I would tell her that if she 's worried about the small risk of dying , she 's far better off not getting on a plane in the first place.She 'll tell you that no price is too high to make sure her children , and other people 's children remain safe.If she 's a " OMG Think Of The Children " type , just point out that these scanners mean complete strangers will be having naked photos of her underage children .
" What if one 's a pedophile ?
" tell her , " What if an image gets sneaked out ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where's your evidence that most people think that way?I think chances are a lot of people are pissed off by the nonsense.
There's just nothing they can do.Try telling some 40-year-old mother from Peoria that you'd rather sacrifice security for freedom.I wouldn't tell her that at all, because the whole security vs freedom thing is a false dichotomy in the first place.
I would tell her that if she's worried about the small risk of dying, she's far better off not getting on a plane in the first place.She'll tell you that no price is too high to make sure her children, and other people's children remain safe.If she's a "OMG Think Of The Children" type, just point out that these scanners mean complete strangers will be having naked photos of her underage children.
"What if one's a pedophile?
" tell her, "What if an image gets sneaked out?
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30659146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656618</id>
	<title>Re:It was not a "failed" attack.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262714100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not even that complicated.  The other day there was a big fuss at an airport because some guy went the wrong way through a security checkpoint and everybody in the terminal ended up having to be screened again.  These people don't even have to inflict any physical damage; imagine the millions of dollars lost in time and money if a dozen guys did this at major airports across the country.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not even that complicated .
The other day there was a big fuss at an airport because some guy went the wrong way through a security checkpoint and everybody in the terminal ended up having to be screened again .
These people do n't even have to inflict any physical damage ; imagine the millions of dollars lost in time and money if a dozen guys did this at major airports across the country .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not even that complicated.
The other day there was a big fuss at an airport because some guy went the wrong way through a security checkpoint and everybody in the terminal ended up having to be screened again.
These people don't even have to inflict any physical damage; imagine the millions of dollars lost in time and money if a dozen guys did this at major airports across the country.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656086</id>
	<title>No.</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1262712180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only thing that will save us from terrorists is to refuse to be terrorized. When we go through all this bullshit, giving up our liberties, conviniences, travel, the terrorists win.</p><p>It's just more security theater. There are a whole lot of ways to kill large numbers of people, and no way to protect all of them.</p><p>Why are you so afraid of terrorists when only 3,000 people have died from terrorism in the US this century, while there are <a href="http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius\_04/offenses\_reported/violent\_crime/murder.html" title="fbi.gov">five times as many Americans murdered every single year</a> [fbi.gov] in non-terrorist murders?</p><p>Murder is murder, why should political murder scare you more than some thug doing a drive-by shooting?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only thing that will save us from terrorists is to refuse to be terrorized .
When we go through all this bullshit , giving up our liberties , conviniences , travel , the terrorists win.It 's just more security theater .
There are a whole lot of ways to kill large numbers of people , and no way to protect all of them.Why are you so afraid of terrorists when only 3,000 people have died from terrorism in the US this century , while there are five times as many Americans murdered every single year [ fbi.gov ] in non-terrorist murders ? Murder is murder , why should political murder scare you more than some thug doing a drive-by shooting ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only thing that will save us from terrorists is to refuse to be terrorized.
When we go through all this bullshit, giving up our liberties, conviniences, travel, the terrorists win.It's just more security theater.
There are a whole lot of ways to kill large numbers of people, and no way to protect all of them.Why are you so afraid of terrorists when only 3,000 people have died from terrorism in the US this century, while there are five times as many Americans murdered every single year [fbi.gov] in non-terrorist murders?Murder is murder, why should political murder scare you more than some thug doing a drive-by shooting?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656178</id>
	<title>Re:Terrorist will just use children</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262712480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the whole reason we HAVE terrorists killing people is because of feelings that have not healed over time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the whole reason we HAVE terrorists killing people is because of feelings that have not healed over time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the whole reason we HAVE terrorists killing people is because of feelings that have not healed over time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655940</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657144</id>
	<title>Re:They are another layer</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1262715720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>The proof is in the images. I will provide examples if asked. </i> Got any images of attractive, well-built women, so that we can (ahem) judge for ourselves whether or not this technology is a violation of their personal privacy?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The proof is in the images .
I will provide examples if asked .
Got any images of attractive , well-built women , so that we can ( ahem ) judge for ourselves whether or not this technology is a violation of their personal privacy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The proof is in the images.
I will provide examples if asked.
Got any images of attractive, well-built women, so that we can (ahem) judge for ourselves whether or not this technology is a violation of their personal privacy?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30661860</id>
	<title>Re:No, nor should we expect it to</title>
	<author>SpaceCadets</author>
	<datestamp>1262691300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't know what this should be modded (+1 Personal Opinion?), but Flamebait?  Seriously?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know what this should be modded ( + 1 Personal Opinion ?
) , but Flamebait ?
Seriously ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know what this should be modded (+1 Personal Opinion?
), but Flamebait?
Seriously?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656522</id>
	<title>Re:It was not a "failed" attack.</title>
	<author>Low Ranked Craig</author>
	<datestamp>1262713800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Honestly, the terrorists have won.  They have successfully, again, forced everyone to endure even more stupid delays and procedures and will not stop the next incident, because the TSA is not smart enough to think out of the box to what that next incident might look like.  While this bullshit is going on I'm just not going to fly - it's just not worth the hassle.  Luckily for me, I have no place I need to go that is more than 500 miles away, and driving is probably faster and cheaper anyway...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Honestly , the terrorists have won .
They have successfully , again , forced everyone to endure even more stupid delays and procedures and will not stop the next incident , because the TSA is not smart enough to think out of the box to what that next incident might look like .
While this bullshit is going on I 'm just not going to fly - it 's just not worth the hassle .
Luckily for me , I have no place I need to go that is more than 500 miles away , and driving is probably faster and cheaper anyway.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Honestly, the terrorists have won.
They have successfully, again, forced everyone to endure even more stupid delays and procedures and will not stop the next incident, because the TSA is not smart enough to think out of the box to what that next incident might look like.
While this bullshit is going on I'm just not going to fly - it's just not worth the hassle.
Luckily for me, I have no place I need to go that is more than 500 miles away, and driving is probably faster and cheaper anyway...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656840</id>
	<title>Re:... but not if</title>
	<author>Sean</author>
	<datestamp>1262714760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2JIHmnd6XY&amp;feature=player\_embedded" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">He sure did</a> [youtube.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He sure did [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He sure did [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30661644</id>
	<title>Disgusting</title>
	<author>anorlunda</author>
	<datestamp>1262690220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I heard that the full body scanners can not detect an explosive device hidden by rolls of fat in an obese person.   I can't picture those rolls being searched by hand either.  Yuck.</p><p>Why wouldn't terrorists recruit fat people?</p><p>Why don't we just admit that airport security is futile?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I heard that the full body scanners can not detect an explosive device hidden by rolls of fat in an obese person .
I ca n't picture those rolls being searched by hand either .
Yuck.Why would n't terrorists recruit fat people ? Why do n't we just admit that airport security is futile ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I heard that the full body scanners can not detect an explosive device hidden by rolls of fat in an obese person.
I can't picture those rolls being searched by hand either.
Yuck.Why wouldn't terrorists recruit fat people?Why don't we just admit that airport security is futile?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656628</id>
	<title>defence</title>
	<author>MrBrainport</author>
	<datestamp>1262714160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, but the government spent less on national defence than it did on silly walks...airports are the right place, scan them all</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , but the government spent less on national defence than it did on silly walks...airports are the right place , scan them all</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, but the government spent less on national defence than it did on silly walks...airports are the right place, scan them all</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30658100</id>
	<title>Re:Terrorist will just use children</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1262718900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everybody has to die. Not everybody has to go through a scanner. I won't; I'll drive, take a train, or stay home. The terrorists have won. Your fears are illogical and irrational.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everybody has to die .
Not everybody has to go through a scanner .
I wo n't ; I 'll drive , take a train , or stay home .
The terrorists have won .
Your fears are illogical and irrational .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everybody has to die.
Not everybody has to go through a scanner.
I won't; I'll drive, take a train, or stay home.
The terrorists have won.
Your fears are illogical and irrational.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655940</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30690732</id>
	<title>Re:No.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262883540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cigaretts kill a LOT more. 40,000 Americans PER YEAR. that's 400,000 during the 20000's.     Actually only 265 have been killed INSIDE airplanes in the US in the entire 2000's    469 totall worldwide... about half in the Lockerbie attack and that terrorist wasn't even  on the airplane.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cigaretts kill a LOT more .
40,000 Americans PER YEAR .
that 's 400,000 during the 20000 's .
Actually only 265 have been killed INSIDE airplanes in the US in the entire 2000 's 469 totall worldwide... about half in the Lockerbie attack and that terrorist was n't even on the airplane .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cigaretts kill a LOT more.
40,000 Americans PER YEAR.
that's 400,000 during the 20000's.
Actually only 265 have been killed INSIDE airplanes in the US in the entire 2000's    469 totall worldwide... about half in the Lockerbie attack and that terrorist wasn't even  on the airplane.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30658044</id>
	<title>Re:They are another layer</title>
	<author>radtea</author>
	<datestamp>1262718600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>All imaging technologies can (help) save us from (some) terrorists. Specifically, those individuals carrying dangerous/unknown objects or materials outside their body, whether integrated with their clothes or simply bound to their body</i></p><p>The one link to a thermal image you provide below does nothing to support this claim.</p><p>External imaging technologies can be trivially defeated.  <a href="http://lulalu.com/search.asp?Mode=Product&amp;ProductID=90&amp;PageNum=2" title="lulalu.com">Watch out for women with external breast enhancements.</a> [lulalu.com]  And don't get me started on men with prosthetic bellies.  Remember:  we are talking about people willing to blow themselves up.  They might just be willing to spend a little time and money defeating these fancy imaging systems.</p><p>As near as I can tell nothing but full-body transmission x-rays will do the job.  Wanna bet we see fluoroscopes in airports for flights to the US (and only to the US) in the next twenty years?  Americans--or at least the Organs of the American State--have demonstrated themselves to be abject cowards when it comes to the risk of being blown up, although they neglect to notice the tens of thousands of people murdered every year all around them.</p><p>These full-body scanners are just security theatre, inconveniencing the many in the name of failing to prevent the few.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All imaging technologies can ( help ) save us from ( some ) terrorists .
Specifically , those individuals carrying dangerous/unknown objects or materials outside their body , whether integrated with their clothes or simply bound to their bodyThe one link to a thermal image you provide below does nothing to support this claim.External imaging technologies can be trivially defeated .
Watch out for women with external breast enhancements .
[ lulalu.com ] And do n't get me started on men with prosthetic bellies .
Remember : we are talking about people willing to blow themselves up .
They might just be willing to spend a little time and money defeating these fancy imaging systems.As near as I can tell nothing but full-body transmission x-rays will do the job .
Wan na bet we see fluoroscopes in airports for flights to the US ( and only to the US ) in the next twenty years ?
Americans--or at least the Organs of the American State--have demonstrated themselves to be abject cowards when it comes to the risk of being blown up , although they neglect to notice the tens of thousands of people murdered every year all around them.These full-body scanners are just security theatre , inconveniencing the many in the name of failing to prevent the few .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All imaging technologies can (help) save us from (some) terrorists.
Specifically, those individuals carrying dangerous/unknown objects or materials outside their body, whether integrated with their clothes or simply bound to their bodyThe one link to a thermal image you provide below does nothing to support this claim.External imaging technologies can be trivially defeated.
Watch out for women with external breast enhancements.
[lulalu.com]  And don't get me started on men with prosthetic bellies.
Remember:  we are talking about people willing to blow themselves up.
They might just be willing to spend a little time and money defeating these fancy imaging systems.As near as I can tell nothing but full-body transmission x-rays will do the job.
Wanna bet we see fluoroscopes in airports for flights to the US (and only to the US) in the next twenty years?
Americans--or at least the Organs of the American State--have demonstrated themselves to be abject cowards when it comes to the risk of being blown up, although they neglect to notice the tens of thousands of people murdered every year all around them.These full-body scanners are just security theatre, inconveniencing the many in the name of failing to prevent the few.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30659204</id>
	<title>Re:Just wait...</title>
	<author>Tisha\_AH</author>
	<datestamp>1262723760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or a really obese person can just hide something under the rolls of fat.</p><p>Strangely, that is even grosser than an anal-bomb</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or a really obese person can just hide something under the rolls of fat.Strangely , that is even grosser than an anal-bomb</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or a really obese person can just hide something under the rolls of fat.Strangely, that is even grosser than an anal-bomb</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656796</id>
	<title>Here's a radical idea for saving us from terror</title>
	<author>fiannaFailMan</author>
	<datestamp>1262714700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about refraining from deposing democratic governments (like Iran in 1953 and Chile in 1973) and installing dictators in their place? How about no longer consuming 25\% of the world's resources and surrounding the planet with military bases in other peoples' countries to keep the oil flowing? How about refraining from propping up brutal dictatorships like the House of Saud?</p><p>Just saying.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about refraining from deposing democratic governments ( like Iran in 1953 and Chile in 1973 ) and installing dictators in their place ?
How about no longer consuming 25 \ % of the world 's resources and surrounding the planet with military bases in other peoples ' countries to keep the oil flowing ?
How about refraining from propping up brutal dictatorships like the House of Saud ? Just saying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about refraining from deposing democratic governments (like Iran in 1953 and Chile in 1973) and installing dictators in their place?
How about no longer consuming 25\% of the world's resources and surrounding the planet with military bases in other peoples' countries to keep the oil flowing?
How about refraining from propping up brutal dictatorships like the House of Saud?Just saying.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656370</id>
	<title>Re:Just wait...</title>
	<author>corbettw</author>
	<datestamp>1262713140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If that happens, I predict Hooters Air will become hugely successful. No pun intended.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If that happens , I predict Hooters Air will become hugely successful .
No pun intended .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If that happens, I predict Hooters Air will become hugely successful.
No pun intended.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656576</id>
	<title>Re:wha</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262713980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a better link to information on the <a href="http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/24331/" title="technologyreview.com">damage to DNA from Terahertz scanners</a> [technologyreview.com]. It was <a href="http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/10/30/1216230/How-Terahertz-Waves-Tear-Apart-DNA?from=rss" title="slashdot.org">covered in Slashdot earlier</a> [slashdot.org], don't know why it is not a related story.</p><p>Quoting the earlier story:<br>"Now a team led by Los Alamos National Labs thinks it knows why. They say that although the forces that terahertz waves exert on double-stranded DNA are tiny, in certain circumstances resonant effects can unzip the DNA strands, tearing them apart. This creates bubbles in the strands that can significantly interfere with processes such as gene expression and DNA replication. With terahertz scanners already appearing in airports and hospitals, the question that now urgently needs answering is what level of exposure is safe."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a better link to information on the damage to DNA from Terahertz scanners [ technologyreview.com ] .
It was covered in Slashdot earlier [ slashdot.org ] , do n't know why it is not a related story.Quoting the earlier story : " Now a team led by Los Alamos National Labs thinks it knows why .
They say that although the forces that terahertz waves exert on double-stranded DNA are tiny , in certain circumstances resonant effects can unzip the DNA strands , tearing them apart .
This creates bubbles in the strands that can significantly interfere with processes such as gene expression and DNA replication .
With terahertz scanners already appearing in airports and hospitals , the question that now urgently needs answering is what level of exposure is safe .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a better link to information on the damage to DNA from Terahertz scanners [technologyreview.com].
It was covered in Slashdot earlier [slashdot.org], don't know why it is not a related story.Quoting the earlier story:"Now a team led by Los Alamos National Labs thinks it knows why.
They say that although the forces that terahertz waves exert on double-stranded DNA are tiny, in certain circumstances resonant effects can unzip the DNA strands, tearing them apart.
This creates bubbles in the strands that can significantly interfere with processes such as gene expression and DNA replication.
With terahertz scanners already appearing in airports and hospitals, the question that now urgently needs answering is what level of exposure is safe.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655880</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656792</id>
	<title>Re:... but not if</title>
	<author>mpe</author>
	<datestamp>1262714640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>They've already used this technique successfully to kill someone.</i> <br> <br>That someone being the suicide bomber. Who was the only person killed in the blast.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 've already used this technique successfully to kill someone .
That someone being the suicide bomber .
Who was the only person killed in the blast .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They've already used this technique successfully to kill someone.
That someone being the suicide bomber.
Who was the only person killed in the blast.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656244</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657572</id>
	<title>Re:They are another layer</title>
	<author>FrankSchwab</author>
	<datestamp>1262717160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I completely believe that you can show images that show a gun, a knife, a bomb strapped to someones hip, leg, lower back, belly, etc.</p><p>Can you show an image where someone has a shiv in the crack of their ass, flexible explosives in an armpit or groin crease or around the genitals (which are "blurred" by the machine)?</p><p>How much explosive is needed to bring down a plane?  How much can comfortably be carried in a vagina or anus?  How much can comfortably be carried in a surgically implanted pouch in the abdomen?</p><p>Like all security theatre, providers of technology can show all kinds of great solutions.  However, in the real world, they will only stop the stupid.  Anyone who wants to attack an airliner after this insanely expensive and intrusive technology is deployed will still be able to.</p><p>The only response that I'm aware of that has, IMHO, been reasonable as a response to 9/11 and following attacks is armoring the cockpit door.  Air marshals, invasive security searches, no-fly lists, etc., appear to all be ineffective.</p><p>Even today, if a terrorist stands up in a plan and holds up an empty box with wires sticking out and says "I have a bomb!", everyone in the plane has to assume that he has a bomb.  Now, if he does that in my plane, I plan on falling back on my college training (way too many hours playing folf) and launching my laptop at his head while I charge, but that's just me.</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>/frank</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I completely believe that you can show images that show a gun , a knife , a bomb strapped to someones hip , leg , lower back , belly , etc.Can you show an image where someone has a shiv in the crack of their ass , flexible explosives in an armpit or groin crease or around the genitals ( which are " blurred " by the machine ) ? How much explosive is needed to bring down a plane ?
How much can comfortably be carried in a vagina or anus ?
How much can comfortably be carried in a surgically implanted pouch in the abdomen ? Like all security theatre , providers of technology can show all kinds of great solutions .
However , in the real world , they will only stop the stupid .
Anyone who wants to attack an airliner after this insanely expensive and intrusive technology is deployed will still be able to.The only response that I 'm aware of that has , IMHO , been reasonable as a response to 9/11 and following attacks is armoring the cockpit door .
Air marshals , invasive security searches , no-fly lists , etc. , appear to all be ineffective.Even today , if a terrorist stands up in a plan and holds up an empty box with wires sticking out and says " I have a bomb !
" , everyone in the plane has to assume that he has a bomb .
Now , if he does that in my plane , I plan on falling back on my college training ( way too many hours playing folf ) and launching my laptop at his head while I charge , but that 's just me .
/frank</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I completely believe that you can show images that show a gun, a knife, a bomb strapped to someones hip, leg, lower back, belly, etc.Can you show an image where someone has a shiv in the crack of their ass, flexible explosives in an armpit or groin crease or around the genitals (which are "blurred" by the machine)?How much explosive is needed to bring down a plane?
How much can comfortably be carried in a vagina or anus?
How much can comfortably be carried in a surgically implanted pouch in the abdomen?Like all security theatre, providers of technology can show all kinds of great solutions.
However, in the real world, they will only stop the stupid.
Anyone who wants to attack an airliner after this insanely expensive and intrusive technology is deployed will still be able to.The only response that I'm aware of that has, IMHO, been reasonable as a response to 9/11 and following attacks is armoring the cockpit door.
Air marshals, invasive security searches, no-fly lists, etc., appear to all be ineffective.Even today, if a terrorist stands up in a plan and holds up an empty box with wires sticking out and says "I have a bomb!
", everyone in the plane has to assume that he has a bomb.
Now, if he does that in my plane, I plan on falling back on my college training (way too many hours playing folf) and launching my laptop at his head while I charge, but that's just me.
/frank</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655866</id>
	<title>First</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262711400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I win</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I win</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I win</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656326</id>
	<title>Re:At Best It's A Static Defense...</title>
	<author>pmontra</author>
	<datestamp>1262713020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Exactly, Maginot has been flanked and a lot of stuff goes on a plane without going through passengers scanners. if they can plan enough to hijack 4 planes at once they'll be able to bribe/infiltrate somebody to snatch something aboard during maintenance/catering/refueling/cleaning operations. Maginot look-a-likes are always a waste of time and resources. On the other side I don't expect the guys that get paid to build and manage those scanners to agree with me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly , Maginot has been flanked and a lot of stuff goes on a plane without going through passengers scanners .
if they can plan enough to hijack 4 planes at once they 'll be able to bribe/infiltrate somebody to snatch something aboard during maintenance/catering/refueling/cleaning operations .
Maginot look-a-likes are always a waste of time and resources .
On the other side I do n't expect the guys that get paid to build and manage those scanners to agree with me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly, Maginot has been flanked and a lot of stuff goes on a plane without going through passengers scanners.
if they can plan enough to hijack 4 planes at once they'll be able to bribe/infiltrate somebody to snatch something aboard during maintenance/catering/refueling/cleaning operations.
Maginot look-a-likes are always a waste of time and resources.
On the other side I don't expect the guys that get paid to build and manage those scanners to agree with me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30684150</id>
	<title>Re:Just wait...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262886780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>all valid points, but the israelis are definitely profiling against arab/palestinian passengers.</p><p>certainly a successful technique, but the civil liberties issues should be taken into consideration.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>all valid points , but the israelis are definitely profiling against arab/palestinian passengers.certainly a successful technique , but the civil liberties issues should be taken into consideration .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>all valid points, but the israelis are definitely profiling against arab/palestinian passengers.certainly a successful technique, but the civil liberties issues should be taken into consideration.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30658364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656068</id>
	<title>It was not a "failed" attack.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262712120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>In the aftermath of the failed Christmas Day terrorist attack</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>It promoted "terror".  It's making the enemy (us) scramble, expend resources and showed the jihadies that the enemy (us) is still vulnerable.</p><p>That there were no dead bodies or a mile-wide debris trail in downtown Detroit is trivial -- because there COULD have been.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the aftermath of the failed Christmas Day terrorist attack It promoted " terror " .
It 's making the enemy ( us ) scramble , expend resources and showed the jihadies that the enemy ( us ) is still vulnerable.That there were no dead bodies or a mile-wide debris trail in downtown Detroit is trivial -- because there COULD have been .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> In the aftermath of the failed Christmas Day terrorist attack It promoted "terror".
It's making the enemy (us) scramble, expend resources and showed the jihadies that the enemy (us) is still vulnerable.That there were no dead bodies or a mile-wide debris trail in downtown Detroit is trivial -- because there COULD have been.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30659146</id>
	<title>The price you're willing to pay?</title>
	<author>Xaedalus</author>
	<datestamp>1262723520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> I fully accept and agree that you're willing to pay the price of potentially being blown up (potentially equalling extremely far-fetched odds), because you know the true probabilities are close to nil. However, most of these measures being put in place now are being done so because you, me, and most every reader on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. are outnumbered about a thousand to one by Ma and Pa Jones, who may fly only twice a year to see relatives in Chicago or Buffalo, have never been overseas, and want the Government to DO SOMETHING. They vote quite often, aren't quite up to date on the world as we'd like them to be, and more than anything cannot stand to see "Them idiots in congress doing nothin' while terrorists blow up our planes". </p><p> When I flew back from Michigan after the Crotch Bomber incident, I remember seeing TV interviews where people in airports were cheerfully saying that they wanted to see the government implement more security measures in response. There were no armed federal soldiers backed up by bureaucrats telling these people what to say. These were average, everyday American citizens telling the government that they want additional security measures in place because they want something to be done about this. </p><p> We here on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. tend to get into groupthink and believe that everyone else in the world thinks like we do. Well, we don't. We're a small libertarian-leaning minority in the midst of a whole lot of law-and-order type citizens who want the government to do something about all the dirtbags so they can get on with their lives. So remember that the next time you start ranting about the price to pay for freedom - you are outnumbered and in the minority. Try telling some 40-year-old mother from Peoria that you'd rather sacrifice security for freedom. She'll tell you that no price is too high to make sure her children, and other people's children remain safe. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I fully accept and agree that you 're willing to pay the price of potentially being blown up ( potentially equalling extremely far-fetched odds ) , because you know the true probabilities are close to nil .
However , most of these measures being put in place now are being done so because you , me , and most every reader on / .
are outnumbered about a thousand to one by Ma and Pa Jones , who may fly only twice a year to see relatives in Chicago or Buffalo , have never been overseas , and want the Government to DO SOMETHING .
They vote quite often , are n't quite up to date on the world as we 'd like them to be , and more than anything can not stand to see " Them idiots in congress doing nothin ' while terrorists blow up our planes " .
When I flew back from Michigan after the Crotch Bomber incident , I remember seeing TV interviews where people in airports were cheerfully saying that they wanted to see the government implement more security measures in response .
There were no armed federal soldiers backed up by bureaucrats telling these people what to say .
These were average , everyday American citizens telling the government that they want additional security measures in place because they want something to be done about this .
We here on / .
tend to get into groupthink and believe that everyone else in the world thinks like we do .
Well , we do n't .
We 're a small libertarian-leaning minority in the midst of a whole lot of law-and-order type citizens who want the government to do something about all the dirtbags so they can get on with their lives .
So remember that the next time you start ranting about the price to pay for freedom - you are outnumbered and in the minority .
Try telling some 40-year-old mother from Peoria that you 'd rather sacrifice security for freedom .
She 'll tell you that no price is too high to make sure her children , and other people 's children remain safe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I fully accept and agree that you're willing to pay the price of potentially being blown up (potentially equalling extremely far-fetched odds), because you know the true probabilities are close to nil.
However, most of these measures being put in place now are being done so because you, me, and most every reader on /.
are outnumbered about a thousand to one by Ma and Pa Jones, who may fly only twice a year to see relatives in Chicago or Buffalo, have never been overseas, and want the Government to DO SOMETHING.
They vote quite often, aren't quite up to date on the world as we'd like them to be, and more than anything cannot stand to see "Them idiots in congress doing nothin' while terrorists blow up our planes".
When I flew back from Michigan after the Crotch Bomber incident, I remember seeing TV interviews where people in airports were cheerfully saying that they wanted to see the government implement more security measures in response.
There were no armed federal soldiers backed up by bureaucrats telling these people what to say.
These were average, everyday American citizens telling the government that they want additional security measures in place because they want something to be done about this.
We here on /.
tend to get into groupthink and believe that everyone else in the world thinks like we do.
Well, we don't.
We're a small libertarian-leaning minority in the midst of a whole lot of law-and-order type citizens who want the government to do something about all the dirtbags so they can get on with their lives.
So remember that the next time you start ranting about the price to pay for freedom - you are outnumbered and in the minority.
Try telling some 40-year-old mother from Peoria that you'd rather sacrifice security for freedom.
She'll tell you that no price is too high to make sure her children, and other people's children remain safe. </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656810</id>
	<title>Re:Terrorist will just use children</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262714700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What will it take to realize that feelings heal over time but death does not?</p></div><p>A counter-point that I would like for you to ponder on follows:</p><p>What will it take for people to realize that the terrorists have already won? They've caused us to change our way of life out of fear. Pat-downs, high-tech scanners, racial profiling... It's all the same.</p><p>And the sad part about it is that there isn't a thing anyone can do about it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What will it take to realize that feelings heal over time but death does not ? A counter-point that I would like for you to ponder on follows : What will it take for people to realize that the terrorists have already won ?
They 've caused us to change our way of life out of fear .
Pat-downs , high-tech scanners , racial profiling... It 's all the same.And the sad part about it is that there is n't a thing anyone can do about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What will it take to realize that feelings heal over time but death does not?A counter-point that I would like for you to ponder on follows:What will it take for people to realize that the terrorists have already won?
They've caused us to change our way of life out of fear.
Pat-downs, high-tech scanners, racial profiling... It's all the same.And the sad part about it is that there isn't a thing anyone can do about it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655940</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656984</id>
	<title>Re:... but not if</title>
	<author>nametaken</author>
	<datestamp>1262715120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Psssh... it worked fine in Total Recall.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Psssh... it worked fine in Total Recall .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Psssh... it worked fine in Total Recall.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30663244</id>
	<title>Re:Just wait...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262697780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is because the terrorist attacks occurring here in the US are mostly performed by people working on behalf of the president. I know that sounds all kinds of nutty but think about it a moment. Before 9/11 what was ol dubya's approval rating? Within his first 6 months as prez it was under 50, and over 80 shortly after 9/11. Every time Obama's approval rating has gone down noticeably, there has been a corresponding terrorist attack here. Personally I think it is because acts of terrorism have enough media-traction to divert attention away from the prez for months, if not years. Given how they are going about forcing through obamacare, I foresee at least one more terrorist attack here to keep people's eyes off the ball.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is because the terrorist attacks occurring here in the US are mostly performed by people working on behalf of the president .
I know that sounds all kinds of nutty but think about it a moment .
Before 9/11 what was ol dubya 's approval rating ?
Within his first 6 months as prez it was under 50 , and over 80 shortly after 9/11 .
Every time Obama 's approval rating has gone down noticeably , there has been a corresponding terrorist attack here .
Personally I think it is because acts of terrorism have enough media-traction to divert attention away from the prez for months , if not years .
Given how they are going about forcing through obamacare , I foresee at least one more terrorist attack here to keep people 's eyes off the ball .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is because the terrorist attacks occurring here in the US are mostly performed by people working on behalf of the president.
I know that sounds all kinds of nutty but think about it a moment.
Before 9/11 what was ol dubya's approval rating?
Within his first 6 months as prez it was under 50, and over 80 shortly after 9/11.
Every time Obama's approval rating has gone down noticeably, there has been a corresponding terrorist attack here.
Personally I think it is because acts of terrorism have enough media-traction to divert attention away from the prez for months, if not years.
Given how they are going about forcing through obamacare, I foresee at least one more terrorist attack here to keep people's eyes off the ball.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656132</id>
	<title>Re:At Best It's A Static Defense...</title>
	<author>conureman</author>
	<datestamp>1262712360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Maginot Line provided a lot more gainful employment than these devices do. This is the new cold war. (I bet all the big bucks in the future of the nuclear weapon biz are going towards the new frontiers of maintenance and clean-up. All the investment of the last sixty or so years was just the "special introductory price low-down-payment".)<br>The bill is in the mail.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Maginot Line provided a lot more gainful employment than these devices do .
This is the new cold war .
( I bet all the big bucks in the future of the nuclear weapon biz are going towards the new frontiers of maintenance and clean-up .
All the investment of the last sixty or so years was just the " special introductory price low-down-payment " .
) The bill is in the mail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Maginot Line provided a lot more gainful employment than these devices do.
This is the new cold war.
(I bet all the big bucks in the future of the nuclear weapon biz are going towards the new frontiers of maintenance and clean-up.
All the investment of the last sixty or so years was just the "special introductory price low-down-payment".
)The bill is in the mail.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657274</id>
	<title>Ban islam.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262716140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Banning islamics from flying is more cost effective and probably more efficient that scanning millions of innocent travellers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Banning islamics from flying is more cost effective and probably more efficient that scanning millions of innocent travellers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Banning islamics from flying is more cost effective and probably more efficient that scanning millions of innocent travellers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657986</id>
	<title>Re:Terrorist will just use children</title>
	<author>c6gunner</author>
	<datestamp>1262718420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Maybe if the West stopped invading Arab countries and killing their citizens for their natural resources, that would be more effective than covering up each mess with more newspaper. It's starting to reek in here.</p></div><p>Maybe if you pulled your head out of your ass, it might start to smell a bit better.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe if the West stopped invading Arab countries and killing their citizens for their natural resources , that would be more effective than covering up each mess with more newspaper .
It 's starting to reek in here.Maybe if you pulled your head out of your ass , it might start to smell a bit better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe if the West stopped invading Arab countries and killing their citizens for their natural resources, that would be more effective than covering up each mess with more newspaper.
It's starting to reek in here.Maybe if you pulled your head out of your ass, it might start to smell a bit better.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657204</id>
	<title>no</title>
	<author>hmmdar</author>
	<datestamp>1262715900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, and you are retarded for asking.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , and you are retarded for asking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, and you are retarded for asking.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30658206</id>
	<title>Re:No, nor should we expect it to</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1262719380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>They do a decent job at making airports <b>appear</b> secure, which is all that should be expected of them.<br></i><br>IMO <b>appearing</b> secure is a worthless endeavor, and any money spent on it is money wasted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They do a decent job at making airports appear secure , which is all that should be expected of them.IMO appearing secure is a worthless endeavor , and any money spent on it is money wasted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They do a decent job at making airports appear secure, which is all that should be expected of them.IMO appearing secure is a worthless endeavor, and any money spent on it is money wasted.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656156</id>
	<title>more FUD and less freedom every day</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262712420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Imho, this is all about power, it's clear to me that the control freaks are using every incident they can in order to justify big salaries, more powers and even less accountability. Yup, there's just nothing like living in fear and paying big bucks for it. Way to go people!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Imho , this is all about power , it 's clear to me that the control freaks are using every incident they can in order to justify big salaries , more powers and even less accountability .
Yup , there 's just nothing like living in fear and paying big bucks for it .
Way to go people !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Imho, this is all about power, it's clear to me that the control freaks are using every incident they can in order to justify big salaries, more powers and even less accountability.
Yup, there's just nothing like living in fear and paying big bucks for it.
Way to go people!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30659754</id>
	<title>This is retarded...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262682960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are using technology to make clothes dissappear... why dont they just require everyone to get nakid and walk down a hallway with glass walls with observers behind them and have the cloths pop out the other end?  If they are goiong to see me nakid with our without my consent, we might as well save a few billion dollars in equipment and do the lowtech version of what they are implimenting. Cant be any worse than a public change room at the pool, at least there wont be that old nekid dude who wont stop talking to you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are using technology to make clothes dissappear... why dont they just require everyone to get nakid and walk down a hallway with glass walls with observers behind them and have the cloths pop out the other end ?
If they are goiong to see me nakid with our without my consent , we might as well save a few billion dollars in equipment and do the lowtech version of what they are implimenting .
Cant be any worse than a public change room at the pool , at least there wont be that old nekid dude who wont stop talking to you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are using technology to make clothes dissappear... why dont they just require everyone to get nakid and walk down a hallway with glass walls with observers behind them and have the cloths pop out the other end?
If they are goiong to see me nakid with our without my consent, we might as well save a few billion dollars in equipment and do the lowtech version of what they are implimenting.
Cant be any worse than a public change room at the pool, at least there wont be that old nekid dude who wont stop talking to you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657298</id>
	<title>It works on every crime show...</title>
	<author>Cnik70</author>
	<datestamp>1262716260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It works on every crime show... all you need to do is ENHANCE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vxq9yj2pVWk)</htmltext>
<tokenext>It works on every crime show... all you need to do is ENHANCE ( http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = Vxq9yj2pVWk )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It works on every crime show... all you need to do is ENHANCE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vxq9yj2pVWk)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30667564</id>
	<title>The only thing that can save us from terrorists...</title>
	<author>Yvanhoe</author>
	<datestamp>1262778360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...is peace and love.
<br> <br>
I am sorry to sound hippy, but that is in fact a credible geo-strategical advice. Peace in troubled regions and understanding between people would make<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:<br>
- recruitment of terrorists a lot harder<br>
- working with local authorities to get the terrorists a lot more accepted by local populations<br>
- training camps a lot harder to hide.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...is peace and love .
I am sorry to sound hippy , but that is in fact a credible geo-strategical advice .
Peace in troubled regions and understanding between people would make : - recruitment of terrorists a lot harder - working with local authorities to get the terrorists a lot more accepted by local populations - training camps a lot harder to hide .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...is peace and love.
I am sorry to sound hippy, but that is in fact a credible geo-strategical advice.
Peace in troubled regions and understanding between people would make :
- recruitment of terrorists a lot harder
- working with local authorities to get the terrorists a lot more accepted by local populations
- training camps a lot harder to hide.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656342</id>
	<title>Re:It was not a "failed" attack.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262713080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>100\% Correct; the attack worked.  Janet Nepalatano's statement of "The System Worked" is complete bullshit. The only thing that kept those people from dying was the incompetence of the bomb maker.</htmltext>
<tokenext>100 \ % Correct ; the attack worked .
Janet Nepalatano 's statement of " The System Worked " is complete bullshit .
The only thing that kept those people from dying was the incompetence of the bomb maker .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>100\% Correct; the attack worked.
Janet Nepalatano's statement of "The System Worked" is complete bullshit.
The only thing that kept those people from dying was the incompetence of the bomb maker.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30660728</id>
	<title>Re:... but not if</title>
	<author>amRadioHed</author>
	<datestamp>1262686380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wouldn't be surprised at all if the shoe bomber and the Xmas pants bomber were the only two bombing attempts in the past 9 years, and they both got through security. Surly if they caught someone at the gates with a bomb it wouldn't be kept secret.</p><p>Of course this doesn't count how many people have been deterred from trying to blow up a plane, but considering how obvious and simple it is to sneak explosives under your pants I can't imagine how anyone but the least imaginative would have been deterred. Most likely it took 8 years since the shoe bomber to try this simply because no one was trying.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't be surprised at all if the shoe bomber and the Xmas pants bomber were the only two bombing attempts in the past 9 years , and they both got through security .
Surly if they caught someone at the gates with a bomb it would n't be kept secret.Of course this does n't count how many people have been deterred from trying to blow up a plane , but considering how obvious and simple it is to sneak explosives under your pants I ca n't imagine how anyone but the least imaginative would have been deterred .
Most likely it took 8 years since the shoe bomber to try this simply because no one was trying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't be surprised at all if the shoe bomber and the Xmas pants bomber were the only two bombing attempts in the past 9 years, and they both got through security.
Surly if they caught someone at the gates with a bomb it wouldn't be kept secret.Of course this doesn't count how many people have been deterred from trying to blow up a plane, but considering how obvious and simple it is to sneak explosives under your pants I can't imagine how anyone but the least imaginative would have been deterred.
Most likely it took 8 years since the shoe bomber to try this simply because no one was trying.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656446</id>
	<title>Why is Chertoff so keen on full-body scanners?</title>
	<author>sean.peters</author>
	<datestamp>1262713500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Could it be because he has a financial interest in selling them? <a href="http://gawker.com/5437499/why-is-michael-chertoff-so-excited-about-full+body-scanners" title="gawker.com">Why, yes. Yes it could</a> [gawker.com]. Not that he ever mentioned any of that in his numerous television interviews extolling the virtues of the things - you're meant to think that he's flogging them because he's genuinely convinced of their effectiveness.</p><p>To be clear: I'm not opposed to the former DHS secretary taking a post-politics job in the security industry. I'm not even against him appearing on my teevee to flog his products. What stinks, though, is when he doesn't make it clear that his words amount to an advertisement rather than news.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could it be because he has a financial interest in selling them ?
Why , yes .
Yes it could [ gawker.com ] .
Not that he ever mentioned any of that in his numerous television interviews extolling the virtues of the things - you 're meant to think that he 's flogging them because he 's genuinely convinced of their effectiveness.To be clear : I 'm not opposed to the former DHS secretary taking a post-politics job in the security industry .
I 'm not even against him appearing on my teevee to flog his products .
What stinks , though , is when he does n't make it clear that his words amount to an advertisement rather than news .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could it be because he has a financial interest in selling them?
Why, yes.
Yes it could [gawker.com].
Not that he ever mentioned any of that in his numerous television interviews extolling the virtues of the things - you're meant to think that he's flogging them because he's genuinely convinced of their effectiveness.To be clear: I'm not opposed to the former DHS secretary taking a post-politics job in the security industry.
I'm not even against him appearing on my teevee to flog his products.
What stinks, though, is when he doesn't make it clear that his words amount to an advertisement rather than news.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657534</id>
	<title>Re:They are another layer</title>
	<author>Maxmin</author>
	<datestamp>1262716920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the hypothetical future of scanners-at-all-airports, you've got millions of people passing through these things daily.  There must be failure modes for these things, right?</p><p>Will there be conditions, clothing in particular, that influence efficacy?  Consider someone wearing explosive undies whose outer layer is made of gold lam&#233;?  Would that prevent the x-rays from penetrating to flesh?  Will operators be trained to spot when you can't see a subject's genetalia?</p><p>Yes, please provide examples.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the hypothetical future of scanners-at-all-airports , you 've got millions of people passing through these things daily .
There must be failure modes for these things , right ? Will there be conditions , clothing in particular , that influence efficacy ?
Consider someone wearing explosive undies whose outer layer is made of gold lam   ?
Would that prevent the x-rays from penetrating to flesh ?
Will operators be trained to spot when you ca n't see a subject 's genetalia ? Yes , please provide examples .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the hypothetical future of scanners-at-all-airports, you've got millions of people passing through these things daily.
There must be failure modes for these things, right?Will there be conditions, clothing in particular, that influence efficacy?
Consider someone wearing explosive undies whose outer layer is made of gold lamé?
Would that prevent the x-rays from penetrating to flesh?
Will operators be trained to spot when you can't see a subject's genetalia?Yes, please provide examples.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30658920</id>
	<title>Re:Terrorist will just use children</title>
	<author>Eli Gottlieb</author>
	<datestamp>1262722320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Iranians and Afghans aren't Arabs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Iranians and Afghans are n't Arabs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Iranians and Afghans aren't Arabs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30662220</id>
	<title>Re:... but not if</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262692860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I now know who to point my fingers at when one of those things happen again.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I now know who to point my fingers at when one of those things happen again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I now know who to point my fingers at when one of those things happen again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656764</id>
	<title>Paying for govt incompetance with my liberties</title>
	<author>assertation</author>
	<datestamp>1262714580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I see this situation as paying for federal government incompetence with my civil liberties.</p><p>I read in the news that various security &amp; intelligence networks had red flags about the Nigerian terrorist but decided not to act.</p><p>The way to prevent future problems is to fix the broken process whereby a red flag can come up and be ignored.</p><p>Not by trampling on people's civil liberties and right to privacy.</p><p>This isn't the first time this bullshit happened.</p><p>Prior to 9/11 one of the terrorists told a flight instructor that he didn't need to know how to land.  Reports about the hijackers were lodged in several intelligence/security agencies.   They were ignored the way red flags about the Nigerian terrorist was ignored.</p><p>President Bush created an entire new Federal agency because he felt he couldn't fix the dysfunctional culture at the FBI.</p><p>Today I read that there was 3rd gate crasher at the White House.</p><p>It is time to start visibly firing people.</p><p>The private sector fires people for serious screw ups.  Putting the lives of the President and other Americans at risk is of far more importance than a network admin downloading malware.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I see this situation as paying for federal government incompetence with my civil liberties.I read in the news that various security &amp; intelligence networks had red flags about the Nigerian terrorist but decided not to act.The way to prevent future problems is to fix the broken process whereby a red flag can come up and be ignored.Not by trampling on people 's civil liberties and right to privacy.This is n't the first time this bullshit happened.Prior to 9/11 one of the terrorists told a flight instructor that he did n't need to know how to land .
Reports about the hijackers were lodged in several intelligence/security agencies .
They were ignored the way red flags about the Nigerian terrorist was ignored.President Bush created an entire new Federal agency because he felt he could n't fix the dysfunctional culture at the FBI.Today I read that there was 3rd gate crasher at the White House.It is time to start visibly firing people.The private sector fires people for serious screw ups .
Putting the lives of the President and other Americans at risk is of far more importance than a network admin downloading malware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see this situation as paying for federal government incompetence with my civil liberties.I read in the news that various security &amp; intelligence networks had red flags about the Nigerian terrorist but decided not to act.The way to prevent future problems is to fix the broken process whereby a red flag can come up and be ignored.Not by trampling on people's civil liberties and right to privacy.This isn't the first time this bullshit happened.Prior to 9/11 one of the terrorists told a flight instructor that he didn't need to know how to land.
Reports about the hijackers were lodged in several intelligence/security agencies.
They were ignored the way red flags about the Nigerian terrorist was ignored.President Bush created an entire new Federal agency because he felt he couldn't fix the dysfunctional culture at the FBI.Today I read that there was 3rd gate crasher at the White House.It is time to start visibly firing people.The private sector fires people for serious screw ups.
Putting the lives of the President and other Americans at risk is of far more importance than a network admin downloading malware.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657554</id>
	<title>When did Americans become frightened wimps?</title>
	<author>bootz15</author>
	<datestamp>1262716980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Almost three years old, but still very applicable:

<a href="http://steve-olson.com/when-did-america-become-a-nation-of-frightened-wimps/" title="steve-olson.com" rel="nofollow">http://steve-olson.com/when-did-america-become-a-nation-of-frightened-wimps/</a> [steve-olson.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Almost three years old , but still very applicable : http : //steve-olson.com/when-did-america-become-a-nation-of-frightened-wimps/ [ steve-olson.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Almost three years old, but still very applicable:

http://steve-olson.com/when-did-america-become-a-nation-of-frightened-wimps/ [steve-olson.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30658852</id>
	<title>"The TSA Thinks It Works"</title>
	<author>Arancaytar</author>
	<datestamp>1262721900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>do they really work? The TSA seems to think so</p></div></blockquote><p>"Approved By The TSA" - the best testimony a security measure can get!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>do they really work ?
The TSA seems to think so " Approved By The TSA " - the best testimony a security measure can get !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>do they really work?
The TSA seems to think so"Approved By The TSA" - the best testimony a security measure can get!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657130</id>
	<title>Addendum</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262715660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>If so, I refuse to fly unless I'm flying in a plane full of nothing but attractive young female swimsuit models <b>who become nymphomaniacs when they see a slightly rotund computer nerd.</b> </i></p><p>There, fixed it for you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If so , I refuse to fly unless I 'm flying in a plane full of nothing but attractive young female swimsuit models who become nymphomaniacs when they see a slightly rotund computer nerd .
There , fixed it for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If so, I refuse to fly unless I'm flying in a plane full of nothing but attractive young female swimsuit models who become nymphomaniacs when they see a slightly rotund computer nerd.
There, fixed it for you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657842</id>
	<title>Re:They are another layer</title>
	<author>Maxmin</author>
	<datestamp>1262717940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And what about mass spectrometry?  I have wondered why this technology hasn't been deployed more extensively.  I've seen two kinds of spectrometer machines in airports - huge hulking things outside the TSA zone, where I've occasionally been directed for a swipe, and smaller ones the size of a photocopier inside the zone.</p><p>Several years ago I toured a Saavis data center, where we were to deploy a government website we'd built.  They were keen to point out the tiny, flush-mounted spectrometers in the ceiling, spaced two meters apart in a grid pattern.  They very specifically mentioned that these devices were capable of detecting substances, at very low PPMs, in the air.  They claimed the devices could tell the difference between a power supply that was about to fail and a hard drive that was about to fail.</p><p>I was rather dubious of this claim, at the time, and my gut was possibly proved right, as one of the drives in the database RAID array failed without notice (within a year, so possibly not a valid point.)  They also had a Star Trek-looking entryway that use a biometric hand-scanner (hand geometry, not prints) and voice print validation - and not functioning at the time of our visit.</p><p>IAALHD (I am a long-haired dude), with beard, and probably look like a terrorist (or political protester) to TSA drones.  I've been patted, searched and swiped probably beyond several standard deviations relative to the flying populace's experience.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And what about mass spectrometry ?
I have wondered why this technology has n't been deployed more extensively .
I 've seen two kinds of spectrometer machines in airports - huge hulking things outside the TSA zone , where I 've occasionally been directed for a swipe , and smaller ones the size of a photocopier inside the zone.Several years ago I toured a Saavis data center , where we were to deploy a government website we 'd built .
They were keen to point out the tiny , flush-mounted spectrometers in the ceiling , spaced two meters apart in a grid pattern .
They very specifically mentioned that these devices were capable of detecting substances , at very low PPMs , in the air .
They claimed the devices could tell the difference between a power supply that was about to fail and a hard drive that was about to fail.I was rather dubious of this claim , at the time , and my gut was possibly proved right , as one of the drives in the database RAID array failed without notice ( within a year , so possibly not a valid point .
) They also had a Star Trek-looking entryway that use a biometric hand-scanner ( hand geometry , not prints ) and voice print validation - and not functioning at the time of our visit.IAALHD ( I am a long-haired dude ) , with beard , and probably look like a terrorist ( or political protester ) to TSA drones .
I 've been patted , searched and swiped probably beyond several standard deviations relative to the flying populace 's experience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And what about mass spectrometry?
I have wondered why this technology hasn't been deployed more extensively.
I've seen two kinds of spectrometer machines in airports - huge hulking things outside the TSA zone, where I've occasionally been directed for a swipe, and smaller ones the size of a photocopier inside the zone.Several years ago I toured a Saavis data center, where we were to deploy a government website we'd built.
They were keen to point out the tiny, flush-mounted spectrometers in the ceiling, spaced two meters apart in a grid pattern.
They very specifically mentioned that these devices were capable of detecting substances, at very low PPMs, in the air.
They claimed the devices could tell the difference between a power supply that was about to fail and a hard drive that was about to fail.I was rather dubious of this claim, at the time, and my gut was possibly proved right, as one of the drives in the database RAID array failed without notice (within a year, so possibly not a valid point.
)  They also had a Star Trek-looking entryway that use a biometric hand-scanner (hand geometry, not prints) and voice print validation - and not functioning at the time of our visit.IAALHD (I am a long-haired dude), with beard, and probably look like a terrorist (or political protester) to TSA drones.
I've been patted, searched and swiped probably beyond several standard deviations relative to the flying populace's experience.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656096</id>
	<title>Re:At Best It's A Static Defense...</title>
	<author>Qzukk</author>
	<datestamp>1262712240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>like the Maginot Line</p></div></blockquote><p>Given that just the other day they had to completely lock down Newark and rescan everyone because someone walked right around security, I think it's an apt comparison.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>like the Maginot LineGiven that just the other day they had to completely lock down Newark and rescan everyone because someone walked right around security , I think it 's an apt comparison .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>like the Maginot LineGiven that just the other day they had to completely lock down Newark and rescan everyone because someone walked right around security, I think it's an apt comparison.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655996</id>
	<title>As a shareholder, I say YES</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262711880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I own a number of security-related investments, so YES YES YES they work!!!   Save us from teh terrorists !1!!   Wait, am I being too cynical?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I own a number of security-related investments , so YES YES YES they work ! ! !
Save us from teh terrorists ! 1 ! !
Wait , am I being too cynical ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I own a number of security-related investments, so YES YES YES they work!!!
Save us from teh terrorists !1!!
Wait, am I being too cynical?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657154</id>
	<title>it Depends</title>
	<author>robokev</author>
	<datestamp>1262715780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wouldn't a potential bomber be able to smuggle explosive material in a <a href="http://www.us.depend.com/incontinence-products/" title="depend.com" rel="nofollow">Depends undergarment</a> [depend.com]? From what I've seen of the pictures online, the explosive material might have shown up on a full body scan because the guy was wearing briefs, but it would have been totally missed inside an adult diaper. Considering all the extra security measures imposed (like staying in your seat for last hour of flight), a terrorist could even argue that the Depends undergarment was a preventive measure.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would n't a potential bomber be able to smuggle explosive material in a Depends undergarment [ depend.com ] ?
From what I 've seen of the pictures online , the explosive material might have shown up on a full body scan because the guy was wearing briefs , but it would have been totally missed inside an adult diaper .
Considering all the extra security measures imposed ( like staying in your seat for last hour of flight ) , a terrorist could even argue that the Depends undergarment was a preventive measure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wouldn't a potential bomber be able to smuggle explosive material in a Depends undergarment [depend.com]?
From what I've seen of the pictures online, the explosive material might have shown up on a full body scan because the guy was wearing briefs, but it would have been totally missed inside an adult diaper.
Considering all the extra security measures imposed (like staying in your seat for last hour of flight), a terrorist could even argue that the Depends undergarment was a preventive measure.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657140</id>
	<title>Re:... but not if</title>
	<author>MiniMike</author>
	<datestamp>1262715720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>However, one wonders how difficult it would be to spot someone at the gate walking as if they had a stick (of dynamite) up their ass...</p></div><p>It's easy.  They're wearing TSA uniforms.  Actually I don't know about the dynamite part.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>However , one wonders how difficult it would be to spot someone at the gate walking as if they had a stick ( of dynamite ) up their ass...It 's easy .
They 're wearing TSA uniforms .
Actually I do n't know about the dynamite part .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However, one wonders how difficult it would be to spot someone at the gate walking as if they had a stick (of dynamite) up their ass...It's easy.
They're wearing TSA uniforms.
Actually I don't know about the dynamite part.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655912</id>
	<title>Had DHS not been so secretive...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262711640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Had DHS not been so secretive about their processes and people actually bothered to listened when the guy's father walked into the US embassy and said "I think my son is a terrorist" and actually looked into the matter it wouldn't have happened.</p><p>Right now I don't think I know if anybody without an TS-SCI clearance actually knows how to get on of off the list.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Had DHS not been so secretive about their processes and people actually bothered to listened when the guy 's father walked into the US embassy and said " I think my son is a terrorist " and actually looked into the matter it would n't have happened.Right now I do n't think I know if anybody without an TS-SCI clearance actually knows how to get on of off the list .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Had DHS not been so secretive about their processes and people actually bothered to listened when the guy's father walked into the US embassy and said "I think my son is a terrorist" and actually looked into the matter it wouldn't have happened.Right now I don't think I know if anybody without an TS-SCI clearance actually knows how to get on of off the list.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657866</id>
	<title>Re:Just wait...</title>
	<author>Arthur Grumbine</author>
	<datestamp>1262718000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...unless I'm flying in a plane full of nothing but attractive young female swimsuit models)</p></div><p>My god! Why would you subject those poor women to such an experience unless you hate them?!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...unless I 'm flying in a plane full of nothing but attractive young female swimsuit models ) My god !
Why would you subject those poor women to such an experience unless you hate them ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...unless I'm flying in a plane full of nothing but attractive young female swimsuit models)My god!
Why would you subject those poor women to such an experience unless you hate them?
!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30665708</id>
	<title>Re:... but not if</title>
	<author>Sabriel</author>
	<datestamp>1262713920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Terrorists love commercial passenger planes because they are high profile, high reward, low expectation targets.</p><p>Humans are herd animals (or near enough), and the herd still thinks of planes as dangerous, scary things... it expects planes to be at risk of falling out of the sky, whether by accident or bomb, and it expects the people who fly on them to be at risk of dying. Yes, the loss of the WTC was terrible, but from the herd POV, it was "planes did it".</p><p>So "smart" terrorist masterminds do NOT want to hit Congress or nuke NYC or a blow up a bunch of schools... because the reward isn't worth the risk of actually angering The Herd rather than profitably terrorising it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Terrorists love commercial passenger planes because they are high profile , high reward , low expectation targets.Humans are herd animals ( or near enough ) , and the herd still thinks of planes as dangerous , scary things... it expects planes to be at risk of falling out of the sky , whether by accident or bomb , and it expects the people who fly on them to be at risk of dying .
Yes , the loss of the WTC was terrible , but from the herd POV , it was " planes did it " .So " smart " terrorist masterminds do NOT want to hit Congress or nuke NYC or a blow up a bunch of schools... because the reward is n't worth the risk of actually angering The Herd rather than profitably terrorising it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Terrorists love commercial passenger planes because they are high profile, high reward, low expectation targets.Humans are herd animals (or near enough), and the herd still thinks of planes as dangerous, scary things... it expects planes to be at risk of falling out of the sky, whether by accident or bomb, and it expects the people who fly on them to be at risk of dying.
Yes, the loss of the WTC was terrible, but from the herd POV, it was "planes did it".So "smart" terrorist masterminds do NOT want to hit Congress or nuke NYC or a blow up a bunch of schools... because the reward isn't worth the risk of actually angering The Herd rather than profitably terrorising it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657016</id>
	<title>Common sense</title>
	<author>rlp</author>
	<datestamp>1262715240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How 'bout using common sense:</p><p>1) Don't let passengers on an international flight who <b>don't have passports</b>.<br>2) Question and search passengers who are on a terror watch list.<br>3) Don't let passengers on a flight when <b>their father warns you that they're a terror risk</b>.<br>4) Don't announce that "the system worked" when it was an epic failure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How 'bout using common sense : 1 ) Do n't let passengers on an international flight who do n't have passports.2 ) Question and search passengers who are on a terror watch list.3 ) Do n't let passengers on a flight when their father warns you that they 're a terror risk.4 ) Do n't announce that " the system worked " when it was an epic failure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How 'bout using common sense:1) Don't let passengers on an international flight who don't have passports.2) Question and search passengers who are on a terror watch list.3) Don't let passengers on a flight when their father warns you that they're a terror risk.4) Don't announce that "the system worked" when it was an epic failure.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30661960</id>
	<title>Re:... but not if</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1262691600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At least we could be sure that the asshole would get what he deserves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At least we could be sure that the asshole would get what he deserves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least we could be sure that the asshole would get what he deserves.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30659782</id>
	<title>Chertoff is SELLING the scanners.</title>
	<author>jasko</author>
	<datestamp>1262683080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>See the <a href="http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/01/02/group\_slams\_chertoff\_on\_scanner\_promotion/" title="boston.com" rel="nofollow">Boston Globe article</a> [boston.com] detailing how he is promoting scanners that he has a financial interest in.

That guy has been scum from day one. This is no different. What about the evidence that these scanners <a href="http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/10/30/1216230/How-Terahertz-Waves-Tear-Apart-DNA" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">tear apart DNA</a> [slashdot.org]? How freaking safe is that?</htmltext>
<tokenext>See the Boston Globe article [ boston.com ] detailing how he is promoting scanners that he has a financial interest in .
That guy has been scum from day one .
This is no different .
What about the evidence that these scanners tear apart DNA [ slashdot.org ] ?
How freaking safe is that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See the Boston Globe article [boston.com] detailing how he is promoting scanners that he has a financial interest in.
That guy has been scum from day one.
This is no different.
What about the evidence that these scanners tear apart DNA [slashdot.org]?
How freaking safe is that?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656860</id>
	<title>All the technology in the world won't help...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262714820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>..as the bad guys don't even need to go around or through security anymore to do something really bad. The bad guys just have to haul an overstuffed carry-on full of nastiness from the curb and set it off in the security queue *before* they even get to the screeners. The TSA game plan guarantees good odds that they would have several plane-loads of passengers in a small area.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>..as the bad guys do n't even need to go around or through security anymore to do something really bad .
The bad guys just have to haul an overstuffed carry-on full of nastiness from the curb and set it off in the security queue * before * they even get to the screeners .
The TSA game plan guarantees good odds that they would have several plane-loads of passengers in a small area .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>..as the bad guys don't even need to go around or through security anymore to do something really bad.
The bad guys just have to haul an overstuffed carry-on full of nastiness from the curb and set it off in the security queue *before* they even get to the screeners.
The TSA game plan guarantees good odds that they would have several plane-loads of passengers in a small area.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657954</id>
	<title>Re:... but not if</title>
	<author>King\_TJ</author>
	<datestamp>1262718300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you weren't posting anonymously, I'd mod this one up....  (Why give a mod point to some unknown individual who won't get proper credit for it?)</p><p>But exactly<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....  the whole idea that we can spend money to "make airlines safe from terrorists" is flawed, because "terror" is not, by definition, limited to airline flights, or for that matter, to passengers boarding said airplanes.  To measure the efficiency of the devices government has employed at airline gates, we have to know how many potential terrorists they actually stopped.  (No, I'm not talking about how many times they stopped a person from flying, simply because their name was on some "do not fly" list.  I'm talking about detecting explosives or other weapons on their person.)  My guess is, they'll refuse to give out that statistic, claiming it's a matter of "national security" but the TRUTH is, the number is shocking low, vs. money spent to achieve the goal.  In other words, incredibly ineffective for your taxpayer dollar!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you were n't posting anonymously , I 'd mod this one up.... ( Why give a mod point to some unknown individual who wo n't get proper credit for it ?
) But exactly .... the whole idea that we can spend money to " make airlines safe from terrorists " is flawed , because " terror " is not , by definition , limited to airline flights , or for that matter , to passengers boarding said airplanes .
To measure the efficiency of the devices government has employed at airline gates , we have to know how many potential terrorists they actually stopped .
( No , I 'm not talking about how many times they stopped a person from flying , simply because their name was on some " do not fly " list .
I 'm talking about detecting explosives or other weapons on their person .
) My guess is , they 'll refuse to give out that statistic , claiming it 's a matter of " national security " but the TRUTH is , the number is shocking low , vs. money spent to achieve the goal .
In other words , incredibly ineffective for your taxpayer dollar !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you weren't posting anonymously, I'd mod this one up....  (Why give a mod point to some unknown individual who won't get proper credit for it?
)But exactly ....  the whole idea that we can spend money to "make airlines safe from terrorists" is flawed, because "terror" is not, by definition, limited to airline flights, or for that matter, to passengers boarding said airplanes.
To measure the efficiency of the devices government has employed at airline gates, we have to know how many potential terrorists they actually stopped.
(No, I'm not talking about how many times they stopped a person from flying, simply because their name was on some "do not fly" list.
I'm talking about detecting explosives or other weapons on their person.
)  My guess is, they'll refuse to give out that statistic, claiming it's a matter of "national security" but the TRUTH is, the number is shocking low, vs. money spent to achieve the goal.
In other words, incredibly ineffective for your taxpayer dollar!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656138</id>
	<title>RTFA</title>
	<author>Late Adopter</author>
	<datestamp>1262712360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The article you linked to says no.  The health risks are no greater than carrying a cell phone or spending 2 minutes in an airplane at cruising altitude (depending on the type).</htmltext>
<tokenext>The article you linked to says no .
The health risks are no greater than carrying a cell phone or spending 2 minutes in an airplane at cruising altitude ( depending on the type ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article you linked to says no.
The health risks are no greater than carrying a cell phone or spending 2 minutes in an airplane at cruising altitude (depending on the type).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655880</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30661688</id>
	<title>Re:The price you're willing to pay?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262690460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> I fully accept and agree that you're willing to pay the price of potentially being blown up (potentially equalling extremely far-fetched odds), because you know the true probabilities are close to nil. However, most of these measures being put in place now are being done so because you, me, and most every reader on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. are outnumbered about a thousand to one by Ma and Pa Jones, who may fly only twice a year to see relatives in Chicago or Buffalo, have never been overseas, and want the Government to DO SOMETHING. They vote quite often, aren't quite up to date on the world as we'd like them to be, and more than anything cannot stand to see "Them idiots in congress doing nothin' while terrorists blow up our planes". </p><p> When I flew back from Michigan after the Crotch Bomber incident, I remember seeing TV interviews where people in airports were cheerfully saying that they wanted to see the government implement more security measures in response. There were no armed federal soldiers backed up by bureaucrats telling these people what to say. These were average, everyday American citizens telling the government that they want additional security measures in place because they want something to be done about this. </p><p> We here on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. tend to get into groupthink and believe that everyone else in the world thinks like we do. Well, we don't. We're a small libertarian-leaning minority in the midst of a whole lot of law-and-order type citizens who want the government to do something about all the dirtbags so they can get on with their lives. So remember that the next time you start ranting about the price to pay for freedom - you are outnumbered and in the minority. <b>Try telling some 40-year-old mother from Peoria that you'd rather sacrifice security for freedom. She'll tell you that no price is too high to make sure her children, and other people's children remain safe.</b> </p></div><p>You have just summed it up. I don't know if your post was intentionally ironic. Democracy is broken, people are stupid, and they deserve everything they get. Thankfully the intelligent amongst us are manipulative and powerful enough not to be bothered with the regulations imposed on the sheeple.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I fully accept and agree that you 're willing to pay the price of potentially being blown up ( potentially equalling extremely far-fetched odds ) , because you know the true probabilities are close to nil .
However , most of these measures being put in place now are being done so because you , me , and most every reader on / .
are outnumbered about a thousand to one by Ma and Pa Jones , who may fly only twice a year to see relatives in Chicago or Buffalo , have never been overseas , and want the Government to DO SOMETHING .
They vote quite often , are n't quite up to date on the world as we 'd like them to be , and more than anything can not stand to see " Them idiots in congress doing nothin ' while terrorists blow up our planes " .
When I flew back from Michigan after the Crotch Bomber incident , I remember seeing TV interviews where people in airports were cheerfully saying that they wanted to see the government implement more security measures in response .
There were no armed federal soldiers backed up by bureaucrats telling these people what to say .
These were average , everyday American citizens telling the government that they want additional security measures in place because they want something to be done about this .
We here on / .
tend to get into groupthink and believe that everyone else in the world thinks like we do .
Well , we do n't .
We 're a small libertarian-leaning minority in the midst of a whole lot of law-and-order type citizens who want the government to do something about all the dirtbags so they can get on with their lives .
So remember that the next time you start ranting about the price to pay for freedom - you are outnumbered and in the minority .
Try telling some 40-year-old mother from Peoria that you 'd rather sacrifice security for freedom .
She 'll tell you that no price is too high to make sure her children , and other people 's children remain safe .
You have just summed it up .
I do n't know if your post was intentionally ironic .
Democracy is broken , people are stupid , and they deserve everything they get .
Thankfully the intelligent amongst us are manipulative and powerful enough not to be bothered with the regulations imposed on the sheeple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I fully accept and agree that you're willing to pay the price of potentially being blown up (potentially equalling extremely far-fetched odds), because you know the true probabilities are close to nil.
However, most of these measures being put in place now are being done so because you, me, and most every reader on /.
are outnumbered about a thousand to one by Ma and Pa Jones, who may fly only twice a year to see relatives in Chicago or Buffalo, have never been overseas, and want the Government to DO SOMETHING.
They vote quite often, aren't quite up to date on the world as we'd like them to be, and more than anything cannot stand to see "Them idiots in congress doing nothin' while terrorists blow up our planes".
When I flew back from Michigan after the Crotch Bomber incident, I remember seeing TV interviews where people in airports were cheerfully saying that they wanted to see the government implement more security measures in response.
There were no armed federal soldiers backed up by bureaucrats telling these people what to say.
These were average, everyday American citizens telling the government that they want additional security measures in place because they want something to be done about this.
We here on /.
tend to get into groupthink and believe that everyone else in the world thinks like we do.
Well, we don't.
We're a small libertarian-leaning minority in the midst of a whole lot of law-and-order type citizens who want the government to do something about all the dirtbags so they can get on with their lives.
So remember that the next time you start ranting about the price to pay for freedom - you are outnumbered and in the minority.
Try telling some 40-year-old mother from Peoria that you'd rather sacrifice security for freedom.
She'll tell you that no price is too high to make sure her children, and other people's children remain safe.
You have just summed it up.
I don't know if your post was intentionally ironic.
Democracy is broken, people are stupid, and they deserve everything they get.
Thankfully the intelligent amongst us are manipulative and powerful enough not to be bothered with the regulations imposed on the sheeple.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30659146</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30663270
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30659328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655940
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30658920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30659176
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30661860
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30658396
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30661378
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656338
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655940
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30662220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30658098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30658998
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30658206
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655940
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657926
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30658364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30667314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656574
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30658044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657270
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30658050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655940
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655940
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30658100
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30661960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657138
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656548
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30661552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30658364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30684150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655940
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30660242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655940
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30659144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30662572
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30659626
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657718
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656572
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656142
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30690732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30667462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30659146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30661688
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656618
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656576
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30661040
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655940
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30660728
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30658632
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30663244
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30659336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30658404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657592
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30660034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656096
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30658540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30665708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30660400
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30659146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30663368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30660756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30662224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657628
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656674
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656950
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30659522
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656132
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657548
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30660604
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30658916
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655940
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30658888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30659554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656238
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656370
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30659714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657950
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30659204
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656624
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30658616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1538225_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1538225.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655996
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1538225.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655932
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656132
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656096
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656326
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1538225.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656446
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1538225.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655880
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30663270
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656576
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656518
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657950
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656574
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656138
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657150
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1538225.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657446
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1538225.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656918
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1538225.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656068
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656522
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657662
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30660756
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656338
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656548
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657894
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30660034
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656448
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656572
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656932
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656618
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1538225.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655958
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657138
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656300
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30659554
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1538225.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656478
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1538225.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656426
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1538225.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656640
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657140
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656496
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30659522
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656244
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656792
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656840
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656416
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656622
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30658396
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657954
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30660728
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30658998
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30661040
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657926
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657932
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30662220
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30665708
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656984
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657730
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656142
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30660400
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30661960
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1538225.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656176
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1538225.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655954
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1538225.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656870
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1538225.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656664
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1538225.32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655938
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657548
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30659336
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30659626
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1538225.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655940
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30658888
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30659144
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656178
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656704
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657986
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30658920
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30658100
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656810
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656908
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30660242
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1538225.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655908
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657130
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656238
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657992
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30661552
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657866
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656370
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656230
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30658364
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30667314
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30684150
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30660604
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657166
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30667462
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30659714
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30663244
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30659204
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657230
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30659146
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30661688
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30663368
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656144
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1538225.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656130
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656816
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656650
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657346
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30658044
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657746
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30662572
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30658616
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30659176
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657956
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30658540
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657842
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657270
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30662224
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657572
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30658632
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30658050
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657534
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657144
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1538225.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656456
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1538225.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656040
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657718
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30658916
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657358
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30658098
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656674
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657592
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657580
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1538225.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656050
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1538225.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655930
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30661378
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30659328
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30661860
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30658206
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30658404
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1538225.33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656520
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1538225.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655866
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1538225.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656796
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1538225.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657016
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1538225.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656086
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30690732
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657796
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656826
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656624
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1538225.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655912
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657628
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1538225.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656344
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1538225.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655988
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1538225.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30660930
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1538225.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30655894
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30656950
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1538225.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1538225.30657060
</commentlist>
</conversation>
