<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_05_1813217</id>
	<title>Fixing Security Issue Isn't Always the Right Answer</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1262719800000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Trailrunner7 writes <i>"In a  column on Threatpost, Bruce Schneier writes that the recent security breach at Newark Airport shows that <a href="http://threatpost.com/en\_us/blogs/fixing-security-problem-isnt-always-right-answer-010510">fixing a given security problem isn't always the right move</a>. 'An unidentified man breached airport security at Newark Airport on Sunday, walking into the secured area through the exit, prompting an evacuation of a terminal and flight delays that continued into the next day. This problem isn't common, but it happens regularly. The result is always the same, and it's not obvious that fixing the problem is the right solution. American airports can do more to secure against this risk, but I'm reasonably sure it's not worth it. We could double the guards to reduce the risk of inattentiveness, and redesign the airports to make this kind of thing less likely, but that's an expensive solution to an already rare problem. As much as I don't like saying it, the smartest thing is probably to live with this occasional but major inconvenience.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Trailrunner7 writes " In a column on Threatpost , Bruce Schneier writes that the recent security breach at Newark Airport shows that fixing a given security problem is n't always the right move .
'An unidentified man breached airport security at Newark Airport on Sunday , walking into the secured area through the exit , prompting an evacuation of a terminal and flight delays that continued into the next day .
This problem is n't common , but it happens regularly .
The result is always the same , and it 's not obvious that fixing the problem is the right solution .
American airports can do more to secure against this risk , but I 'm reasonably sure it 's not worth it .
We could double the guards to reduce the risk of inattentiveness , and redesign the airports to make this kind of thing less likely , but that 's an expensive solution to an already rare problem .
As much as I do n't like saying it , the smartest thing is probably to live with this occasional but major inconvenience .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Trailrunner7 writes "In a  column on Threatpost, Bruce Schneier writes that the recent security breach at Newark Airport shows that fixing a given security problem isn't always the right move.
'An unidentified man breached airport security at Newark Airport on Sunday, walking into the secured area through the exit, prompting an evacuation of a terminal and flight delays that continued into the next day.
This problem isn't common, but it happens regularly.
The result is always the same, and it's not obvious that fixing the problem is the right solution.
American airports can do more to secure against this risk, but I'm reasonably sure it's not worth it.
We could double the guards to reduce the risk of inattentiveness, and redesign the airports to make this kind of thing less likely, but that's an expensive solution to an already rare problem.
As much as I don't like saying it, the smartest thing is probably to live with this occasional but major inconvenience.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659332</id>
	<title>Re:Overreaction</title>
	<author>tiberus</author>
	<datestamp>1262724240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Guess, that depends on how the problem occurred?!?  What security measure failed and why?  Is it as simple as someone just being human, lack of education?</p><p>We seem much too willing to spend too much time and money to solve problems where the cost-benefit ratio is all wrong.  I want to be safe but, I want to live my life.  I would like a bit more life at the cost of a bit less safety.  I don't feel safer, I just feel annoyed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Guess , that depends on how the problem occurred ? ! ?
What security measure failed and why ?
Is it as simple as someone just being human , lack of education ? We seem much too willing to spend too much time and money to solve problems where the cost-benefit ratio is all wrong .
I want to be safe but , I want to live my life .
I would like a bit more life at the cost of a bit less safety .
I do n't feel safer , I just feel annoyed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Guess, that depends on how the problem occurred?!?
What security measure failed and why?
Is it as simple as someone just being human, lack of education?We seem much too willing to spend too much time and money to solve problems where the cost-benefit ratio is all wrong.
I want to be safe but, I want to live my life.
I would like a bit more life at the cost of a bit less safety.
I don't feel safer, I just feel annoyed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659154</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30661214</id>
	<title>"an expensive solution to an already rare problem"</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1262688480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pretty well describes all of the security bullshit, doesn't it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pretty well describes all of the security bullshit , does n't it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pretty well describes all of the security bullshit, doesn't it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30661150</id>
	<title>Re:The whole thing is nuts</title>
	<author>JetTredmont</author>
	<datestamp>1262688240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First, this is "secure zone" theory.  A zone is either secure or not, so if something "insecure" gets into the secure zone, it immediately flips and needs to be sterilized.  May seem like an overreaction to you right now, but I'd bet $1,000 (sorry, the economy has reduced my hypothetical betting cash) that if we were not doing that you'd be hearing about it all over Fox "news".</p><p>Second, the Underwear Bomber didn't board anywhere in the purview of our TSA.  Obviously no matter how stringent our TSA policies are, they aren't going to keep the Nigerian airport security up to par.  We're exerting some diplomatic efforts to get airports which send planes into the US to step up their security after this, but that's not the TSA, that's the State Department.</p><p>Third, you are hearing Napolitano's statement out of context, and showing that Fox "news" (hey, the quotes are there at the request of Murdoch himself, who says there are something like 1.5 hours per day of news news on Fox "news" and the rest is just opinion and talk radio fodder) is your main information source.  Specifically, she was talking about the reaction AFTER the plane landed.  TSA security was tightened in anticipation of a second phase to a planned attack (which never came, thankfully).</p><p>Fourth, I agree the TSA's procedures are generally useless and security theater rather than real security.  Has nothing to do with the Underwear Bomber incident (again, no TSA involvement there at all until after the fact), but does pertain to the focus of this article.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First , this is " secure zone " theory .
A zone is either secure or not , so if something " insecure " gets into the secure zone , it immediately flips and needs to be sterilized .
May seem like an overreaction to you right now , but I 'd bet $ 1,000 ( sorry , the economy has reduced my hypothetical betting cash ) that if we were not doing that you 'd be hearing about it all over Fox " news " .Second , the Underwear Bomber did n't board anywhere in the purview of our TSA .
Obviously no matter how stringent our TSA policies are , they are n't going to keep the Nigerian airport security up to par .
We 're exerting some diplomatic efforts to get airports which send planes into the US to step up their security after this , but that 's not the TSA , that 's the State Department.Third , you are hearing Napolitano 's statement out of context , and showing that Fox " news " ( hey , the quotes are there at the request of Murdoch himself , who says there are something like 1.5 hours per day of news news on Fox " news " and the rest is just opinion and talk radio fodder ) is your main information source .
Specifically , she was talking about the reaction AFTER the plane landed .
TSA security was tightened in anticipation of a second phase to a planned attack ( which never came , thankfully ) .Fourth , I agree the TSA 's procedures are generally useless and security theater rather than real security .
Has nothing to do with the Underwear Bomber incident ( again , no TSA involvement there at all until after the fact ) , but does pertain to the focus of this article .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, this is "secure zone" theory.
A zone is either secure or not, so if something "insecure" gets into the secure zone, it immediately flips and needs to be sterilized.
May seem like an overreaction to you right now, but I'd bet $1,000 (sorry, the economy has reduced my hypothetical betting cash) that if we were not doing that you'd be hearing about it all over Fox "news".Second, the Underwear Bomber didn't board anywhere in the purview of our TSA.
Obviously no matter how stringent our TSA policies are, they aren't going to keep the Nigerian airport security up to par.
We're exerting some diplomatic efforts to get airports which send planes into the US to step up their security after this, but that's not the TSA, that's the State Department.Third, you are hearing Napolitano's statement out of context, and showing that Fox "news" (hey, the quotes are there at the request of Murdoch himself, who says there are something like 1.5 hours per day of news news on Fox "news" and the rest is just opinion and talk radio fodder) is your main information source.
Specifically, she was talking about the reaction AFTER the plane landed.
TSA security was tightened in anticipation of a second phase to a planned attack (which never came, thankfully).Fourth, I agree the TSA's procedures are generally useless and security theater rather than real security.
Has nothing to do with the Underwear Bomber incident (again, no TSA involvement there at all until after the fact), but does pertain to the focus of this article.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660652</id>
	<title>Re:Overreaction</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262686200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Well, in a "sterile" security zone, one unapproved person can ruin everything. Even if you find him/her, they may have given an weapon to somebody else who was screened earlier and passed. Yep, you've got to clear out the zone, verify there's nothing hidden, then rescreen everybody.</p></div><p>But it isn't a "sterile" security zone, never has been and never will be. The screening is joke and has no real security value.<br>Imagine: You are a terrorist, willing to die for the cause, and want to blow up a plain. How big of a problem would it be to put the 80 grams of explosives needed in a condom and stuff it up your ass before entering the airport ? Unless cavity searches are standard procedure nowadays of course.</p><p>But even a whole kilo can be smuggled in easily. It should be a relatively small operation to hide it inside someones body. The guy is willing to die anyway, so medium/long term ill effects are not relevant and it can be made to explode while still in the body.</p><p>In fact, I wonder why such a thing has not happened yet.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , in a " sterile " security zone , one unapproved person can ruin everything .
Even if you find him/her , they may have given an weapon to somebody else who was screened earlier and passed .
Yep , you 've got to clear out the zone , verify there 's nothing hidden , then rescreen everybody.But it is n't a " sterile " security zone , never has been and never will be .
The screening is joke and has no real security value.Imagine : You are a terrorist , willing to die for the cause , and want to blow up a plain .
How big of a problem would it be to put the 80 grams of explosives needed in a condom and stuff it up your ass before entering the airport ?
Unless cavity searches are standard procedure nowadays of course.But even a whole kilo can be smuggled in easily .
It should be a relatively small operation to hide it inside someones body .
The guy is willing to die anyway , so medium/long term ill effects are not relevant and it can be made to explode while still in the body.In fact , I wonder why such a thing has not happened yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, in a "sterile" security zone, one unapproved person can ruin everything.
Even if you find him/her, they may have given an weapon to somebody else who was screened earlier and passed.
Yep, you've got to clear out the zone, verify there's nothing hidden, then rescreen everybody.But it isn't a "sterile" security zone, never has been and never will be.
The screening is joke and has no real security value.Imagine: You are a terrorist, willing to die for the cause, and want to blow up a plain.
How big of a problem would it be to put the 80 grams of explosives needed in a condom and stuff it up your ass before entering the airport ?
Unless cavity searches are standard procedure nowadays of course.But even a whole kilo can be smuggled in easily.
It should be a relatively small operation to hide it inside someones body.
The guy is willing to die anyway, so medium/long term ill effects are not relevant and it can be made to explode while still in the body.In fact, I wonder why such a thing has not happened yet.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659228</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659778</id>
	<title>Re:US Airports suck for security</title>
	<author>guruevi</author>
	<datestamp>1262683080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry, but European-style airports really wouldn't have fixed this. I like European airports better because they look and work exactly like any other airport in the world but they have less of a security theatre and are easier and faster to process through.</p><p>Actually, for US-bound planes most airports in Europe (except for the really big ones like BRU, AMS and CDG) have to implement a make-shift corridor for American-style #ITA security screenings. If you ever have the opportunity to go to eg. Crete or an ex-Soviet Bloc country by plane you'll see what I mean. The only security there is a beeping metal detector and a military/police officer waving you through looking really annoyed that you actually stopped because of the beeping.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , but European-style airports really would n't have fixed this .
I like European airports better because they look and work exactly like any other airport in the world but they have less of a security theatre and are easier and faster to process through.Actually , for US-bound planes most airports in Europe ( except for the really big ones like BRU , AMS and CDG ) have to implement a make-shift corridor for American-style # ITA security screenings .
If you ever have the opportunity to go to eg .
Crete or an ex-Soviet Bloc country by plane you 'll see what I mean .
The only security there is a beeping metal detector and a military/police officer waving you through looking really annoyed that you actually stopped because of the beeping .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, but European-style airports really wouldn't have fixed this.
I like European airports better because they look and work exactly like any other airport in the world but they have less of a security theatre and are easier and faster to process through.Actually, for US-bound planes most airports in Europe (except for the really big ones like BRU, AMS and CDG) have to implement a make-shift corridor for American-style #ITA security screenings.
If you ever have the opportunity to go to eg.
Crete or an ex-Soviet Bloc country by plane you'll see what I mean.
The only security there is a beeping metal detector and a military/police officer waving you through looking really annoyed that you actually stopped because of the beeping.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30661530</id>
	<title>First-hand witness account by Shmuley Boteach</title>
	<author>cowwoc2001</author>
	<datestamp>1262689620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1262339393752&amp;pagename=JPost\%2FJPArticle\%2FShowFull" title="jpost.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1262339393752&amp;pagename=JPost\%2FJPArticle\%2FShowFull</a> [jpost.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite ? cid = 1262339393752&amp;pagename = JPost \ % 2FJPArticle \ % 2FShowFull [ jpost.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1262339393752&amp;pagename=JPost\%2FJPArticle\%2FShowFull [jpost.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30661636</id>
	<title>Doesn't happen at Schipol</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262690160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Despite the recent unpleasantness at Schipol, this sort of thing doesn't occur there, because security screening is done at the gate rather than at the terminal entrance.  Anyone can wander around through the terminal, but only screened passengers (for whatever that's worth) get into the gate waiting areas.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Despite the recent unpleasantness at Schipol , this sort of thing does n't occur there , because security screening is done at the gate rather than at the terminal entrance .
Anyone can wander around through the terminal , but only screened passengers ( for whatever that 's worth ) get into the gate waiting areas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Despite the recent unpleasantness at Schipol, this sort of thing doesn't occur there, because security screening is done at the gate rather than at the terminal entrance.
Anyone can wander around through the terminal, but only screened passengers (for whatever that's worth) get into the gate waiting areas.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659580</id>
	<title>Increasing ~= Fixing</title>
	<author>Nos.</author>
	<datestamp>1262682120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hadn't heard about this, but the article linked in the article says this:</p><p>"Officials took the action after a man was observed walking the wrong way down the exit lane between the secured, or "sterile," area and the public area at around 5:20 p.m"</p><p>I haven't done a lot of air travel, but to me this isn't necessarily a breach.  The man could easily have just left his flight, heading for the baggage claim area only to realize he dropped or left something on the plane and was heading back.</p><p>So, the first problem is that they don't know.  Presumably there are cameras on these areas, so look at the recordings and find out where he came from.  If he came from the plane (or any secure area), and simply turned around to go back where he came from, there's no reason to suspect a breach.</p><p>If he did come the wrong way through a one way door, or similar, then yes there was a security breach.  Increasing the number of guards isn't a fix, its simply reducing the chances that this will happen again.  As others have mentioned, one way, full height turnstiles are a possibility.  You may have to deal with luggage, but that can be done with larger turnstiles.  If turnstiles can accommodate wheelchairs, they can accommodate luggage carried by most flyers.  Those with exceptionaly large items may need to be escorted through a separate corridor.</p><p>My point is, Bruce's two options (redesigning airports and increasing security guards) are both impractical, but there may be other options available.  And (as others have mentioned) learning from this and applying those lessons to future airport designs SHOULD be done.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I had n't heard about this , but the article linked in the article says this : " Officials took the action after a man was observed walking the wrong way down the exit lane between the secured , or " sterile , " area and the public area at around 5 : 20 p.m " I have n't done a lot of air travel , but to me this is n't necessarily a breach .
The man could easily have just left his flight , heading for the baggage claim area only to realize he dropped or left something on the plane and was heading back.So , the first problem is that they do n't know .
Presumably there are cameras on these areas , so look at the recordings and find out where he came from .
If he came from the plane ( or any secure area ) , and simply turned around to go back where he came from , there 's no reason to suspect a breach.If he did come the wrong way through a one way door , or similar , then yes there was a security breach .
Increasing the number of guards is n't a fix , its simply reducing the chances that this will happen again .
As others have mentioned , one way , full height turnstiles are a possibility .
You may have to deal with luggage , but that can be done with larger turnstiles .
If turnstiles can accommodate wheelchairs , they can accommodate luggage carried by most flyers .
Those with exceptionaly large items may need to be escorted through a separate corridor.My point is , Bruce 's two options ( redesigning airports and increasing security guards ) are both impractical , but there may be other options available .
And ( as others have mentioned ) learning from this and applying those lessons to future airport designs SHOULD be done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hadn't heard about this, but the article linked in the article says this:"Officials took the action after a man was observed walking the wrong way down the exit lane between the secured, or "sterile," area and the public area at around 5:20 p.m"I haven't done a lot of air travel, but to me this isn't necessarily a breach.
The man could easily have just left his flight, heading for the baggage claim area only to realize he dropped or left something on the plane and was heading back.So, the first problem is that they don't know.
Presumably there are cameras on these areas, so look at the recordings and find out where he came from.
If he came from the plane (or any secure area), and simply turned around to go back where he came from, there's no reason to suspect a breach.If he did come the wrong way through a one way door, or similar, then yes there was a security breach.
Increasing the number of guards isn't a fix, its simply reducing the chances that this will happen again.
As others have mentioned, one way, full height turnstiles are a possibility.
You may have to deal with luggage, but that can be done with larger turnstiles.
If turnstiles can accommodate wheelchairs, they can accommodate luggage carried by most flyers.
Those with exceptionaly large items may need to be escorted through a separate corridor.My point is, Bruce's two options (redesigning airports and increasing security guards) are both impractical, but there may be other options available.
And (as others have mentioned) learning from this and applying those lessons to future airport designs SHOULD be done.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660494</id>
	<title>I wish you weren't an AC</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262685540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good thing you got modded up - I wish you'd posted this logged in, because it's a <i>good point</i>.</p><p>We've gone so far overboard on security that our own security responses often exceed the costs that an actual attack would impose.</p><p>One dude, maybe a thousand dollar fine/couple days in the clink, can shut an airport down for much of a day, costing <i>millions</i>.  Classic asymetrical warfare.</p><p>Heck, the terrorists have already switched from attacking the secure areas to attacking the approach to the secure area.  Ever seen the queue to get into the secure airport area?  I have a nasty imagination.  Just take a suicide bomber, no need for a plane ticket, and have him approach the security area like he's got a ticket and is going to board.  Then detonate when in a particularly crowded spot.  Heck, he could even have a fairly massive 'carry-on' filled with explosives.</p><p>Then again - if I was a terrorist I wouldn't be looking at transportation right now.  That's where we're looking.  I'd look elsewhere for my targets.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good thing you got modded up - I wish you 'd posted this logged in , because it 's a good point.We 've gone so far overboard on security that our own security responses often exceed the costs that an actual attack would impose.One dude , maybe a thousand dollar fine/couple days in the clink , can shut an airport down for much of a day , costing millions .
Classic asymetrical warfare.Heck , the terrorists have already switched from attacking the secure areas to attacking the approach to the secure area .
Ever seen the queue to get into the secure airport area ?
I have a nasty imagination .
Just take a suicide bomber , no need for a plane ticket , and have him approach the security area like he 's got a ticket and is going to board .
Then detonate when in a particularly crowded spot .
Heck , he could even have a fairly massive 'carry-on ' filled with explosives.Then again - if I was a terrorist I would n't be looking at transportation right now .
That 's where we 're looking .
I 'd look elsewhere for my targets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good thing you got modded up - I wish you'd posted this logged in, because it's a good point.We've gone so far overboard on security that our own security responses often exceed the costs that an actual attack would impose.One dude, maybe a thousand dollar fine/couple days in the clink, can shut an airport down for much of a day, costing millions.
Classic asymetrical warfare.Heck, the terrorists have already switched from attacking the secure areas to attacking the approach to the secure area.
Ever seen the queue to get into the secure airport area?
I have a nasty imagination.
Just take a suicide bomber, no need for a plane ticket, and have him approach the security area like he's got a ticket and is going to board.
Then detonate when in a particularly crowded spot.
Heck, he could even have a fairly massive 'carry-on' filled with explosives.Then again - if I was a terrorist I wouldn't be looking at transportation right now.
That's where we're looking.
I'd look elsewhere for my targets.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659716</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660686</id>
	<title>Re:Overreaction</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1262686260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not a reliable source, but a bloke down the pub (un mec au bar) told me that around 10\% of the staff at Paris CDG attend radical mosques.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not a reliable source , but a bloke down the pub ( un mec au bar ) told me that around 10 \ % of the staff at Paris CDG attend radical mosques .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not a reliable source, but a bloke down the pub (un mec au bar) told me that around 10\% of the staff at Paris CDG attend radical mosques.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660258</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660174</id>
	<title>Re:Death is not an inconvenience?</title>
	<author>space\_hippy</author>
	<datestamp>1262684520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>[sarcasm] Yes by all means we must think of the children.[/sarcasm]</p><p>Even at the expense of condemning them to a third world quality of life.  I suspect furby076 is the type of person that wants to live till he/she is 120 years old even though the last 40 are spent in a coma. For people like that life is about quantity not quality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>[ sarcasm ] Yes by all means we must think of the children .
[ /sarcasm ] Even at the expense of condemning them to a third world quality of life .
I suspect furby076 is the type of person that wants to live till he/she is 120 years old even though the last 40 are spent in a coma .
For people like that life is about quantity not quality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[sarcasm] Yes by all means we must think of the children.
[/sarcasm]Even at the expense of condemning them to a third world quality of life.
I suspect furby076 is the type of person that wants to live till he/she is 120 years old even though the last 40 are spent in a coma.
For people like that life is about quantity not quality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30661710</id>
	<title>Re:I've got it...</title>
	<author>bugs2squash</author>
	<datestamp>1262690580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or a bush of long flexible spikes anchored around the door-frame that meet in the middle of the door opening on the outside such that you can push through them harmlessly on the way out but get peppered with small holes if you walk the other way.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or a bush of long flexible spikes anchored around the door-frame that meet in the middle of the door opening on the outside such that you can push through them harmlessly on the way out but get peppered with small holes if you walk the other way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or a bush of long flexible spikes anchored around the door-frame that meet in the middle of the door opening on the outside such that you can push through them harmlessly on the way out but get peppered with small holes if you walk the other way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30665160</id>
	<title>It's The Money</title>
	<author>b4upoo</author>
	<datestamp>1262709360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>         It is fair to say that our current war is so expensive that we might be better off to simply lose an airplane or large building once a year or so rather than fight back if money is the only consideration. Worse yet the cumulative effect of these smaller wars may well destroy the US economy. There are only so many Koreas, N. Vietnams, Somalias, Cold wars, Desert Storms etc. that we can fight without economic ruin.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is fair to say that our current war is so expensive that we might be better off to simply lose an airplane or large building once a year or so rather than fight back if money is the only consideration .
Worse yet the cumulative effect of these smaller wars may well destroy the US economy .
There are only so many Koreas , N. Vietnams , Somalias , Cold wars , Desert Storms etc .
that we can fight without economic ruin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>         It is fair to say that our current war is so expensive that we might be better off to simply lose an airplane or large building once a year or so rather than fight back if money is the only consideration.
Worse yet the cumulative effect of these smaller wars may well destroy the US economy.
There are only so many Koreas, N. Vietnams, Somalias, Cold wars, Desert Storms etc.
that we can fight without economic ruin.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659702</id>
	<title>Big one-way powered revolving doors</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1262682600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
The solution to wrong-way passenger traffic is known - <a href="http://www.hortondoors.com/Articles/body\_article7.html" title="hortondoors.com">big one-way powered three-leaf revolving doors.</a> [hortondoors.com]  LAX has had those for decades.  They're just very large revolving doors, big enough for several people or a cart, which rotate slowly and are powered by weak motors. But if somebody enters the wrong side, they stop moving, and if necessary back up a little to let the bozo out.  Sometimes somebody gets trapped and alarms go off, although this takes some effort.
</p><p>
There are other revolving-door arrangements for employee entrances, some resembling full-height subway turnstiles.
</p><p>
An installation like that probably pays for itself if it prevents one incident which requires closing down an entire terminal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The solution to wrong-way passenger traffic is known - big one-way powered three-leaf revolving doors .
[ hortondoors.com ] LAX has had those for decades .
They 're just very large revolving doors , big enough for several people or a cart , which rotate slowly and are powered by weak motors .
But if somebody enters the wrong side , they stop moving , and if necessary back up a little to let the bozo out .
Sometimes somebody gets trapped and alarms go off , although this takes some effort .
There are other revolving-door arrangements for employee entrances , some resembling full-height subway turnstiles .
An installation like that probably pays for itself if it prevents one incident which requires closing down an entire terminal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
The solution to wrong-way passenger traffic is known - big one-way powered three-leaf revolving doors.
[hortondoors.com]  LAX has had those for decades.
They're just very large revolving doors, big enough for several people or a cart, which rotate slowly and are powered by weak motors.
But if somebody enters the wrong side, they stop moving, and if necessary back up a little to let the bozo out.
Sometimes somebody gets trapped and alarms go off, although this takes some effort.
There are other revolving-door arrangements for employee entrances, some resembling full-height subway turnstiles.
An installation like that probably pays for itself if it prevents one incident which requires closing down an entire terminal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30661230</id>
	<title>Re:Death is not an inconvenience?</title>
	<author>dissy</author>
	<datestamp>1262688540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It may be costly - but put it this way - how much is your mothers life worth? Your wife? Child? yourself?</p></div><p>Obviously they are not worth very much if any of them step outdoors, or drive a car, or are present in a metro city, or do any of the hundreds of daily activities that have a much much MUCH higher chance of killing you.</p><p>In 2008, the number of American who died from a terrorist attack was about 260.<br>All of those except 4 were NOT in the USA. [1]</p><p>4 deaths from terrorist attacks in an entire year on US soil.</p><p>Also in the whole year of 2008, there were 37,261 deaths from auto accidents. [2]</p><p>You are 9315 times more likely to die from an auto accident, be it one you caused, one someone caused into you, or you are walking down the street and two other motorists bring the accident to you on the sidewalk.</p><p>That is almost 4 orders of magnitude higher!</p><p>For every person killed by a terrorist in this country, nearly 10,000 people are killed by a car in the exact same amount of time.</p><p>If you willingly put yourself and mother and wife and child in the situation of 'being out doors' then clearly you value them and yourself 1000 times less than if a terrorist attack was your only concern.</p><p>My question to you is, why are you so willing to spend a million dollars to stop a terrorist attack, without spending the equally valid and necessary ten billion dollars to have all cars banned and removed from the roadways?</p><p>References:<br>1 - <a href="http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html" title="infoplease.com">http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html</a> [infoplease.com]<br>2 - <a href="http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx" title="dot.gov">http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx</a> [dot.gov]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It may be costly - but put it this way - how much is your mothers life worth ?
Your wife ?
Child ? yourself ? Obviously they are not worth very much if any of them step outdoors , or drive a car , or are present in a metro city , or do any of the hundreds of daily activities that have a much much MUCH higher chance of killing you.In 2008 , the number of American who died from a terrorist attack was about 260.All of those except 4 were NOT in the USA .
[ 1 ] 4 deaths from terrorist attacks in an entire year on US soil.Also in the whole year of 2008 , there were 37,261 deaths from auto accidents .
[ 2 ] You are 9315 times more likely to die from an auto accident , be it one you caused , one someone caused into you , or you are walking down the street and two other motorists bring the accident to you on the sidewalk.That is almost 4 orders of magnitude higher ! For every person killed by a terrorist in this country , nearly 10,000 people are killed by a car in the exact same amount of time.If you willingly put yourself and mother and wife and child in the situation of 'being out doors ' then clearly you value them and yourself 1000 times less than if a terrorist attack was your only concern.My question to you is , why are you so willing to spend a million dollars to stop a terrorist attack , without spending the equally valid and necessary ten billion dollars to have all cars banned and removed from the roadways ? References : 1 - http : //www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html [ infoplease.com ] 2 - http : //www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx [ dot.gov ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It may be costly - but put it this way - how much is your mothers life worth?
Your wife?
Child? yourself?Obviously they are not worth very much if any of them step outdoors, or drive a car, or are present in a metro city, or do any of the hundreds of daily activities that have a much much MUCH higher chance of killing you.In 2008, the number of American who died from a terrorist attack was about 260.All of those except 4 were NOT in the USA.
[1]4 deaths from terrorist attacks in an entire year on US soil.Also in the whole year of 2008, there were 37,261 deaths from auto accidents.
[2]You are 9315 times more likely to die from an auto accident, be it one you caused, one someone caused into you, or you are walking down the street and two other motorists bring the accident to you on the sidewalk.That is almost 4 orders of magnitude higher!For every person killed by a terrorist in this country, nearly 10,000 people are killed by a car in the exact same amount of time.If you willingly put yourself and mother and wife and child in the situation of 'being out doors' then clearly you value them and yourself 1000 times less than if a terrorist attack was your only concern.My question to you is, why are you so willing to spend a million dollars to stop a terrorist attack, without spending the equally valid and necessary ten billion dollars to have all cars banned and removed from the roadways?References:1 - http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html [infoplease.com]2 - http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx [dot.gov]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660956</id>
	<title>The Bullshit Has Won</title>
	<author>sexconker</author>
	<datestamp>1262687340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fixing security issues is always the right answer.<br>The alternative, not fixing security issues, is always the wrong answer.</p><p>This is a typical kdawson FUD post.</p><p>While I agree that all the security theater bullshit is bullshit, this article itself is bullshit.</p><p>Where's the rub?  The implied notion that there's a security issue at all is bullshit.</p><p>A man walking in to a "secure" area through the exit is not a security issue.  So yes, the correct action in this case is to do nothing, but no, there was no security issue to fix or not fix.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fixing security issues is always the right answer.The alternative , not fixing security issues , is always the wrong answer.This is a typical kdawson FUD post.While I agree that all the security theater bullshit is bullshit , this article itself is bullshit.Where 's the rub ?
The implied notion that there 's a security issue at all is bullshit.A man walking in to a " secure " area through the exit is not a security issue .
So yes , the correct action in this case is to do nothing , but no , there was no security issue to fix or not fix .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fixing security issues is always the right answer.The alternative, not fixing security issues, is always the wrong answer.This is a typical kdawson FUD post.While I agree that all the security theater bullshit is bullshit, this article itself is bullshit.Where's the rub?
The implied notion that there's a security issue at all is bullshit.A man walking in to a "secure" area through the exit is not a security issue.
So yes, the correct action in this case is to do nothing, but no, there was no security issue to fix or not fix.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30661254</id>
	<title>Re:I've got it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262688660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh that's perfect. Sprinters will finally be able to get a workout on a 10+ m/s treadmill.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-) Sign me up!</p><p>And it'll also give MythBusters an excuse to revisit the <a href="http://mythbustersresults.com/episode97" title="mythbustersresults.com" rel="nofollow">Airplane on a Conveyor Belt</a> [mythbustersresults.com] myth that they totally screwed up by not having an infinitely powerful variable speed treadmill that always keeps the airplane stationary relative to the ground.</p><p>[Scene: Some airport]<br>A model airplane starts moving forward the wrong way on a treadmill. A klaxon alarm sounds and the treadmill speeds up. Suddenly a security guard awakens from hibernation and arrests Adam while Jamie does his best impression of a walrus to evade capture. The little airplane tries its hardest to take flight, but the treadmill keeps negating any gains. Some idiot tries to run out and grab the plane but gets thrown backwards. Finally the rubber wheels melt and stick to the treadmill or the plane runs out of batteries.</p><p>Result: Myth confirmed. Adam is later released from Gitmo in time for the Christmas special.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh that 's perfect .
Sprinters will finally be able to get a workout on a 10 + m/s treadmill .
: - ) Sign me up ! And it 'll also give MythBusters an excuse to revisit the Airplane on a Conveyor Belt [ mythbustersresults.com ] myth that they totally screwed up by not having an infinitely powerful variable speed treadmill that always keeps the airplane stationary relative to the ground .
[ Scene : Some airport ] A model airplane starts moving forward the wrong way on a treadmill .
A klaxon alarm sounds and the treadmill speeds up .
Suddenly a security guard awakens from hibernation and arrests Adam while Jamie does his best impression of a walrus to evade capture .
The little airplane tries its hardest to take flight , but the treadmill keeps negating any gains .
Some idiot tries to run out and grab the plane but gets thrown backwards .
Finally the rubber wheels melt and stick to the treadmill or the plane runs out of batteries.Result : Myth confirmed .
Adam is later released from Gitmo in time for the Christmas special .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh that's perfect.
Sprinters will finally be able to get a workout on a 10+ m/s treadmill.
:-) Sign me up!And it'll also give MythBusters an excuse to revisit the Airplane on a Conveyor Belt [mythbustersresults.com] myth that they totally screwed up by not having an infinitely powerful variable speed treadmill that always keeps the airplane stationary relative to the ground.
[Scene: Some airport]A model airplane starts moving forward the wrong way on a treadmill.
A klaxon alarm sounds and the treadmill speeds up.
Suddenly a security guard awakens from hibernation and arrests Adam while Jamie does his best impression of a walrus to evade capture.
The little airplane tries its hardest to take flight, but the treadmill keeps negating any gains.
Some idiot tries to run out and grab the plane but gets thrown backwards.
Finally the rubber wheels melt and stick to the treadmill or the plane runs out of batteries.Result: Myth confirmed.
Adam is later released from Gitmo in time for the Christmas special.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659248</id>
	<title>What about new airports</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262723940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It might not be cost effective for remodeling current airports, but we could do a lot better when we build new airports.</p><p>Cost computation would involve how many $$ it is worth to all those who are affected by increased delays, etc. vs. one time remodel.  It might actually be cost effective to remodel.  Lost wages, etc. might be enough to compensate.  There aren't that many airports around.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It might not be cost effective for remodeling current airports , but we could do a lot better when we build new airports.Cost computation would involve how many $ $ it is worth to all those who are affected by increased delays , etc .
vs. one time remodel .
It might actually be cost effective to remodel .
Lost wages , etc .
might be enough to compensate .
There are n't that many airports around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It might not be cost effective for remodeling current airports, but we could do a lot better when we build new airports.Cost computation would involve how many $$ it is worth to all those who are affected by increased delays, etc.
vs. one time remodel.
It might actually be cost effective to remodel.
Lost wages, etc.
might be enough to compensate.
There aren't that many airports around.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30661192</id>
	<title>Re:Overreaction</title>
	<author>Alpha830RulZ</author>
	<datestamp>1262688420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Well, in a "sterile" security zone, one unapproved person can ruin everything. Even if you find him/her, they may have given an weapon to somebody else who was screened earlier and passed.</i></p><p>Oh, fuck, is there anyone who really believes that airport security prevents weapons from getting through?  I personally have forgotten pocket knives in my carryon luggage twice in the past year, and neither time were they detected.  The airports are nowhere close to being a sterile zone. Never have been, never will be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , in a " sterile " security zone , one unapproved person can ruin everything .
Even if you find him/her , they may have given an weapon to somebody else who was screened earlier and passed.Oh , fuck , is there anyone who really believes that airport security prevents weapons from getting through ?
I personally have forgotten pocket knives in my carryon luggage twice in the past year , and neither time were they detected .
The airports are nowhere close to being a sterile zone .
Never have been , never will be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, in a "sterile" security zone, one unapproved person can ruin everything.
Even if you find him/her, they may have given an weapon to somebody else who was screened earlier and passed.Oh, fuck, is there anyone who really believes that airport security prevents weapons from getting through?
I personally have forgotten pocket knives in my carryon luggage twice in the past year, and neither time were they detected.
The airports are nowhere close to being a sterile zone.
Never have been, never will be.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659228</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659476</id>
	<title>Re:Overreaction</title>
	<author>eudaemon</author>
	<datestamp>1262724840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I walked through that exit on Sunday - Continental @ Newark and there's a bored guard and a sign that reads if you pass this sign, you have to go through security again.  JFK has a slightly different system where there's a huge (large enough to accommodate a person and their luggage) rotating glass door.  No idea if it has a turnstile mode or if it can pushed from either side.<br>
&nbsp; Which one is really better?  Not sure but the guard @ JFK seems to be paying attention anyway. Isn't a full height turnstile the easiest way to fix this?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I walked through that exit on Sunday - Continental @ Newark and there 's a bored guard and a sign that reads if you pass this sign , you have to go through security again .
JFK has a slightly different system where there 's a huge ( large enough to accommodate a person and their luggage ) rotating glass door .
No idea if it has a turnstile mode or if it can pushed from either side .
  Which one is really better ?
Not sure but the guard @ JFK seems to be paying attention anyway .
Is n't a full height turnstile the easiest way to fix this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I walked through that exit on Sunday - Continental @ Newark and there's a bored guard and a sign that reads if you pass this sign, you have to go through security again.
JFK has a slightly different system where there's a huge (large enough to accommodate a person and their luggage) rotating glass door.
No idea if it has a turnstile mode or if it can pushed from either side.
  Which one is really better?
Not sure but the guard @ JFK seems to be paying attention anyway.
Isn't a full height turnstile the easiest way to fix this?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659154</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30664398</id>
	<title>Re:That's a really stupid idea!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262704500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Speaking for myself, as someone who is pretty much the opposite of what they are looking for, I walked through security in minutes.</p></div><p>Well, in this case it takes one Irishman and couple Slovak police officers to beat their security theatre.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Speaking for myself , as someone who is pretty much the opposite of what they are looking for , I walked through security in minutes.Well , in this case it takes one Irishman and couple Slovak police officers to beat their security theatre .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Speaking for myself, as someone who is pretty much the opposite of what they are looking for, I walked through security in minutes.Well, in this case it takes one Irishman and couple Slovak police officers to beat their security theatre.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660940</id>
	<title>Re:That's a really stupid idea!</title>
	<author>QuantumRiff</author>
	<datestamp>1262687220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Um, you do now that casualty-wise, in the US over the last 20 years, a large percentage of Terrorism Victims are from White Militia members, right?  Between Timothy McVeigh in Oklahoma City, and The guy at the Atlanta Olympics... (which only killed one person, and indirectly...)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Um , you do now that casualty-wise , in the US over the last 20 years , a large percentage of Terrorism Victims are from White Militia members , right ?
Between Timothy McVeigh in Oklahoma City , and The guy at the Atlanta Olympics... ( which only killed one person , and indirectly... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um, you do now that casualty-wise, in the US over the last 20 years, a large percentage of Terrorism Victims are from White Militia members, right?
Between Timothy McVeigh in Oklahoma City, and The guy at the Atlanta Olympics... (which only killed one person, and indirectly...)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660206</id>
	<title>Re:That's a really stupid idea!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262684640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Israeli system mostly works because of one thing... Racial/cultural profiling.  Oh, they'll tell you they look in people's eyes for signs of evasion or shiftiness, but if you watch for a short while, you'll notice that the 'random' people they pull out for further screening have certain things in common...</p><p>And you know what.  I'm not sure it's a bad thing.  Let's be blunt, for all our political correctness, the vast majority of bombers do have certain cultural commonalities.  No system is perfect, but if you can focus more attention to the highest risks, you get a more efficient system.  That's why their system works.  Speaking for myself, as someone who is pretty much the opposite of what they are looking for, I walked through security in minutes.  Is it fair?  Well, no, but it's hard to argue with the results.  A location that is FAR more likely to suffer from terrorist attack is safer and much more efficient at protecting themselves than those of us in North America.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Israeli system mostly works because of one thing... Racial/cultural profiling .
Oh , they 'll tell you they look in people 's eyes for signs of evasion or shiftiness , but if you watch for a short while , you 'll notice that the 'random ' people they pull out for further screening have certain things in common...And you know what .
I 'm not sure it 's a bad thing .
Let 's be blunt , for all our political correctness , the vast majority of bombers do have certain cultural commonalities .
No system is perfect , but if you can focus more attention to the highest risks , you get a more efficient system .
That 's why their system works .
Speaking for myself , as someone who is pretty much the opposite of what they are looking for , I walked through security in minutes .
Is it fair ?
Well , no , but it 's hard to argue with the results .
A location that is FAR more likely to suffer from terrorist attack is safer and much more efficient at protecting themselves than those of us in North America .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Israeli system mostly works because of one thing... Racial/cultural profiling.
Oh, they'll tell you they look in people's eyes for signs of evasion or shiftiness, but if you watch for a short while, you'll notice that the 'random' people they pull out for further screening have certain things in common...And you know what.
I'm not sure it's a bad thing.
Let's be blunt, for all our political correctness, the vast majority of bombers do have certain cultural commonalities.
No system is perfect, but if you can focus more attention to the highest risks, you get a more efficient system.
That's why their system works.
Speaking for myself, as someone who is pretty much the opposite of what they are looking for, I walked through security in minutes.
Is it fair?
Well, no, but it's hard to argue with the results.
A location that is FAR more likely to suffer from terrorist attack is safer and much more efficient at protecting themselves than those of us in North America.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30671048</id>
	<title>Re:I wish you weren't an AC</title>
	<author>coofercat</author>
	<datestamp>1262799300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've wondered about the "remote controlled wheelie luggage" bomb. Same idea as yours, except the guy shows up, puts his bag down, it then mysteriously starts driving toward the secure area, and detonates when someone stops it, picks up up, or when the controller decides to do so. No need for a suicide bomber. There's actually no need for much of a bomb either - just enough of an explosion to cause a bit of damage - it'll still close the airport, and it'll still stop people flying.</p><p>This all reminds me of a number of years ago when the IRA were doing a UK mainland bombing campaign. They let off a small explosion on a barely-used branch line at Clapham Junction (the UK's busiest station). No one was injured, there was actually a very small amount of actual damage to anything, yet CJ closed for a day, and tens of thousands of people didn't get to work that day.</p><p>Thankfully it seems terrorists don't read history (or<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've wondered about the " remote controlled wheelie luggage " bomb .
Same idea as yours , except the guy shows up , puts his bag down , it then mysteriously starts driving toward the secure area , and detonates when someone stops it , picks up up , or when the controller decides to do so .
No need for a suicide bomber .
There 's actually no need for much of a bomb either - just enough of an explosion to cause a bit of damage - it 'll still close the airport , and it 'll still stop people flying.This all reminds me of a number of years ago when the IRA were doing a UK mainland bombing campaign .
They let off a small explosion on a barely-used branch line at Clapham Junction ( the UK 's busiest station ) .
No one was injured , there was actually a very small amount of actual damage to anything , yet CJ closed for a day , and tens of thousands of people did n't get to work that day.Thankfully it seems terrorists do n't read history ( or / .
) : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've wondered about the "remote controlled wheelie luggage" bomb.
Same idea as yours, except the guy shows up, puts his bag down, it then mysteriously starts driving toward the secure area, and detonates when someone stops it, picks up up, or when the controller decides to do so.
No need for a suicide bomber.
There's actually no need for much of a bomb either - just enough of an explosion to cause a bit of damage - it'll still close the airport, and it'll still stop people flying.This all reminds me of a number of years ago when the IRA were doing a UK mainland bombing campaign.
They let off a small explosion on a barely-used branch line at Clapham Junction (the UK's busiest station).
No one was injured, there was actually a very small amount of actual damage to anything, yet CJ closed for a day, and tens of thousands of people didn't get to work that day.Thankfully it seems terrorists don't read history (or /.
) :-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30662216</id>
	<title>Re:That's a really stupid idea!</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1262692800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hate to be asking the obvious but what's wrong with institutionalized racism? When you're violating some people's human rights, I understand that, but a choice between searching a random 5\% and the Muslim 5\% seems like a neutral decision.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hate to be asking the obvious but what 's wrong with institutionalized racism ?
When you 're violating some people 's human rights , I understand that , but a choice between searching a random 5 \ % and the Muslim 5 \ % seems like a neutral decision .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hate to be asking the obvious but what's wrong with institutionalized racism?
When you're violating some people's human rights, I understand that, but a choice between searching a random 5\% and the Muslim 5\% seems like a neutral decision.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30661810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30665092</id>
	<title>Re:Overreaction</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262709000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's impossible to prove the negative without a little bit of parsimony. But that's not allowed, because somebody labeled it "profiling." Think of it as the incompleteness theorem for security. I'm thinking of Hofstadter's phonograph machine. You can always find a way to make a sufficiently complicated system implode on itself. <p>Rather than trying to account for every little thing, they should just accept the fact that anybody crazy enough will find a way to kill people. We should spend some money trying to take care of the obvious things, and reallocate the rest of this TSA money to something useful like cancer research or malaria prevention. These things kill a shitload more people than terrorists every year, and there's still some low hanging fruit to be harvested.</p><p>hmmm... i just reread this post and it's a lot less lucid than I intended. I must not be getting enough sleep. Checking the anonymous box now....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's impossible to prove the negative without a little bit of parsimony .
But that 's not allowed , because somebody labeled it " profiling .
" Think of it as the incompleteness theorem for security .
I 'm thinking of Hofstadter 's phonograph machine .
You can always find a way to make a sufficiently complicated system implode on itself .
Rather than trying to account for every little thing , they should just accept the fact that anybody crazy enough will find a way to kill people .
We should spend some money trying to take care of the obvious things , and reallocate the rest of this TSA money to something useful like cancer research or malaria prevention .
These things kill a shitload more people than terrorists every year , and there 's still some low hanging fruit to be harvested.hmmm... i just reread this post and it 's a lot less lucid than I intended .
I must not be getting enough sleep .
Checking the anonymous box now... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's impossible to prove the negative without a little bit of parsimony.
But that's not allowed, because somebody labeled it "profiling.
" Think of it as the incompleteness theorem for security.
I'm thinking of Hofstadter's phonograph machine.
You can always find a way to make a sufficiently complicated system implode on itself.
Rather than trying to account for every little thing, they should just accept the fact that anybody crazy enough will find a way to kill people.
We should spend some money trying to take care of the obvious things, and reallocate the rest of this TSA money to something useful like cancer research or malaria prevention.
These things kill a shitload more people than terrorists every year, and there's still some low hanging fruit to be harvested.hmmm... i just reread this post and it's a lot less lucid than I intended.
I must not be getting enough sleep.
Checking the anonymous box now....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30662398</id>
	<title>Re:Perfectly secure airport</title>
	<author>joe\_frisch</author>
	<datestamp>1262693700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That still doesn't catch surgically implanted explosive devices - say a bomb designed to look like a kidney on a casual x-ray scan.</p><p>I think the only way to solve this is to outlaw all technology everywhere. Sure there will be some inconvenience, but isn't the safety worth it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That still does n't catch surgically implanted explosive devices - say a bomb designed to look like a kidney on a casual x-ray scan.I think the only way to solve this is to outlaw all technology everywhere .
Sure there will be some inconvenience , but is n't the safety worth it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That still doesn't catch surgically implanted explosive devices - say a bomb designed to look like a kidney on a casual x-ray scan.I think the only way to solve this is to outlaw all technology everywhere.
Sure there will be some inconvenience, but isn't the safety worth it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660452</id>
	<title>Why not just drop the whole security theater mkay?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262685360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It sickens me that at airports we are herded through metal detectors, full body scanners and whatnot like we are a bunch of sheep. In the process we lose hours of travel time, comfort and most importantly, our privacy! And for what? A little imaginary security?</p><p>The one or two crazies will always find a way. Why bother with these ridiculous measures?</p><p>In my eyes, the terrorists (if there are any) have already won. People think it's the most normal thing in the world to have these invasive practices just in order to go from A to B. People fear everyone and everything that looks even slightly out of the ordinary. And governments just encourage the whole charade.</p><p>Oh my god. We just stumbled upon a horrifying truth! The governments and Al-Qaida are allies trying to create a new world order, using fear to rule the people! Stop the presses!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It sickens me that at airports we are herded through metal detectors , full body scanners and whatnot like we are a bunch of sheep .
In the process we lose hours of travel time , comfort and most importantly , our privacy !
And for what ?
A little imaginary security ? The one or two crazies will always find a way .
Why bother with these ridiculous measures ? In my eyes , the terrorists ( if there are any ) have already won .
People think it 's the most normal thing in the world to have these invasive practices just in order to go from A to B. People fear everyone and everything that looks even slightly out of the ordinary .
And governments just encourage the whole charade.Oh my god .
We just stumbled upon a horrifying truth !
The governments and Al-Qaida are allies trying to create a new world order , using fear to rule the people !
Stop the presses !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It sickens me that at airports we are herded through metal detectors, full body scanners and whatnot like we are a bunch of sheep.
In the process we lose hours of travel time, comfort and most importantly, our privacy!
And for what?
A little imaginary security?The one or two crazies will always find a way.
Why bother with these ridiculous measures?In my eyes, the terrorists (if there are any) have already won.
People think it's the most normal thing in the world to have these invasive practices just in order to go from A to B. People fear everyone and everything that looks even slightly out of the ordinary.
And governments just encourage the whole charade.Oh my god.
We just stumbled upon a horrifying truth!
The governments and Al-Qaida are allies trying to create a new world order, using fear to rule the people!
Stop the presses!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660064</id>
	<title>Re:Overreaction</title>
	<author>nedlohs</author>
	<datestamp>1262684160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They do hire a guy, they just manage to hire morons.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They do hire a guy , they just manage to hire morons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They do hire a guy, they just manage to hire morons.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659154</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30662552</id>
	<title>Re:The whole thing is nuts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262694600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thing is, you get to hear about false positives, and about false negatives.</p><p>You don't get to hear about things that were never tried because those security measures were in place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thing is , you get to hear about false positives , and about false negatives.You do n't get to hear about things that were never tried because those security measures were in place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thing is, you get to hear about false positives, and about false negatives.You don't get to hear about things that were never tried because those security measures were in place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659708</id>
	<title>Re:Death is not an inconvenience?</title>
	<author>TheKidWho</author>
	<datestamp>1262682660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's the price of freedom and liberty?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's the price of freedom and liberty ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's the price of freedom and liberty?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659424</id>
	<title>Re:Perfectly secure airport</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1262724660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Passengers... program their flight into RFID tags.
Passengers enter the airport naked...</i> Great -- so where am I supposed to carry my RFID tags? Up my ass?!? I can't -- it's already full of explosives!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Passengers... program their flight into RFID tags .
Passengers enter the airport naked... Great -- so where am I supposed to carry my RFID tags ?
Up my ass ? ! ?
I ca n't -- it 's already full of explosives !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Passengers... program their flight into RFID tags.
Passengers enter the airport naked... Great -- so where am I supposed to carry my RFID tags?
Up my ass?!?
I can't -- it's already full of explosives!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30663954</id>
	<title>Very Smart</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262701440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Probably isn't the smartest thing to bring attention to a security breach that you are going to do nothing about by posting it in a public forum though. Would of been smarter to not report on it if you were not going to fix it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Probably is n't the smartest thing to bring attention to a security breach that you are going to do nothing about by posting it in a public forum though .
Would of been smarter to not report on it if you were not going to fix it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Probably isn't the smartest thing to bring attention to a security breach that you are going to do nothing about by posting it in a public forum though.
Would of been smarter to not report on it if you were not going to fix it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659206</id>
	<title>Re:Overreaction</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262723760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously, if someone noticed him comming in, then confront him and send him right back the way he came; if he refuses escort him out of the area and press charges if he is truly unruly.  Admit that 99.99\% of the time it's going to be someone lost and/or looking for a family member and move on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , if someone noticed him comming in , then confront him and send him right back the way he came ; if he refuses escort him out of the area and press charges if he is truly unruly .
Admit that 99.99 \ % of the time it 's going to be someone lost and/or looking for a family member and move on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, if someone noticed him comming in, then confront him and send him right back the way he came; if he refuses escort him out of the area and press charges if he is truly unruly.
Admit that 99.99\% of the time it's going to be someone lost and/or looking for a family member and move on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659154</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659342</id>
	<title>Huh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262724240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FTFS:</p><blockquote><div><p> <tt>This problem isn't common, but it happens regularly.</tt></p></div> </blockquote><p>Yes. And as a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.er, I don't commonly have sex, but I have sex regularly.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>FTFS : This problem is n't common , but it happens regularly .
Yes. And as a /.er , I do n't commonly have sex , but I have sex regularly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FTFS: This problem isn't common, but it happens regularly.
Yes. And as a /.er, I don't commonly have sex, but I have sex regularly.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659750</id>
	<title>reprisals</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262682960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Offer flight as a bus service under one condition: In case of a terrorist attack an ICBM will fly to his religious point of most interest (Earthly!). As the terrorist will be responsible for the downfall of his own religion he could get second thoughts ( as for the atheist terrorists if there are any. Dawkins will get fed to the pigs).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Offer flight as a bus service under one condition : In case of a terrorist attack an ICBM will fly to his religious point of most interest ( Earthly ! ) .
As the terrorist will be responsible for the downfall of his own religion he could get second thoughts ( as for the atheist terrorists if there are any .
Dawkins will get fed to the pigs ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Offer flight as a bus service under one condition: In case of a terrorist attack an ICBM will fly to his religious point of most interest (Earthly!).
As the terrorist will be responsible for the downfall of his own religion he could get second thoughts ( as for the atheist terrorists if there are any.
Dawkins will get fed to the pigs).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30661634</id>
	<title>Re:Overreaction</title>
	<author>nedlohs</author>
	<datestamp>1262690160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is what they do, and why you don't hear about this happening every day.</p><p>In this case, no-one noticed him.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is what they do , and why you do n't hear about this happening every day.In this case , no-one noticed him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is what they do, and why you don't hear about this happening every day.In this case, no-one noticed him.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30662586</id>
	<title>Re:I've got it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262694780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This would be less obstructive than a turnstile door/gate which is a pain to pass luggage, wheelchairs, children's strollers, etc. through.</p></div><p>Or you could--and I know I'm thinking outside the box here--you could <em>not</em> carry a week's worth of luggage for four plus your bigger-than-my-bloody-office baby stroller onto the plane with you.</p><p>Check.<br>Your.<br>Damn.<br>Bags.</p><p>See? No problem getting through the turnstile.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This would be less obstructive than a turnstile door/gate which is a pain to pass luggage , wheelchairs , children 's strollers , etc .
through.Or you could--and I know I 'm thinking outside the box here--you could not carry a week 's worth of luggage for four plus your bigger-than-my-bloody-office baby stroller onto the plane with you.Check.Your.Damn.Bags.See ?
No problem getting through the turnstile .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This would be less obstructive than a turnstile door/gate which is a pain to pass luggage, wheelchairs, children's strollers, etc.
through.Or you could--and I know I'm thinking outside the box here--you could not carry a week's worth of luggage for four plus your bigger-than-my-bloody-office baby stroller onto the plane with you.Check.Your.Damn.Bags.See?
No problem getting through the turnstile.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30661302</id>
	<title>A solution (or 2)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262688840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. The TSA could hire servants from Laputa to keep the TSA guards alert.</p><p>2. After all the passengers of a flight had been security checked, allow the passengers to select one (or more) of the TSA agents to undergo a security check by the passengers and fly with them.  The agents would be induced to be both polite and thorough.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
The TSA could hire servants from Laputa to keep the TSA guards alert.2 .
After all the passengers of a flight had been security checked , allow the passengers to select one ( or more ) of the TSA agents to undergo a security check by the passengers and fly with them .
The agents would be induced to be both polite and thorough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
The TSA could hire servants from Laputa to keep the TSA guards alert.2.
After all the passengers of a flight had been security checked, allow the passengers to select one (or more) of the TSA agents to undergo a security check by the passengers and fly with them.
The agents would be induced to be both polite and thorough.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30661198</id>
	<title>Re:Overreaction</title>
	<author>ITJC68</author>
	<datestamp>1262688420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There was a guard there according to the article. Until it is figured out how to prevent this kind of stuff, this will happen. However to say that is not worth it. Say that to a relative of someone who died in an aircraft that a terrorist got on. A human life is worth more then that. At least it should be.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There was a guard there according to the article .
Until it is figured out how to prevent this kind of stuff , this will happen .
However to say that is not worth it .
Say that to a relative of someone who died in an aircraft that a terrorist got on .
A human life is worth more then that .
At least it should be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was a guard there according to the article.
Until it is figured out how to prevent this kind of stuff, this will happen.
However to say that is not worth it.
Say that to a relative of someone who died in an aircraft that a terrorist got on.
A human life is worth more then that.
At least it should be.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659154</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660428</id>
	<title>Re:Perfectly secure airport</title>
	<author>CDS</author>
	<datestamp>1262685300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's all well and good, until they run out of lemon-scented napkins.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's all well and good , until they run out of lemon-scented napkins .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's all well and good, until they run out of lemon-scented napkins.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659524</id>
	<title>Re:Overreaction</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262725080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>a guy from Slovakia had a bomb on a plane and nobody even noticed<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)  http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/fury-over-slovakia-smuggling-explosive-on-flight-440837.html)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>a guy from Slovakia had a bomb on a plane and nobody even noticed : ) http : //www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/fury-over-slovakia-smuggling-explosive-on-flight-440837.html )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a guy from Slovakia had a bomb on a plane and nobody even noticed :)  http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/fury-over-slovakia-smuggling-explosive-on-flight-440837.html)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659154</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30662504</id>
	<title>Re:Ultimate Security Solution</title>
	<author>JetTredmont</author>
	<datestamp>1262694300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've already taken that ban on voluntarily except for business-required travel (which, thankfully, happens once or twice a year at most).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've already taken that ban on voluntarily except for business-required travel ( which , thankfully , happens once or twice a year at most ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've already taken that ban on voluntarily except for business-required travel (which, thankfully, happens once or twice a year at most).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659404</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659444</id>
	<title>Re:Death is not an inconvenience?</title>
	<author>couchslug</author>
	<datestamp>1262724720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"It may be costly - but put it this way - how much is your mothers life worth? Your wife? Child? yourself?"</p><p>I and they routinely risk life and limb every day driving to work or seeking medical care, and note that resources consumed by one effort are not available for others.</p><p>We are much more likely to die in an auto accident, die of hospital borne infection, or die of hospital borne infection after an auto accident than to be greased by Hadji the friendly Jihadist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" It may be costly - but put it this way - how much is your mothers life worth ?
Your wife ?
Child ? yourself ?
" I and they routinely risk life and limb every day driving to work or seeking medical care , and note that resources consumed by one effort are not available for others.We are much more likely to die in an auto accident , die of hospital borne infection , or die of hospital borne infection after an auto accident than to be greased by Hadji the friendly Jihadist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"It may be costly - but put it this way - how much is your mothers life worth?
Your wife?
Child? yourself?
"I and they routinely risk life and limb every day driving to work or seeking medical care, and note that resources consumed by one effort are not available for others.We are much more likely to die in an auto accident, die of hospital borne infection, or die of hospital borne infection after an auto accident than to be greased by Hadji the friendly Jihadist.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30661402</id>
	<title>How about when some does this we jack bauer him in</title>
	<author>Joe The Dragon</author>
	<datestamp>1262689200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about when some does this we jack bauer him in the back room.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about when some does this we jack bauer him in the back room .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about when some does this we jack bauer him in the back room.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660160</id>
	<title>Re:Overreaction</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262684520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, it's possible to confirm that a room contains exactly what you think it contains.  Yes, it's very difficult, and very expensive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , it 's possible to confirm that a room contains exactly what you think it contains .
Yes , it 's very difficult , and very expensive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, it's possible to confirm that a room contains exactly what you think it contains.
Yes, it's very difficult, and very expensive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660036</id>
	<title>how often</title>
	<author>vxice</author>
	<datestamp>1262684100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I hear everyone complaining about how this guy got on a watch list but nothing was ever done about it and he was allowed to fly.  Anyone else want to join me in compiling a list of these people so we can submit it as a list of people who have come under the influence of extremists?  I mean what happened to innocent until proven guilty?  Even at this stage he is still the accused bomber and there are people who want him hanged without a trial.  They are trying to avert our justice system.  Lets get them on the that one list that they can still fly so long as they spend 5hours proving everything they have done second by second over the last year even if their name only sounds similar to someone on the list and make them do it every time they want to fly.  Of course there will be all the indignities of striping naked and being searched ALL over and in their body.  But hey if they have nothing to hide why are they being so secretive.  This will fix the real problem that the only reason flying seems so unsafe is that we have all sorts of ill informed people coming up with ideas such as baning everyone named abdul al somethingmuslimy or who refuses to eat a ham sandwich before boarding the plane.  Maybe they will realize the problem everyone has is the intrusive security that treats them as guilty especially if they have a bunch of funny sounds in their name.
Also I've searched and can't find anything besides a poll of 12 people how many people out there have flown on a one way ticket that they paid cash for with no luggage or any combination of those.  Sounds like a good poll.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hear everyone complaining about how this guy got on a watch list but nothing was ever done about it and he was allowed to fly .
Anyone else want to join me in compiling a list of these people so we can submit it as a list of people who have come under the influence of extremists ?
I mean what happened to innocent until proven guilty ?
Even at this stage he is still the accused bomber and there are people who want him hanged without a trial .
They are trying to avert our justice system .
Lets get them on the that one list that they can still fly so long as they spend 5hours proving everything they have done second by second over the last year even if their name only sounds similar to someone on the list and make them do it every time they want to fly .
Of course there will be all the indignities of striping naked and being searched ALL over and in their body .
But hey if they have nothing to hide why are they being so secretive .
This will fix the real problem that the only reason flying seems so unsafe is that we have all sorts of ill informed people coming up with ideas such as baning everyone named abdul al somethingmuslimy or who refuses to eat a ham sandwich before boarding the plane .
Maybe they will realize the problem everyone has is the intrusive security that treats them as guilty especially if they have a bunch of funny sounds in their name .
Also I 've searched and ca n't find anything besides a poll of 12 people how many people out there have flown on a one way ticket that they paid cash for with no luggage or any combination of those .
Sounds like a good poll .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hear everyone complaining about how this guy got on a watch list but nothing was ever done about it and he was allowed to fly.
Anyone else want to join me in compiling a list of these people so we can submit it as a list of people who have come under the influence of extremists?
I mean what happened to innocent until proven guilty?
Even at this stage he is still the accused bomber and there are people who want him hanged without a trial.
They are trying to avert our justice system.
Lets get them on the that one list that they can still fly so long as they spend 5hours proving everything they have done second by second over the last year even if their name only sounds similar to someone on the list and make them do it every time they want to fly.
Of course there will be all the indignities of striping naked and being searched ALL over and in their body.
But hey if they have nothing to hide why are they being so secretive.
This will fix the real problem that the only reason flying seems so unsafe is that we have all sorts of ill informed people coming up with ideas such as baning everyone named abdul al somethingmuslimy or who refuses to eat a ham sandwich before boarding the plane.
Maybe they will realize the problem everyone has is the intrusive security that treats them as guilty especially if they have a bunch of funny sounds in their name.
Also I've searched and can't find anything besides a poll of 12 people how many people out there have flown on a one way ticket that they paid cash for with no luggage or any combination of those.
Sounds like a good poll.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30661426</id>
	<title>Re:Overreaction</title>
	<author>Galactic Dominator</author>
	<datestamp>1262689320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You've solved the issue.  Why didn't anyone else think of this?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 've solved the issue .
Why did n't anyone else think of this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You've solved the issue.
Why didn't anyone else think of this?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30666388</id>
	<title>Re:Sep 11</title>
	<author>RAMMS+EIN</author>
	<datestamp>1262720580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are ignoring the emotional factor. The reason the terrorists attack planes is for the emotional reaction. Yes, there are other attacks and targets that are likely to yield more casualties, but the number of casualties isn't what matters. What matters is the fear it inspires. (Although what that is ultimately meant to achieve, I don't know.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are ignoring the emotional factor .
The reason the terrorists attack planes is for the emotional reaction .
Yes , there are other attacks and targets that are likely to yield more casualties , but the number of casualties is n't what matters .
What matters is the fear it inspires .
( Although what that is ultimately meant to achieve , I do n't know .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are ignoring the emotional factor.
The reason the terrorists attack planes is for the emotional reaction.
Yes, there are other attacks and targets that are likely to yield more casualties, but the number of casualties isn't what matters.
What matters is the fear it inspires.
(Although what that is ultimately meant to achieve, I don't know.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30662822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659638</id>
	<title>Re:Perfectly secure airport</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262682360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Someone on the inside messes up the crates so people can't get back out. \(\_o)/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone on the inside messes up the crates so people ca n't get back out .
\ ( \ _o ) /</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone on the inside messes up the crates so people can't get back out.
\(\_o)/</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30661810</id>
	<title>Re:That's a really stupid idea!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262691000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm afraid "a more efficient system" is a poor justification for institutionalized racism.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm afraid " a more efficient system " is a poor justification for institutionalized racism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm afraid "a more efficient system" is a poor justification for institutionalized racism.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30663608</id>
	<title>Re:US Airports suck for security</title>
	<author>L0rdJedi</author>
	<datestamp>1262699460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And yet Obama has been the man at the top for nearly a year now.  Please stop blaming Bush when things happen under a new President.  DHS may have initially been setup badly, but that's no excuse for Obama to not get the blame.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And yet Obama has been the man at the top for nearly a year now .
Please stop blaming Bush when things happen under a new President .
DHS may have initially been setup badly , but that 's no excuse for Obama to not get the blame .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And yet Obama has been the man at the top for nearly a year now.
Please stop blaming Bush when things happen under a new President.
DHS may have initially been setup badly, but that's no excuse for Obama to not get the blame.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659406</id>
	<title>That's a really stupid idea!</title>
	<author>Dr. Spork</author>
	<datestamp>1262724540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The fact that a routine error can cause major institution like an airport to grind to a halt is a sign that its operating procedure needs to be revised. It's stupid to just live with it when there are alternatives</p><p>

For example, there's been a lot of recent talk about <a href="http://www.thestar.com/iphone/news/world/article/744199---israelification-high-security-little-bother" title="thestar.com">updating our airport screening to look more like Israel's</a> [thestar.com], where they've been thinking about terrorism a bit harder and longer than we have. I'm sure there are other alternatives too. However, remember that the point of terrorism is to cause fear and economic loss to industrialized countries, and to bait us into a self-destructive overreaction. By that standard, they guy who walked through the wrong gate pulled off a pretty impressive piece of terrorism, at basically no real risk to himself. You don't want to enshrine a system where this sort of exploit is possible, or else every group with a quibble can hold an airport hostage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact that a routine error can cause major institution like an airport to grind to a halt is a sign that its operating procedure needs to be revised .
It 's stupid to just live with it when there are alternatives For example , there 's been a lot of recent talk about updating our airport screening to look more like Israel 's [ thestar.com ] , where they 've been thinking about terrorism a bit harder and longer than we have .
I 'm sure there are other alternatives too .
However , remember that the point of terrorism is to cause fear and economic loss to industrialized countries , and to bait us into a self-destructive overreaction .
By that standard , they guy who walked through the wrong gate pulled off a pretty impressive piece of terrorism , at basically no real risk to himself .
You do n't want to enshrine a system where this sort of exploit is possible , or else every group with a quibble can hold an airport hostage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact that a routine error can cause major institution like an airport to grind to a halt is a sign that its operating procedure needs to be revised.
It's stupid to just live with it when there are alternatives

For example, there's been a lot of recent talk about updating our airport screening to look more like Israel's [thestar.com], where they've been thinking about terrorism a bit harder and longer than we have.
I'm sure there are other alternatives too.
However, remember that the point of terrorism is to cause fear and economic loss to industrialized countries, and to bait us into a self-destructive overreaction.
By that standard, they guy who walked through the wrong gate pulled off a pretty impressive piece of terrorism, at basically no real risk to himself.
You don't want to enshrine a system where this sort of exploit is possible, or else every group with a quibble can hold an airport hostage.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659486</id>
	<title>I've got it...</title>
	<author>skelly33</author>
	<datestamp>1262724840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>One of those moving walk ways that moves only in the direction of the exit and completely fills the width of the exit corridor. When someone is detected trying to walk the opposite direction, it can speed up a little and wake up the guard who is posted - because there is always already a guard posted. This would be less obstructive than a turnstile door/gate which is a pain to pass luggage, wheelchairs, children's strollers, etc. through.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One of those moving walk ways that moves only in the direction of the exit and completely fills the width of the exit corridor .
When someone is detected trying to walk the opposite direction , it can speed up a little and wake up the guard who is posted - because there is always already a guard posted .
This would be less obstructive than a turnstile door/gate which is a pain to pass luggage , wheelchairs , children 's strollers , etc .
through .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of those moving walk ways that moves only in the direction of the exit and completely fills the width of the exit corridor.
When someone is detected trying to walk the opposite direction, it can speed up a little and wake up the guard who is posted - because there is always already a guard posted.
This would be less obstructive than a turnstile door/gate which is a pain to pass luggage, wheelchairs, children's strollers, etc.
through.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30661524</id>
	<title>Re:The whole thing is nuts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262689620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Way to take the quote out of context. In context she said that once the incident occurred the system worked exactly as it should to respond.<br>Don't believe me?</p><p><a href="http://www.google.com/#hl=en&amp;source=hp&amp;q=the+system+worked+napolitano+context&amp;aq=f&amp;aqi=&amp;oq=&amp;fp=cbc2f75bf9d43a8f" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">Google it for yourself</a> [google.com]</p><p>But don't let that stop you parotting what you heard someone on the right say.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Way to take the quote out of context .
In context she said that once the incident occurred the system worked exactly as it should to respond.Do n't believe me ? Google it for yourself [ google.com ] But do n't let that stop you parotting what you heard someone on the right say .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Way to take the quote out of context.
In context she said that once the incident occurred the system worked exactly as it should to respond.Don't believe me?Google it for yourself [google.com]But don't let that stop you parotting what you heard someone on the right say.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660610</id>
	<title>It's always a tradeoff and not in a good way</title>
	<author>Rastl</author>
	<datestamp>1262685960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's easier to build a bigger bomb than better armor.</p><p>It's impossible to make things idiot-proof because they keep making better idiots.</p><p>I can see the point here.  Cover the 80\% you can and deal with the other 20\% as the exceptions that they are.  You don't lay down the procedures for that 20\% - you put them in place for the 80\% you can control.  Constant review of what's working and what isn't and then you're really in the process improvement business.  I'm not seeing that review - I'm seeing reactions to exceptions that cause nothing but headaches and don't solve anything.</p><p>Wow.  Went on a bit of a rant there.  I think the core idea is solid tho.  Plan for what you can, realize you can't plan for everything, and learn from what isn't in the plan.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's easier to build a bigger bomb than better armor.It 's impossible to make things idiot-proof because they keep making better idiots.I can see the point here .
Cover the 80 \ % you can and deal with the other 20 \ % as the exceptions that they are .
You do n't lay down the procedures for that 20 \ % - you put them in place for the 80 \ % you can control .
Constant review of what 's working and what is n't and then you 're really in the process improvement business .
I 'm not seeing that review - I 'm seeing reactions to exceptions that cause nothing but headaches and do n't solve anything.Wow .
Went on a bit of a rant there .
I think the core idea is solid tho .
Plan for what you can , realize you ca n't plan for everything , and learn from what is n't in the plan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's easier to build a bigger bomb than better armor.It's impossible to make things idiot-proof because they keep making better idiots.I can see the point here.
Cover the 80\% you can and deal with the other 20\% as the exceptions that they are.
You don't lay down the procedures for that 20\% - you put them in place for the 80\% you can control.
Constant review of what's working and what isn't and then you're really in the process improvement business.
I'm not seeing that review - I'm seeing reactions to exceptions that cause nothing but headaches and don't solve anything.Wow.
Went on a bit of a rant there.
I think the core idea is solid tho.
Plan for what you can, realize you can't plan for everything, and learn from what isn't in the plan.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660838</id>
	<title>Re:Perfectly secure airport</title>
	<author>Asic Eng</author>
	<datestamp>1262686800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So I presume the terrorists are bringing a bomb to the undressing area?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So I presume the terrorists are bringing a bomb to the undressing area ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So I presume the terrorists are bringing a bomb to the undressing area?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660640</id>
	<title>Re:US Airports suck for security</title>
	<author>vlm</author>
	<datestamp>1262686080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Having a single Exit (as is common at most European airports)</p></div><p>What do you do when there's a fire?  Die?  If you add fire exits, people will get in.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Having a single Exit ( as is common at most European airports ) What do you do when there 's a fire ?
Die ? If you add fire exits , people will get in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having a single Exit (as is common at most European airports)What do you do when there's a fire?
Die?  If you add fire exits, people will get in.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30665552</id>
	<title>The Flaw in your Logic is the US != Israel</title>
	<author>Safety Cap</author>
	<datestamp>1262712240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For one, we have quite a bit more airlines, airports and flights than Israel's El Al (which only services <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El\_Al\_destinations#Southwest\_Asia" title="wikipedia.org">three</a> [wikipedia.org] airports in the country including the only major city of Tel Aviv--very small by US standards), and therefore it is quite easy for El Al to require passenger interviews for all departures.</p><p>The high volume, multiple point-of-departure model we have is incompatible with Israel's methods; you're comparing apples to oranges and expecting the resultant juice to taste like lemonade.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For one , we have quite a bit more airlines , airports and flights than Israel 's El Al ( which only services three [ wikipedia.org ] airports in the country including the only major city of Tel Aviv--very small by US standards ) , and therefore it is quite easy for El Al to require passenger interviews for all departures.The high volume , multiple point-of-departure model we have is incompatible with Israel 's methods ; you 're comparing apples to oranges and expecting the resultant juice to taste like lemonade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For one, we have quite a bit more airlines, airports and flights than Israel's El Al (which only services three [wikipedia.org] airports in the country including the only major city of Tel Aviv--very small by US standards), and therefore it is quite easy for El Al to require passenger interviews for all departures.The high volume, multiple point-of-departure model we have is incompatible with Israel's methods; you're comparing apples to oranges and expecting the resultant juice to taste like lemonade.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660848</id>
	<title>Re:Perfectly secure airport</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262686860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Passengers are rendered unconscious using anaesthetic gas.</p></div><p>You may be onto something there. I know the anesthesia is hardly an exact science, but if we can get it to the point where it's almost entirely safe, having all passengers unconscious for the duration of the flight would allow us to dispense with the vast majority of the security precautions we have today. And as an added benefit, we could fit more people onto planes if everyone was unconscious. And, in the exceedingly rare case of a plane crash, it's probably better that passengers are not conscious for the event.</p><p>The system described is remarkably similar to the one used in "The Fifth Element" for the interstellar flight to Floston Paradise. And, in the film, the terrorists didn't even consider attacking the flight and instead chose the hotel at the destination to attack. So it would appear that the system works quite well even in a world with advanced weaponry like guns that can remember their target.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Passengers are rendered unconscious using anaesthetic gas.You may be onto something there .
I know the anesthesia is hardly an exact science , but if we can get it to the point where it 's almost entirely safe , having all passengers unconscious for the duration of the flight would allow us to dispense with the vast majority of the security precautions we have today .
And as an added benefit , we could fit more people onto planes if everyone was unconscious .
And , in the exceedingly rare case of a plane crash , it 's probably better that passengers are not conscious for the event.The system described is remarkably similar to the one used in " The Fifth Element " for the interstellar flight to Floston Paradise .
And , in the film , the terrorists did n't even consider attacking the flight and instead chose the hotel at the destination to attack .
So it would appear that the system works quite well even in a world with advanced weaponry like guns that can remember their target .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Passengers are rendered unconscious using anaesthetic gas.You may be onto something there.
I know the anesthesia is hardly an exact science, but if we can get it to the point where it's almost entirely safe, having all passengers unconscious for the duration of the flight would allow us to dispense with the vast majority of the security precautions we have today.
And as an added benefit, we could fit more people onto planes if everyone was unconscious.
And, in the exceedingly rare case of a plane crash, it's probably better that passengers are not conscious for the event.The system described is remarkably similar to the one used in "The Fifth Element" for the interstellar flight to Floston Paradise.
And, in the film, the terrorists didn't even consider attacking the flight and instead chose the hotel at the destination to attack.
So it would appear that the system works quite well even in a world with advanced weaponry like guns that can remember their target.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30661162</id>
	<title>Re:Overreaction</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262688300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think this would be much more effective than any previous <b>terrorist</b> incidents</p></div><p>I don't think that word means what you think it means.</p><p>Delaying travelers and costing money is not a "terrorist" act.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think this would be much more effective than any previous terrorist incidentsI do n't think that word means what you think it means.Delaying travelers and costing money is not a " terrorist " act .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think this would be much more effective than any previous terrorist incidentsI don't think that word means what you think it means.Delaying travelers and costing money is not a "terrorist" act.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659716</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30661966</id>
	<title>Re:Sep 11</title>
	<author>bugs2squash</author>
	<datestamp>1262691660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...or don't allow any baggage (carry-on or checked) in the plane, tow it in a cargo glider behind the plane instead or arrange for fedex to deliver it separately. I can't think of much I really need to carry on-board that would not fit into a pocket. I just roll my carry-on aboard so that I don't have to mess with the baggage claim process.</p><p>
The main problem is preventing the plane itself being used as a weapon against targets on the ground. I'm that kind of liberal that is very much in favor of gun control, but the truth is that as the parent suggests, you can make firearms on a plane pretty irrelevant to whether a passenger can or cannot gain control of the plane.</p><p>
The second problem is safeguarding the passengers on the plane and in the airport. The sheer public willingness to beat the crap out of a terrorist on a plane (due process - I don't need no stinking due process...), the lack of any significant amount of baggage onboard, flying more air martials and doing something about the toilets on planes to make them less usable as bomb making labs may go a long way to fixing the remaining problems, they will at least reduce the potential reward and increase the risk of failure for any terrorist whether or not they are willing to die in the cause.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...or do n't allow any baggage ( carry-on or checked ) in the plane , tow it in a cargo glider behind the plane instead or arrange for fedex to deliver it separately .
I ca n't think of much I really need to carry on-board that would not fit into a pocket .
I just roll my carry-on aboard so that I do n't have to mess with the baggage claim process .
The main problem is preventing the plane itself being used as a weapon against targets on the ground .
I 'm that kind of liberal that is very much in favor of gun control , but the truth is that as the parent suggests , you can make firearms on a plane pretty irrelevant to whether a passenger can or can not gain control of the plane .
The second problem is safeguarding the passengers on the plane and in the airport .
The sheer public willingness to beat the crap out of a terrorist on a plane ( due process - I do n't need no stinking due process... ) , the lack of any significant amount of baggage onboard , flying more air martials and doing something about the toilets on planes to make them less usable as bomb making labs may go a long way to fixing the remaining problems , they will at least reduce the potential reward and increase the risk of failure for any terrorist whether or not they are willing to die in the cause .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...or don't allow any baggage (carry-on or checked) in the plane, tow it in a cargo glider behind the plane instead or arrange for fedex to deliver it separately.
I can't think of much I really need to carry on-board that would not fit into a pocket.
I just roll my carry-on aboard so that I don't have to mess with the baggage claim process.
The main problem is preventing the plane itself being used as a weapon against targets on the ground.
I'm that kind of liberal that is very much in favor of gun control, but the truth is that as the parent suggests, you can make firearms on a plane pretty irrelevant to whether a passenger can or cannot gain control of the plane.
The second problem is safeguarding the passengers on the plane and in the airport.
The sheer public willingness to beat the crap out of a terrorist on a plane (due process - I don't need no stinking due process...), the lack of any significant amount of baggage onboard, flying more air martials and doing something about the toilets on planes to make them less usable as bomb making labs may go a long way to fixing the remaining problems, they will at least reduce the potential reward and increase the risk of failure for any terrorist whether or not they are willing to die in the cause.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30663888</id>
	<title>Re:That's a really stupid idea!</title>
	<author>BlackBloq</author>
	<datestamp>1262700960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yet the favorite bad guy in movies often is euro trash or Irish... cuz the white/black audience can identify with it better. I could do a list of baddies that resemble this but really the best is" Hans Gruber: Who said we were terrorists? "!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yet the favorite bad guy in movies often is euro trash or Irish... cuz the white/black audience can identify with it better .
I could do a list of baddies that resemble this but really the best is " Hans Gruber : Who said we were terrorists ?
" !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yet the favorite bad guy in movies often is euro trash or Irish... cuz the white/black audience can identify with it better.
I could do a list of baddies that resemble this but really the best is" Hans Gruber: Who said we were terrorists?
"!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30661898</id>
	<title>Re:Sep 11</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262691420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Research applying the military's UAV technology to the air transport system. If enough improvements can be made in assuring positive aircraft control, there's no reason the flight deck as we know it needs to exist on the plane at all."</p><p>That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard.  I WANT a living, breathing pilot up there flying a 500 ton monster.  This way, if he gets a BSOD, its both our asses.</p><p>Not just mine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Research applying the military 's UAV technology to the air transport system .
If enough improvements can be made in assuring positive aircraft control , there 's no reason the flight deck as we know it needs to exist on the plane at all .
" That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard .
I WANT a living , breathing pilot up there flying a 500 ton monster .
This way , if he gets a BSOD , its both our asses.Not just mine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Research applying the military's UAV technology to the air transport system.
If enough improvements can be made in assuring positive aircraft control, there's no reason the flight deck as we know it needs to exist on the plane at all.
"That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard.
I WANT a living, breathing pilot up there flying a 500 ton monster.
This way, if he gets a BSOD, its both our asses.Not just mine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30661370</id>
	<title>Only a matter of time</title>
	<author>KingTank</author>
	<datestamp>1262689080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm sure one day it will suddenly become obvious that all the airport security is pointless once a terrorist figures out he can suicide-bomb or just plain old gun-massacre a large crowd of people waiting in line to get through airport security.    Heck, don't they already bomb people waiting at security checkpoints in Iraq?  Although its possible the government will be dumb enough to decide they just need another security checkpoint outside of the existing ones.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure one day it will suddenly become obvious that all the airport security is pointless once a terrorist figures out he can suicide-bomb or just plain old gun-massacre a large crowd of people waiting in line to get through airport security .
Heck , do n't they already bomb people waiting at security checkpoints in Iraq ?
Although its possible the government will be dumb enough to decide they just need another security checkpoint outside of the existing ones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure one day it will suddenly become obvious that all the airport security is pointless once a terrorist figures out he can suicide-bomb or just plain old gun-massacre a large crowd of people waiting in line to get through airport security.
Heck, don't they already bomb people waiting at security checkpoints in Iraq?
Although its possible the government will be dumb enough to decide they just need another security checkpoint outside of the existing ones.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30661724</id>
	<title>Re:The whole thing is nuts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262690640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I agree with the sentiment, please remember deads can't talk.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I agree with the sentiment , please remember deads ca n't talk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I agree with the sentiment, please remember deads can't talk.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659930</id>
	<title>Re:I've got it...</title>
	<author>AGMW</author>
	<datestamp>1262683680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nice one<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and the added benefit of actually speeding up all the slowcoach muppets as they leave the airport through what is almost always a choke point!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nice one ... and the added benefit of actually speeding up all the slowcoach muppets as they leave the airport through what is almost always a choke point !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nice one ... and the added benefit of actually speeding up all the slowcoach muppets as they leave the airport through what is almost always a choke point!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30661620</id>
	<title>Re:Death is not an inconvenience?</title>
	<author>StrategicIrony</author>
	<datestamp>1262690100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a totally irrational argment and it is the essence of our failing health care, financial, education, transportation, etc.</p><p>The thought that someone, somewhere, must pony up obscene amounts of money to give you the illusion of safety (sometimes accompanied by an extraordinarily trivial increase in security).</p><p>But don't you dare raise my taxes.....</p><p>The very concept of freedom entails risk.  The concept of "totally safe" is antithesis to the concept of "totally free".</p><p>The phrase "if it just saves only one life, it is worth any cost" is a gross straw man lacking both depth and nuance.  The ends DO NOT justify the means.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a totally irrational argment and it is the essence of our failing health care , financial , education , transportation , etc.The thought that someone , somewhere , must pony up obscene amounts of money to give you the illusion of safety ( sometimes accompanied by an extraordinarily trivial increase in security ) .But do n't you dare raise my taxes.....The very concept of freedom entails risk .
The concept of " totally safe " is antithesis to the concept of " totally free " .The phrase " if it just saves only one life , it is worth any cost " is a gross straw man lacking both depth and nuance .
The ends DO NOT justify the means .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a totally irrational argment and it is the essence of our failing health care, financial, education, transportation, etc.The thought that someone, somewhere, must pony up obscene amounts of money to give you the illusion of safety (sometimes accompanied by an extraordinarily trivial increase in security).But don't you dare raise my taxes.....The very concept of freedom entails risk.
The concept of "totally safe" is antithesis to the concept of "totally free".The phrase "if it just saves only one life, it is worth any cost" is a gross straw man lacking both depth and nuance.
The ends DO NOT justify the means.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30670320</id>
	<title>Re:Sep 11</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262796660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; There are exactly 3 things necessary for airport security:<br>&gt;<br>&gt; 1. Make sure that no luggage gets on the plane without its associated<br>&gt; passenger (you can't blow up the plane without going along for the<br>&gt; ride).</p><p>Mohammed Atta took his luggage on board.</p><p>&gt; 2. Metal detectors to keep guns out. The alternative is allowing<br>&gt; anybody to carry, thus insuring the entire plane will wind up swiss<br>&gt; cheese if any funny business starts. That's a less than positive<br>&gt; outcome, IMHO.</p><p>Ha? That vector is gone, wait for the sequel. PETN in a body cavity is the next reported Qaeda product in the pipeline. Good luck getting millimetr wave radar/scanners seeing into martyrs guts. Bomb sniffer scanners? Unreliable they say. And with a colonic there might not be any ass gas expelling sufficient for bomb dogs to detect. That is if you posit that the whole traveling populace will sit still for an anal sniff. Good luck with that.</p><p>&gt; 3. Lock and bar the cockpit doors for the flight's duration.</p><p>What is it today 10 September 2001?</p><p>&gt; 4. Research applying the military's UAV technology to the air<br>&gt; transport system. If enough improvements can be made in assuring<br>&gt; positive aircraft control, there's no reason the flight deck as we<br>&gt; know it needs to exist on the plane at all.</p><p>Well the Schneier article was on (cost) effective responses to rare events. While we're at it let's build cyborg terminators that are wholesome toward all but evildoers. But how will you know them? Ah! you will see what they do---all the way to the ground. Fuggit, call DARPA R&amp;D central casting and add clairvoyance into the terminator while we're at it. Right. Cost effective your a$$.</p><p>But thanks for playing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; There are exactly 3 things necessary for airport security : &gt; &gt; 1 .
Make sure that no luggage gets on the plane without its associated &gt; passenger ( you ca n't blow up the plane without going along for the &gt; ride ) .Mohammed Atta took his luggage on board. &gt; 2 .
Metal detectors to keep guns out .
The alternative is allowing &gt; anybody to carry , thus insuring the entire plane will wind up swiss &gt; cheese if any funny business starts .
That 's a less than positive &gt; outcome , IMHO.Ha ?
That vector is gone , wait for the sequel .
PETN in a body cavity is the next reported Qaeda product in the pipeline .
Good luck getting millimetr wave radar/scanners seeing into martyrs guts .
Bomb sniffer scanners ?
Unreliable they say .
And with a colonic there might not be any ass gas expelling sufficient for bomb dogs to detect .
That is if you posit that the whole traveling populace will sit still for an anal sniff .
Good luck with that. &gt; 3 .
Lock and bar the cockpit doors for the flight 's duration.What is it today 10 September 2001 ? &gt; 4 .
Research applying the military 's UAV technology to the air &gt; transport system .
If enough improvements can be made in assuring &gt; positive aircraft control , there 's no reason the flight deck as we &gt; know it needs to exist on the plane at all.Well the Schneier article was on ( cost ) effective responses to rare events .
While we 're at it let 's build cyborg terminators that are wholesome toward all but evildoers .
But how will you know them ?
Ah ! you will see what they do---all the way to the ground .
Fuggit , call DARPA R&amp;D central casting and add clairvoyance into the terminator while we 're at it .
Right. Cost effective your a $ $ .But thanks for playing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; There are exactly 3 things necessary for airport security:&gt;&gt; 1.
Make sure that no luggage gets on the plane without its associated&gt; passenger (you can't blow up the plane without going along for the&gt; ride).Mohammed Atta took his luggage on board.&gt; 2.
Metal detectors to keep guns out.
The alternative is allowing&gt; anybody to carry, thus insuring the entire plane will wind up swiss&gt; cheese if any funny business starts.
That's a less than positive&gt; outcome, IMHO.Ha?
That vector is gone, wait for the sequel.
PETN in a body cavity is the next reported Qaeda product in the pipeline.
Good luck getting millimetr wave radar/scanners seeing into martyrs guts.
Bomb sniffer scanners?
Unreliable they say.
And with a colonic there might not be any ass gas expelling sufficient for bomb dogs to detect.
That is if you posit that the whole traveling populace will sit still for an anal sniff.
Good luck with that.&gt; 3.
Lock and bar the cockpit doors for the flight's duration.What is it today 10 September 2001?&gt; 4.
Research applying the military's UAV technology to the air&gt; transport system.
If enough improvements can be made in assuring&gt; positive aircraft control, there's no reason the flight deck as we&gt; know it needs to exist on the plane at all.Well the Schneier article was on (cost) effective responses to rare events.
While we're at it let's build cyborg terminators that are wholesome toward all but evildoers.
But how will you know them?
Ah! you will see what they do---all the way to the ground.
Fuggit, call DARPA R&amp;D central casting and add clairvoyance into the terminator while we're at it.
Right. Cost effective your a$$.But thanks for playing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30661900</id>
	<title>Re:Sep 11</title>
	<author>PeanutButterBreath</author>
	<datestamp>1262691420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>1. Make sure that no luggage gets on the plane without its associated passenger (you can't blow up the plane without going along for the ride).</p></div><p>But we have people scalding their nuts trying to detonate their own underwear.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Make sure that no luggage gets on the plane without its associated passenger ( you ca n't blow up the plane without going along for the ride ) .But we have people scalding their nuts trying to detonate their own underwear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Make sure that no luggage gets on the plane without its associated passenger (you can't blow up the plane without going along for the ride).But we have people scalding their nuts trying to detonate their own underwear.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659464</id>
	<title>Door Handle?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262724780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why is it that this door can be opened from the outside?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is it that this door can be opened from the outside ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is it that this door can be opened from the outside?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659540</id>
	<title>Re:Overreaction</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262725140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's going to bring in more revenue to the business of government: politely guiding the lost passenger back to the correct entrance, or throwing a day-long tantrum masquerading as a DEFCON-5 disaster alert?</p><p>If there's one thing we should realize by now about the business of government, it's that spending money is the <i>goal</i>. Clearly, a disaster justifies more spending -- now and in the future -- than a harmless mistake.</p><p>At the top of the power pyramid, as long as the money passes through your hands, <i>you win</i>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's going to bring in more revenue to the business of government : politely guiding the lost passenger back to the correct entrance , or throwing a day-long tantrum masquerading as a DEFCON-5 disaster alert ? If there 's one thing we should realize by now about the business of government , it 's that spending money is the goal .
Clearly , a disaster justifies more spending -- now and in the future -- than a harmless mistake.At the top of the power pyramid , as long as the money passes through your hands , you win .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's going to bring in more revenue to the business of government: politely guiding the lost passenger back to the correct entrance, or throwing a day-long tantrum masquerading as a DEFCON-5 disaster alert?If there's one thing we should realize by now about the business of government, it's that spending money is the goal.
Clearly, a disaster justifies more spending -- now and in the future -- than a harmless mistake.At the top of the power pyramid, as long as the money passes through your hands, you win.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659154</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30661446</id>
	<title>So Where are the S.O.Ps for this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262689380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok I worked as a policeman at a major UK airport when we had a multi-axis threat from the Middle East and Northern Ireland.<br>I am astonished that such a response could have been considered.<br>We frequently had perimeter breaches when passengers, protesters or general members of the public thought it would be a good idea, fun or political to go where they were not meant to. Our S.O.P was:<br>Find and detain the person using total CCTV coverage.<br>Ascertain the reason for the breach and from that the treat level.<br>From the step above the S.O.P that followed was, in 90\% of the cases as follows:<br>Examine the high quality CCTV footage of the persons movements. (You do have high quality CCTV of all corridors and areas don&rsquo;t you?)<br>Send in an Explosive Detection Dog (You do have them on 24 Hrs a day don&rsquo;t you?) to follow the route of the intruder.<br>Carry on as normal.<br>Now this is a very simplistic synopsis of a very complex set of procedures  but it expresses the mentality of the approach.<br>The option to close any airport or even a very small part of one was only called as part of a detailed ordered S.O.P and given the HUGE costs and resultant chaos a very last step in the process.<br>It seems to me that the Newark operation, both security and operations are still woefully lacking in pre-planned structured S.O.Ps</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok I worked as a policeman at a major UK airport when we had a multi-axis threat from the Middle East and Northern Ireland.I am astonished that such a response could have been considered.We frequently had perimeter breaches when passengers , protesters or general members of the public thought it would be a good idea , fun or political to go where they were not meant to .
Our S.O.P was : Find and detain the person using total CCTV coverage.Ascertain the reason for the breach and from that the treat level.From the step above the S.O.P that followed was , in 90 \ % of the cases as follows : Examine the high quality CCTV footage of the persons movements .
( You do have high quality CCTV of all corridors and areas don    t you ?
) Send in an Explosive Detection Dog ( You do have them on 24 Hrs a day don    t you ?
) to follow the route of the intruder.Carry on as normal.Now this is a very simplistic synopsis of a very complex set of procedures but it expresses the mentality of the approach.The option to close any airport or even a very small part of one was only called as part of a detailed ordered S.O.P and given the HUGE costs and resultant chaos a very last step in the process.It seems to me that the Newark operation , both security and operations are still woefully lacking in pre-planned structured S.O.Ps</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok I worked as a policeman at a major UK airport when we had a multi-axis threat from the Middle East and Northern Ireland.I am astonished that such a response could have been considered.We frequently had perimeter breaches when passengers, protesters or general members of the public thought it would be a good idea, fun or political to go where they were not meant to.
Our S.O.P was:Find and detain the person using total CCTV coverage.Ascertain the reason for the breach and from that the treat level.From the step above the S.O.P that followed was, in 90\% of the cases as follows:Examine the high quality CCTV footage of the persons movements.
(You do have high quality CCTV of all corridors and areas don’t you?
)Send in an Explosive Detection Dog (You do have them on 24 Hrs a day don’t you?
) to follow the route of the intruder.Carry on as normal.Now this is a very simplistic synopsis of a very complex set of procedures  but it expresses the mentality of the approach.The option to close any airport or even a very small part of one was only called as part of a detailed ordered S.O.P and given the HUGE costs and resultant chaos a very last step in the process.It seems to me that the Newark operation, both security and operations are still woefully lacking in pre-planned structured S.O.Ps</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30662822</id>
	<title>Re:Sep 11</title>
	<author>Simetrical</author>
	<datestamp>1262695860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>3. Lock and bar the cockpit doors for the flight's duration.</p></div><p>Seriously, just stop at that.  The only reason to target planes is to use them as bigger bombs than you could have gotten otherwise.  If the worst you can do is kill the couple hundred people on the plane, you may as well just rent an eighteen-wheeler, fill it with explosives, drive it to downtown Manhattan at 8 AM, and detonate it there.  Much more damage than taking down one measly jumbo jet, and much harder to stop.

</p><p>I don't know why these idiots persist in trying to attack airplanes just to blow them up, frankly.  Why didn't Mr. Underpants wait a few more days and give Times Square a shot at midnight on New Year's Eve?  He could have had a whole trenchcoat full of explosives.  Or heck, just throw a couple of grenades, if you can get 'em.  Much more reliable to use something designed for the job.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>3 .
Lock and bar the cockpit doors for the flight 's duration.Seriously , just stop at that .
The only reason to target planes is to use them as bigger bombs than you could have gotten otherwise .
If the worst you can do is kill the couple hundred people on the plane , you may as well just rent an eighteen-wheeler , fill it with explosives , drive it to downtown Manhattan at 8 AM , and detonate it there .
Much more damage than taking down one measly jumbo jet , and much harder to stop .
I do n't know why these idiots persist in trying to attack airplanes just to blow them up , frankly .
Why did n't Mr. Underpants wait a few more days and give Times Square a shot at midnight on New Year 's Eve ?
He could have had a whole trenchcoat full of explosives .
Or heck , just throw a couple of grenades , if you can get 'em .
Much more reliable to use something designed for the job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3.
Lock and bar the cockpit doors for the flight's duration.Seriously, just stop at that.
The only reason to target planes is to use them as bigger bombs than you could have gotten otherwise.
If the worst you can do is kill the couple hundred people on the plane, you may as well just rent an eighteen-wheeler, fill it with explosives, drive it to downtown Manhattan at 8 AM, and detonate it there.
Much more damage than taking down one measly jumbo jet, and much harder to stop.
I don't know why these idiots persist in trying to attack airplanes just to blow them up, frankly.
Why didn't Mr. Underpants wait a few more days and give Times Square a shot at midnight on New Year's Eve?
He could have had a whole trenchcoat full of explosives.
Or heck, just throw a couple of grenades, if you can get 'em.
Much more reliable to use something designed for the job.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659154</id>
	<title>Overreaction</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262723580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A guy wanders in through the exit, and they evacuate the terminal?<br> <br>

If it's really necessary to evacuate the terminal each time this happens, wouldn't it be cheaper to hire a guy to stand there to stop people from coming in?</htmltext>
<tokenext>A guy wanders in through the exit , and they evacuate the terminal ?
If it 's really necessary to evacuate the terminal each time this happens , would n't it be cheaper to hire a guy to stand there to stop people from coming in ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A guy wanders in through the exit, and they evacuate the terminal?
If it's really necessary to evacuate the terminal each time this happens, wouldn't it be cheaper to hire a guy to stand there to stop people from coming in?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30661830</id>
	<title>Re:The whole thing is nuts</title>
	<author>timeOday</author>
	<datestamp>1262691120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>We've had airport security for decades. When did it start? Early seventies? The only time we needed airport security to work, it didn't.</p></div> </blockquote><p>

It did work.  Nobody was harmed, simply because airport security prevented the guy from bringing a better bomb to the party.  He was unable to effectively work around the existing restrictions.  If not for airport security, the guy would have just used a grenade, or something bigger.
</p><p>
Airport security also worked on 9/11.  That's why the terrorists were (essentially) unarmed.  What didn't work on 9/11 was <i>airplane</i> security, since (even being unarmed) they all got access to the cockpit, instead of being gunned down by an armed air martial.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We 've had airport security for decades .
When did it start ?
Early seventies ?
The only time we needed airport security to work , it did n't .
It did work .
Nobody was harmed , simply because airport security prevented the guy from bringing a better bomb to the party .
He was unable to effectively work around the existing restrictions .
If not for airport security , the guy would have just used a grenade , or something bigger .
Airport security also worked on 9/11 .
That 's why the terrorists were ( essentially ) unarmed .
What did n't work on 9/11 was airplane security , since ( even being unarmed ) they all got access to the cockpit , instead of being gunned down by an armed air martial .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We've had airport security for decades.
When did it start?
Early seventies?
The only time we needed airport security to work, it didn't.
It did work.
Nobody was harmed, simply because airport security prevented the guy from bringing a better bomb to the party.
He was unable to effectively work around the existing restrictions.
If not for airport security, the guy would have just used a grenade, or something bigger.
Airport security also worked on 9/11.
That's why the terrorists were (essentially) unarmed.
What didn't work on 9/11 was airplane security, since (even being unarmed) they all got access to the cockpit, instead of being gunned down by an armed air martial.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659240</id>
	<title>Death is not an inconvenience?</title>
	<author>furby076</author>
	<datestamp>1262723880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yea most of the times it is some guy who accidentally went to the wrong area - but if a guy can accidentally do this, imagine if a terrorist deliberately does this?  Especially if it is a flaw in our security that was stumbled upon.<br> <br>

It may be costly - but put it this way - how much is your mothers life worth? Your wife? Child? yourself?  If a terrorist managed to bypass security and blow something up that killed someone you loved - would you say "well i understand they didn't want to spend 1 million dollars to fix the flaw, so i don't blame them for a known issue that ended up allowing my loved one to die".  Security issues, once identified need to be fixed - unless you plan to use them as a trap.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yea most of the times it is some guy who accidentally went to the wrong area - but if a guy can accidentally do this , imagine if a terrorist deliberately does this ?
Especially if it is a flaw in our security that was stumbled upon .
It may be costly - but put it this way - how much is your mothers life worth ?
Your wife ?
Child ? yourself ?
If a terrorist managed to bypass security and blow something up that killed someone you loved - would you say " well i understand they did n't want to spend 1 million dollars to fix the flaw , so i do n't blame them for a known issue that ended up allowing my loved one to die " .
Security issues , once identified need to be fixed - unless you plan to use them as a trap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yea most of the times it is some guy who accidentally went to the wrong area - but if a guy can accidentally do this, imagine if a terrorist deliberately does this?
Especially if it is a flaw in our security that was stumbled upon.
It may be costly - but put it this way - how much is your mothers life worth?
Your wife?
Child? yourself?
If a terrorist managed to bypass security and blow something up that killed someone you loved - would you say "well i understand they didn't want to spend 1 million dollars to fix the flaw, so i don't blame them for a known issue that ended up allowing my loved one to die".
Security issues, once identified need to be fixed - unless you plan to use them as a trap.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659496</id>
	<title>Re:Death is not an inconvenience?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262724900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It may be costly - but put it this way - how much is your mothers life worth? Your wife? Child? yourself?</p></div></blockquote><p>Nice appeal to emotion.</p><p>What is stopping said terrorist from assembling a bomb from easy-to-obtain electronic store items and household cleaners then detonating it on, lets say, a crowded subway?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It may be costly - but put it this way - how much is your mothers life worth ?
Your wife ?
Child ? yourself ? Nice appeal to emotion.What is stopping said terrorist from assembling a bomb from easy-to-obtain electronic store items and household cleaners then detonating it on , lets say , a crowded subway ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It may be costly - but put it this way - how much is your mothers life worth?
Your wife?
Child? yourself?Nice appeal to emotion.What is stopping said terrorist from assembling a bomb from easy-to-obtain electronic store items and household cleaners then detonating it on, lets say, a crowded subway?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659598</id>
	<title>Bruce, you're out of your comfort zone</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262682240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Since when does being an expert on digital communications security automatically qualify you as an expert on passenger screening? Unfortunately, unlike data packets, passengers don't behave according to logical rules.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since when does being an expert on digital communications security automatically qualify you as an expert on passenger screening ?
Unfortunately , unlike data packets , passengers do n't behave according to logical rules .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since when does being an expert on digital communications security automatically qualify you as an expert on passenger screening?
Unfortunately, unlike data packets, passengers don't behave according to logical rules.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30662768</id>
	<title>Man Trap</title>
	<author>Syntroxis</author>
	<datestamp>1262695620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>People can go through door 1 into small enclosed hallway with door 2 at other end.  If someone enters through door 1 without proper approval, door 1 automatically locks, door 2 remains locked, klaxons and bright red flashing lights go off, a trap door in the floor opens, and the perpetrator drops into a tank of hungry piranhas and there is no more problem.... Well, maybe no trap door with piranhas, but security violator securely detained until proper security arrives to take the perp into custody, oh and they guard that didn't stop the perp in the first place is immediately fired or arrested for endangering mothers, god, and country.

Really though, in 2008, there were 13,000+ deaths directly related to or caused by drunk driving.  Why is this not a national priority???</htmltext>
<tokenext>People can go through door 1 into small enclosed hallway with door 2 at other end .
If someone enters through door 1 without proper approval , door 1 automatically locks , door 2 remains locked , klaxons and bright red flashing lights go off , a trap door in the floor opens , and the perpetrator drops into a tank of hungry piranhas and there is no more problem.... Well , maybe no trap door with piranhas , but security violator securely detained until proper security arrives to take the perp into custody , oh and they guard that did n't stop the perp in the first place is immediately fired or arrested for endangering mothers , god , and country .
Really though , in 2008 , there were 13,000 + deaths directly related to or caused by drunk driving .
Why is this not a national priority ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People can go through door 1 into small enclosed hallway with door 2 at other end.
If someone enters through door 1 without proper approval, door 1 automatically locks, door 2 remains locked, klaxons and bright red flashing lights go off, a trap door in the floor opens, and the perpetrator drops into a tank of hungry piranhas and there is no more problem.... Well, maybe no trap door with piranhas, but security violator securely detained until proper security arrives to take the perp into custody, oh and they guard that didn't stop the perp in the first place is immediately fired or arrested for endangering mothers, god, and country.
Really though, in 2008, there were 13,000+ deaths directly related to or caused by drunk driving.
Why is this not a national priority??
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659482</id>
	<title>The whole thing is nuts</title>
	<author>mschuyler</author>
	<datestamp>1262724840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We've had airport security for decades. When did it start? Early seventies? The only time we needed airport security to work, it didn't. Why do we have to shut down an entire airport because one hapless person entered the wrong room? It's a terrible over-reaction, making us all look like wusses. It's like seeing people freak out because they see a spider. Big deal. Take the spider outside, end of story. No evancualtions. No freak-outs. No delays.</p><p>The thing is, the last time we had a real incident, at Christmas, the guy managed to get on and do everything necessary to kill a few hundered people. Only the incompetence of the bomb maker saved the plane and the guy burned his nuts.</p><p>So what did we do? Throw him in jail. Get him lawyered up so he won't talk, and THEN our illustrious Czar of Homeland Security gets up and says, "The system worked."</p><p>WTF????? Just WHAT about the system worked? What is she smoking?</p><p>It did NOT work. It was epic fail. With all these regulatons, with all this taking your shoes off, go through the detectors, 3 oz of liquid max, the delays, evacuations, and freak outs over nothing, the system still is epic fail.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 've had airport security for decades .
When did it start ?
Early seventies ?
The only time we needed airport security to work , it did n't .
Why do we have to shut down an entire airport because one hapless person entered the wrong room ?
It 's a terrible over-reaction , making us all look like wusses .
It 's like seeing people freak out because they see a spider .
Big deal .
Take the spider outside , end of story .
No evancualtions .
No freak-outs .
No delays.The thing is , the last time we had a real incident , at Christmas , the guy managed to get on and do everything necessary to kill a few hundered people .
Only the incompetence of the bomb maker saved the plane and the guy burned his nuts.So what did we do ?
Throw him in jail .
Get him lawyered up so he wo n't talk , and THEN our illustrious Czar of Homeland Security gets up and says , " The system worked. " WTF ? ? ? ? ?
Just WHAT about the system worked ?
What is she smoking ? It did NOT work .
It was epic fail .
With all these regulatons , with all this taking your shoes off , go through the detectors , 3 oz of liquid max , the delays , evacuations , and freak outs over nothing , the system still is epic fail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We've had airport security for decades.
When did it start?
Early seventies?
The only time we needed airport security to work, it didn't.
Why do we have to shut down an entire airport because one hapless person entered the wrong room?
It's a terrible over-reaction, making us all look like wusses.
It's like seeing people freak out because they see a spider.
Big deal.
Take the spider outside, end of story.
No evancualtions.
No freak-outs.
No delays.The thing is, the last time we had a real incident, at Christmas, the guy managed to get on and do everything necessary to kill a few hundered people.
Only the incompetence of the bomb maker saved the plane and the guy burned his nuts.So what did we do?
Throw him in jail.
Get him lawyered up so he won't talk, and THEN our illustrious Czar of Homeland Security gets up and says, "The system worked."WTF?????
Just WHAT about the system worked?
What is she smoking?It did NOT work.
It was epic fail.
With all these regulatons, with all this taking your shoes off, go through the detectors, 3 oz of liquid max, the delays, evacuations, and freak outs over nothing, the system still is epic fail.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660912</id>
	<title>Re:Overreaction is worse than non-reaction.</title>
	<author>bberens</author>
	<datestamp>1262687040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Air bags kill more people than terrorists in the U.S.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Air bags kill more people than terrorists in the U.S .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Air bags kill more people than terrorists in the U.S.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30662604</id>
	<title>The real solution is education</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262694900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All the commenters who go on about whether it's worth it to improve airline security, how to go about it and so on, all miss the bigger story. The real answer to all this is education. Yes, every society will have a loon every now and then but the current terrorism problem is almost 100\% caused by religious barbarians. We should be doing more to educate them in science and philosophy, in other words, to civilise them. Then the problem will fix itself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All the commenters who go on about whether it 's worth it to improve airline security , how to go about it and so on , all miss the bigger story .
The real answer to all this is education .
Yes , every society will have a loon every now and then but the current terrorism problem is almost 100 \ % caused by religious barbarians .
We should be doing more to educate them in science and philosophy , in other words , to civilise them .
Then the problem will fix itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All the commenters who go on about whether it's worth it to improve airline security, how to go about it and so on, all miss the bigger story.
The real answer to all this is education.
Yes, every society will have a loon every now and then but the current terrorism problem is almost 100\% caused by religious barbarians.
We should be doing more to educate them in science and philosophy, in other words, to civilise them.
Then the problem will fix itself.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659330</id>
	<title>Perfectly secure airport</title>
	<author>sakdoctor</author>
	<datestamp>1262724240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Passengers book flight online, and program their flight int an RFID tags.<br>Passengers enter the airport naked, and in small groups. No worldly possessions will be allowed.<br>Muslims are winnowed at this stage.<br>(The last mile must be walked to the terminal because of the dragons teeth protecting the airport from demo-trucks.)</p><p>Passengers are rendered unconscious using anaesthetic gas.<br>Robotic staff, load the unconscious passengers into special crates that deal with feeding and excretion.<br>Passengers are hooked up to neutral interface, and last years crappy films are played directly into their minds.</p><p>In case of emergency, all crates have auto-ejectors. First-class passenger crates have parachutes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Passengers book flight online , and program their flight int an RFID tags.Passengers enter the airport naked , and in small groups .
No worldly possessions will be allowed.Muslims are winnowed at this stage .
( The last mile must be walked to the terminal because of the dragons teeth protecting the airport from demo-trucks .
) Passengers are rendered unconscious using anaesthetic gas.Robotic staff , load the unconscious passengers into special crates that deal with feeding and excretion.Passengers are hooked up to neutral interface , and last years crappy films are played directly into their minds.In case of emergency , all crates have auto-ejectors .
First-class passenger crates have parachutes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Passengers book flight online, and program their flight int an RFID tags.Passengers enter the airport naked, and in small groups.
No worldly possessions will be allowed.Muslims are winnowed at this stage.
(The last mile must be walked to the terminal because of the dragons teeth protecting the airport from demo-trucks.
)Passengers are rendered unconscious using anaesthetic gas.Robotic staff, load the unconscious passengers into special crates that deal with feeding and excretion.Passengers are hooked up to neutral interface, and last years crappy films are played directly into their minds.In case of emergency, all crates have auto-ejectors.
First-class passenger crates have parachutes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660630</id>
	<title>Re:Overreaction</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1262686020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The staff in an airport are trained to look under every seat, etc.</p></div></blockquote><p>We're talking about the TSA here - the kind of people who flunked out of Cop Kollidge.  The type of imbecile who couldn't find a seat if it was under their own ass.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The staff in an airport are trained to look under every seat , etc.We 're talking about the TSA here - the kind of people who flunked out of Cop Kollidge .
The type of imbecile who could n't find a seat if it was under their own ass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The staff in an airport are trained to look under every seat, etc.We're talking about the TSA here - the kind of people who flunked out of Cop Kollidge.
The type of imbecile who couldn't find a seat if it was under their own ass.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659526</id>
	<title>Re:Perfectly secure airport</title>
	<author>arnwald</author>
	<datestamp>1262725080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Passengers are hooked up to neutral interface, and last years crappy films are played directly into their minds.</p><p>You mean 'last years crappy commercials' are projected directly into their minds.</p><p>T.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Passengers are hooked up to neutral interface , and last years crappy films are played directly into their minds.You mean 'last years crappy commercials ' are projected directly into their minds.T .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Passengers are hooked up to neutral interface, and last years crappy films are played directly into their minds.You mean 'last years crappy commercials' are projected directly into their minds.T.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30661024</id>
	<title>Re:Overreaction</title>
	<author>CohibaVancouver</author>
	<datestamp>1262687640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The resulting delay due to evacuating everybody, screening the facility, and then rescreening everybody would result in millions if not billions of dollars worth of time and money lost.</i> </p><p>The US government has shown time and time again that they aren't concerned about these 'soft costs.'  Having an official at a podium stating that the "incident was taken seriously and handled professionally" is considered MUCH MUCH more important than saving soft costs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The resulting delay due to evacuating everybody , screening the facility , and then rescreening everybody would result in millions if not billions of dollars worth of time and money lost .
The US government has shown time and time again that they are n't concerned about these 'soft costs .
' Having an official at a podium stating that the " incident was taken seriously and handled professionally " is considered MUCH MUCH more important than saving soft costs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The resulting delay due to evacuating everybody, screening the facility, and then rescreening everybody would result in millions if not billions of dollars worth of time and money lost.
The US government has shown time and time again that they aren't concerned about these 'soft costs.
'  Having an official at a podium stating that the "incident was taken seriously and handled professionally" is considered MUCH MUCH more important than saving soft costs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659716</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660858</id>
	<title>Re:That's a really stupid idea!</title>
	<author>AndersOSU</author>
	<datestamp>1262686860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess the question is, what do you profile for?  Richard Reid was a Britain born from a white mother and a Jamaican father.  The underwear bomber was Nigerian.  The 9/11 attackers were all Arabs, but nowadays you would have to look for Afghans and Pakistanis too.  Everyone knows that a TSA guy can't tell a Sikh from an Arab, let alone a Pakistani, so now you're screening for everyone who looks south Asian, African, or Middle Eastern, add Asian/Pacific Islanders if your worried about Indonesian Muslims.  Any idea how many interviews a day that is?</p><p>Israel can do Israeli security because they have minuscule number of passengers compared to the US.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess the question is , what do you profile for ?
Richard Reid was a Britain born from a white mother and a Jamaican father .
The underwear bomber was Nigerian .
The 9/11 attackers were all Arabs , but nowadays you would have to look for Afghans and Pakistanis too .
Everyone knows that a TSA guy ca n't tell a Sikh from an Arab , let alone a Pakistani , so now you 're screening for everyone who looks south Asian , African , or Middle Eastern , add Asian/Pacific Islanders if your worried about Indonesian Muslims .
Any idea how many interviews a day that is ? Israel can do Israeli security because they have minuscule number of passengers compared to the US .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess the question is, what do you profile for?
Richard Reid was a Britain born from a white mother and a Jamaican father.
The underwear bomber was Nigerian.
The 9/11 attackers were all Arabs, but nowadays you would have to look for Afghans and Pakistanis too.
Everyone knows that a TSA guy can't tell a Sikh from an Arab, let alone a Pakistani, so now you're screening for everyone who looks south Asian, African, or Middle Eastern, add Asian/Pacific Islanders if your worried about Indonesian Muslims.
Any idea how many interviews a day that is?Israel can do Israeli security because they have minuscule number of passengers compared to the US.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30666274</id>
	<title>Re:Perfectly secure airport</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262719260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>Passengers... program their flight into RFID tags.<br>Passengers enter the airport naked...</i> Great -- so where am I supposed to carry my RFID tags? Up my ass?!? I can't -- it's already full of explosives!</p></div><p>Good News, everyone!</p><p>We just implant them into your skull (at birth preferably).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Passengers... program their flight into RFID tags.Passengers enter the airport naked... Great -- so where am I supposed to carry my RFID tags ?
Up my ass ? ! ?
I ca n't -- it 's already full of explosives ! Good News , everyone ! We just implant them into your skull ( at birth preferably ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Passengers... program their flight into RFID tags.Passengers enter the airport naked... Great -- so where am I supposed to carry my RFID tags?
Up my ass?!?
I can't -- it's already full of explosives!Good News, everyone!We just implant them into your skull (at birth preferably).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30661414</id>
	<title>Re:I've got it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262689260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ADA compliance is an issue - one I'm especially sensitive to as too fast an escalator (same on/off methodology) in Budapest prevented my mother from using the subways system.  In order to it to be slow enough for her to board/exit safely, it would be slow enough to be able to go backwards.  I'm not claiming that this wouldn't help, merely that the speed up mechanism will get people hurt.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ADA compliance is an issue - one I 'm especially sensitive to as too fast an escalator ( same on/off methodology ) in Budapest prevented my mother from using the subways system .
In order to it to be slow enough for her to board/exit safely , it would be slow enough to be able to go backwards .
I 'm not claiming that this would n't help , merely that the speed up mechanism will get people hurt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ADA compliance is an issue - one I'm especially sensitive to as too fast an escalator (same on/off methodology) in Budapest prevented my mother from using the subways system.
In order to it to be slow enough for her to board/exit safely, it would be slow enough to be able to go backwards.
I'm not claiming that this wouldn't help, merely that the speed up mechanism will get people hurt.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660808</id>
	<title>Re:Overreaction</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262686740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here is a list of people with behind-the-scenes access to the airport who are not screened upon entry:  The McDonald's employee, the guy driving the delivery truck which delivers the buns to McDonald's, the guy putting stuff (hopefully just luggage) into the cargo portion of the plane, the guy who puts fuel in the plane, the mechanic who verifies the plane is in working condition, etc. etc.  All of these Jack Bauer conspiracy theories of how things might get on a plane are completely irrelevant.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here is a list of people with behind-the-scenes access to the airport who are not screened upon entry : The McDonald 's employee , the guy driving the delivery truck which delivers the buns to McDonald 's , the guy putting stuff ( hopefully just luggage ) into the cargo portion of the plane , the guy who puts fuel in the plane , the mechanic who verifies the plane is in working condition , etc .
etc. All of these Jack Bauer conspiracy theories of how things might get on a plane are completely irrelevant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here is a list of people with behind-the-scenes access to the airport who are not screened upon entry:  The McDonald's employee, the guy driving the delivery truck which delivers the buns to McDonald's, the guy putting stuff (hopefully just luggage) into the cargo portion of the plane, the guy who puts fuel in the plane, the mechanic who verifies the plane is in working condition, etc.
etc.  All of these Jack Bauer conspiracy theories of how things might get on a plane are completely irrelevant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660258</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660196</id>
	<title>Double the guards....not worthwhile?</title>
	<author>greymond</author>
	<datestamp>1262684580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whatever your opinion ont he safety at airports, if we could double the guards at the exits/entrances and it *could* help with people like myself who aren't always paying attention to where their feet are taking them, then by all means lets employ some people and bring down our unemployment numbers a bit<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whatever your opinion ont he safety at airports , if we could double the guards at the exits/entrances and it * could * help with people like myself who are n't always paying attention to where their feet are taking them , then by all means lets employ some people and bring down our unemployment numbers a bit : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whatever your opinion ont he safety at airports, if we could double the guards at the exits/entrances and it *could* help with people like myself who aren't always paying attention to where their feet are taking them, then by all means lets employ some people and bring down our unemployment numbers a bit :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659950</id>
	<title>Re:Bruce, you're out of your comfort zone</title>
	<author>nsayer</author>
	<datestamp>1262683800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It qualifies him because predicting attack vectors is a common skill-set in both arenas, among other things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It qualifies him because predicting attack vectors is a common skill-set in both arenas , among other things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It qualifies him because predicting attack vectors is a common skill-set in both arenas, among other things.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659386</id>
	<title>US Airports suck for security</title>
	<author>MosesJones</author>
	<datestamp>1262724540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry folks but the US airport system was designed for a time when there was no threat of terrorism and planes were basically just a fast Greyhound solution.  Having a single Exit (as is common at most European airports) which means a single guard can stop people entering means that its extremely rare to have this happen at a European airport.  This is the "advantage" of having airports that are primarily designed for international travel and so the exit is where customs also resides.</p><p>Crap security, appalling immigration staff and an inefficiency of process that is so bad that someone must have sat down and designed it deliberately.</p><p>So I disagree with the much more educated writer in the article.  It really isn't hard to fix, its something that most other first world countries have done as a core part of their airport design.</p><p>US Security as embodied by the department of Homeland security is a complete joke at every single level, from not listening to intelligence from abroad to woeful and officious security at airports.  It really is a George W Bush of a department.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry folks but the US airport system was designed for a time when there was no threat of terrorism and planes were basically just a fast Greyhound solution .
Having a single Exit ( as is common at most European airports ) which means a single guard can stop people entering means that its extremely rare to have this happen at a European airport .
This is the " advantage " of having airports that are primarily designed for international travel and so the exit is where customs also resides.Crap security , appalling immigration staff and an inefficiency of process that is so bad that someone must have sat down and designed it deliberately.So I disagree with the much more educated writer in the article .
It really is n't hard to fix , its something that most other first world countries have done as a core part of their airport design.US Security as embodied by the department of Homeland security is a complete joke at every single level , from not listening to intelligence from abroad to woeful and officious security at airports .
It really is a George W Bush of a department .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry folks but the US airport system was designed for a time when there was no threat of terrorism and planes were basically just a fast Greyhound solution.
Having a single Exit (as is common at most European airports) which means a single guard can stop people entering means that its extremely rare to have this happen at a European airport.
This is the "advantage" of having airports that are primarily designed for international travel and so the exit is where customs also resides.Crap security, appalling immigration staff and an inefficiency of process that is so bad that someone must have sat down and designed it deliberately.So I disagree with the much more educated writer in the article.
It really isn't hard to fix, its something that most other first world countries have done as a core part of their airport design.US Security as embodied by the department of Homeland security is a complete joke at every single level, from not listening to intelligence from abroad to woeful and officious security at airports.
It really is a George W Bush of a department.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659724</id>
	<title>It is all about Cost Benefit Analysis</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262682780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you treat it like a business problem and do a cost/benefit analysis which is what Schneier is suggesting, it may turn out to be true in this case where the cost to fix the security hole is far too expensive to cover the risk. This is common for many large businesses where they may treat the lives of people in their Data Center and hence put additional physical security controls there vs. someplace else as part of their Business Continuity/ Disaster Recovery threat assessment process.

It is always a tough thing to do when you ask the question on how do you place a value to human life. The airforce puts a value on the cost to replace a pilot vs. a plane but how do you place something similar to a passenger.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you treat it like a business problem and do a cost/benefit analysis which is what Schneier is suggesting , it may turn out to be true in this case where the cost to fix the security hole is far too expensive to cover the risk .
This is common for many large businesses where they may treat the lives of people in their Data Center and hence put additional physical security controls there vs. someplace else as part of their Business Continuity/ Disaster Recovery threat assessment process .
It is always a tough thing to do when you ask the question on how do you place a value to human life .
The airforce puts a value on the cost to replace a pilot vs. a plane but how do you place something similar to a passenger .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you treat it like a business problem and do a cost/benefit analysis which is what Schneier is suggesting, it may turn out to be true in this case where the cost to fix the security hole is far too expensive to cover the risk.
This is common for many large businesses where they may treat the lives of people in their Data Center and hence put additional physical security controls there vs. someplace else as part of their Business Continuity/ Disaster Recovery threat assessment process.
It is always a tough thing to do when you ask the question on how do you place a value to human life.
The airforce puts a value on the cost to replace a pilot vs. a plane but how do you place something similar to a passenger.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660114</id>
	<title>Re:Overreaction</title>
	<author>erroneus</author>
	<datestamp>1262684340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They already do that, but it happens anyway.  Human failings.</p><p>But I completely agree with the opinion piece.  The reaction to 9-11 is overblown and simply useless against real threats.</p><p>I rather liken the problem to typical philosophies associated with disease and prevention.  Some people believe that avoiding bacteria and virii at all costs is the best solution.  But the result of this strategy is that even though fewer bad things get through, when they do get through, the body is completely unprepared to handle it and the problem is worse.  On the other hand, one can build up a tolerance to disease and while some will get through, most of the time, the body can deal with it before the problem gets too bad.</p><p>I think that while we should all be aware of terrorist threat, changing everything about the way we do things is not the best answer.  Sure, some prevention is good.  But attempting to sterilize [lock down] the world is not the best answer.  Just as in the medical world, that level of prevention is not just expensive, but it tends to breed "super bugs" that conventional measured can't stop.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They already do that , but it happens anyway .
Human failings.But I completely agree with the opinion piece .
The reaction to 9-11 is overblown and simply useless against real threats.I rather liken the problem to typical philosophies associated with disease and prevention .
Some people believe that avoiding bacteria and virii at all costs is the best solution .
But the result of this strategy is that even though fewer bad things get through , when they do get through , the body is completely unprepared to handle it and the problem is worse .
On the other hand , one can build up a tolerance to disease and while some will get through , most of the time , the body can deal with it before the problem gets too bad.I think that while we should all be aware of terrorist threat , changing everything about the way we do things is not the best answer .
Sure , some prevention is good .
But attempting to sterilize [ lock down ] the world is not the best answer .
Just as in the medical world , that level of prevention is not just expensive , but it tends to breed " super bugs " that conventional measured ca n't stop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They already do that, but it happens anyway.
Human failings.But I completely agree with the opinion piece.
The reaction to 9-11 is overblown and simply useless against real threats.I rather liken the problem to typical philosophies associated with disease and prevention.
Some people believe that avoiding bacteria and virii at all costs is the best solution.
But the result of this strategy is that even though fewer bad things get through, when they do get through, the body is completely unprepared to handle it and the problem is worse.
On the other hand, one can build up a tolerance to disease and while some will get through, most of the time, the body can deal with it before the problem gets too bad.I think that while we should all be aware of terrorist threat, changing everything about the way we do things is not the best answer.
Sure, some prevention is good.
But attempting to sterilize [lock down] the world is not the best answer.
Just as in the medical world, that level of prevention is not just expensive, but it tends to breed "super bugs" that conventional measured can't stop.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659154</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660138</id>
	<title>Re:Overreaction</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262684460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree with the original post.  The cost in time and dollars to "fix" this isn't worth it.  I'd say the same for many of the security measures we now have, where testers simply sneak guns past the inspectors!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with the original post .
The cost in time and dollars to " fix " this is n't worth it .
I 'd say the same for many of the security measures we now have , where testers simply sneak guns past the inspectors !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with the original post.
The cost in time and dollars to "fix" this isn't worth it.
I'd say the same for many of the security measures we now have, where testers simply sneak guns past the inspectors!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659154</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660612</id>
	<title>What an idiot...</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1262685960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;the smartest thing is probably to live with this occasional but major inconvenience<br>Right up until it ends up being HIS plane that blows up because someone got passed security this way.<br>Seriously, what a boob. Can we keep our stories written by smart people please, seems too much of these stories are written by clueless boobs these days...hope its not a new trend.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; the smartest thing is probably to live with this occasional but major inconvenienceRight up until it ends up being HIS plane that blows up because someone got passed security this way.Seriously , what a boob .
Can we keep our stories written by smart people please , seems too much of these stories are written by clueless boobs these days...hope its not a new trend .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;the smartest thing is probably to live with this occasional but major inconvenienceRight up until it ends up being HIS plane that blows up because someone got passed security this way.Seriously, what a boob.
Can we keep our stories written by smart people please, seems too much of these stories are written by clueless boobs these days...hope its not a new trend.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659474</id>
	<title>Re:Overreaction</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262724840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is it even possible to "verify there's nothing hidden"? You can hide a small knife, or small bit of C4, pretty much anywhere--- taped under a bar stool, in a potted plant, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it even possible to " verify there 's nothing hidden " ?
You can hide a small knife , or small bit of C4 , pretty much anywhere--- taped under a bar stool , in a potted plant , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it even possible to "verify there's nothing hidden"?
You can hide a small knife, or small bit of C4, pretty much anywhere--- taped under a bar stool, in a potted plant, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659228</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659892</id>
	<title>Re:Bruce, you're out of your comfort zone</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262683560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is so wrong it justifies my first ever post after years of reading Slashdot. Principles of security are the same no matter what the type of security. There is ALWAYS a trade-off between false-positive rate and true-positive rate. One cannot demand perfect detection without inordinate and incredible costs due to the detection effort and unavoidable false positives. This is what lawmakers seem not to understand. We cannot simple react to every rare event. We must accept that some bad events, no matter how tragic, will occasionally happen. As far as I'm concerned, a reasonable trade-off, which is inextricably related to liberty vs. security in this particular case, was surpassed long ago.</p><p>Weapons should be allowed on airplanes, people should not be searched, and I should be allowed to see my family off at the gate. This is how it was only 20 years ago in the United States. Government security officials speak about the new realities of flying like these changes are inevitable, necessary, and we must accept them. There is no reality except for what WE set and allow. Let us change this mentality.</p><p>Are we going to start checking every ass for hidden explosives? Then we might as well give up, because a terrorist certainly is willing to put an explosive there. I do not believe we want to continue down this road, or even stay where we are on it already. Those who sacrifice the virginity of their asses for security deserve neither security nor the virginity of their asses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is so wrong it justifies my first ever post after years of reading Slashdot .
Principles of security are the same no matter what the type of security .
There is ALWAYS a trade-off between false-positive rate and true-positive rate .
One can not demand perfect detection without inordinate and incredible costs due to the detection effort and unavoidable false positives .
This is what lawmakers seem not to understand .
We can not simple react to every rare event .
We must accept that some bad events , no matter how tragic , will occasionally happen .
As far as I 'm concerned , a reasonable trade-off , which is inextricably related to liberty vs. security in this particular case , was surpassed long ago.Weapons should be allowed on airplanes , people should not be searched , and I should be allowed to see my family off at the gate .
This is how it was only 20 years ago in the United States .
Government security officials speak about the new realities of flying like these changes are inevitable , necessary , and we must accept them .
There is no reality except for what WE set and allow .
Let us change this mentality.Are we going to start checking every ass for hidden explosives ?
Then we might as well give up , because a terrorist certainly is willing to put an explosive there .
I do not believe we want to continue down this road , or even stay where we are on it already .
Those who sacrifice the virginity of their asses for security deserve neither security nor the virginity of their asses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is so wrong it justifies my first ever post after years of reading Slashdot.
Principles of security are the same no matter what the type of security.
There is ALWAYS a trade-off between false-positive rate and true-positive rate.
One cannot demand perfect detection without inordinate and incredible costs due to the detection effort and unavoidable false positives.
This is what lawmakers seem not to understand.
We cannot simple react to every rare event.
We must accept that some bad events, no matter how tragic, will occasionally happen.
As far as I'm concerned, a reasonable trade-off, which is inextricably related to liberty vs. security in this particular case, was surpassed long ago.Weapons should be allowed on airplanes, people should not be searched, and I should be allowed to see my family off at the gate.
This is how it was only 20 years ago in the United States.
Government security officials speak about the new realities of flying like these changes are inevitable, necessary, and we must accept them.
There is no reality except for what WE set and allow.
Let us change this mentality.Are we going to start checking every ass for hidden explosives?
Then we might as well give up, because a terrorist certainly is willing to put an explosive there.
I do not believe we want to continue down this road, or even stay where we are on it already.
Those who sacrifice the virginity of their asses for security deserve neither security nor the virginity of their asses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30669082</id>
	<title>Re:Overreaction</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1262791260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Maybe they should seek the assistance of people in the room.
</p><p>
Offer chance to win $$$, to the first person alerting guards that someone's trying to walk in the Exit door  <b>after</b>  they pass in the exit, but before they cross a threshold.
</p><p>
Also, utilize the measure of an exit door that is locked, and can only be opened from the correct side.
</p><p>
Place an infrared scanner on the opposite side of the door,  and hook it to a little buzzer,  such that:  if the exit door is open <b>when someone is standing outside it</b>,  a tone will sound.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe they should seek the assistance of people in the room .
Offer chance to win $ $ $ , to the first person alerting guards that someone 's trying to walk in the Exit door after they pass in the exit , but before they cross a threshold .
Also , utilize the measure of an exit door that is locked , and can only be opened from the correct side .
Place an infrared scanner on the opposite side of the door , and hook it to a little buzzer , such that : if the exit door is open when someone is standing outside it , a tone will sound .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Maybe they should seek the assistance of people in the room.
Offer chance to win $$$, to the first person alerting guards that someone's trying to walk in the Exit door  after  they pass in the exit, but before they cross a threshold.
Also, utilize the measure of an exit door that is locked, and can only be opened from the correct side.
Place an infrared scanner on the opposite side of the door,  and hook it to a little buzzer,  such that:  if the exit door is open when someone is standing outside it,  a tone will sound.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659228</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30661154</id>
	<title>Re:That's a really stupid idea!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262688300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"...and to bait us into a self-destructive overreaction. By that standard, they guy who walked through the wrong gate pulled off a pretty impressive piece of terrorism, at basically no real risk to himself."</p><p>I'm trying to picture what would happen if, say, the al Qaeda nutjobs got 100 of the harshest, nastiest, most insane, willing-to-die devotees, sent them out to 100 U.S. airports and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... got them to walk the wrong way through the exit gate.   They'd bring the U.S. passenger air transport system down entirely, not because they did anything significant, but because the overreaction would be so extreme, especially when the authorities realized it was a coordinated plot.  They'd <i>freak out</i>.  And all the "terrorists" would have done would be to walk the wrong way through the door.  No fussy explosives or suicidal tendencies required.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...and to bait us into a self-destructive overreaction .
By that standard , they guy who walked through the wrong gate pulled off a pretty impressive piece of terrorism , at basically no real risk to himself .
" I 'm trying to picture what would happen if , say , the al Qaeda nutjobs got 100 of the harshest , nastiest , most insane , willing-to-die devotees , sent them out to 100 U.S. airports and ... got them to walk the wrong way through the exit gate .
They 'd bring the U.S. passenger air transport system down entirely , not because they did anything significant , but because the overreaction would be so extreme , especially when the authorities realized it was a coordinated plot .
They 'd freak out .
And all the " terrorists " would have done would be to walk the wrong way through the door .
No fussy explosives or suicidal tendencies required .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...and to bait us into a self-destructive overreaction.
By that standard, they guy who walked through the wrong gate pulled off a pretty impressive piece of terrorism, at basically no real risk to himself.
"I'm trying to picture what would happen if, say, the al Qaeda nutjobs got 100 of the harshest, nastiest, most insane, willing-to-die devotees, sent them out to 100 U.S. airports and ... got them to walk the wrong way through the exit gate.
They'd bring the U.S. passenger air transport system down entirely, not because they did anything significant, but because the overreaction would be so extreme, especially when the authorities realized it was a coordinated plot.
They'd freak out.
And all the "terrorists" would have done would be to walk the wrong way through the door.
No fussy explosives or suicidal tendencies required.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30661968</id>
	<title>Re:The whole thing is nuts</title>
	<author>winwar</author>
	<datestamp>1262691660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"WTF????? Just WHAT about the system worked?"</p><p>Other than nothing bad happened?  Seriously.  Despite what I would consider a total failure of the  system, nothing of significance happened.  On the other hand, you could consider the fact that a bomber had to use an unreliable method to detonate a minor amount of explosive to be a sign that our screening methods have made attacks far more difficult.  You really think they don't have access to blasting caps and C-4?</p><p>The actual terrorist attack was successfully committed by those in the media, government and populace that blew the attack out of all proportion.  It could be that the "masterminds" didn't expect it to be a success (or didn't care).  If your goal is terror, a media feeding frenzy is much better than a long drawn out crash investigation.  But it's a success either way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" WTF ? ? ? ? ?
Just WHAT about the system worked ?
" Other than nothing bad happened ?
Seriously. Despite what I would consider a total failure of the system , nothing of significance happened .
On the other hand , you could consider the fact that a bomber had to use an unreliable method to detonate a minor amount of explosive to be a sign that our screening methods have made attacks far more difficult .
You really think they do n't have access to blasting caps and C-4 ? The actual terrorist attack was successfully committed by those in the media , government and populace that blew the attack out of all proportion .
It could be that the " masterminds " did n't expect it to be a success ( or did n't care ) .
If your goal is terror , a media feeding frenzy is much better than a long drawn out crash investigation .
But it 's a success either way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"WTF?????
Just WHAT about the system worked?
"Other than nothing bad happened?
Seriously.  Despite what I would consider a total failure of the  system, nothing of significance happened.
On the other hand, you could consider the fact that a bomber had to use an unreliable method to detonate a minor amount of explosive to be a sign that our screening methods have made attacks far more difficult.
You really think they don't have access to blasting caps and C-4?The actual terrorist attack was successfully committed by those in the media, government and populace that blew the attack out of all proportion.
It could be that the "masterminds" didn't expect it to be a success (or didn't care).
If your goal is terror, a media feeding frenzy is much better than a long drawn out crash investigation.
But it's a success either way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659250</id>
	<title>Regularly?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262723940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Regularly, like the 12th day of each month? Or January 10th every year?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Regularly , like the 12th day of each month ?
Or January 10th every year ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Regularly, like the 12th day of each month?
Or January 10th every year?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660062</id>
	<title>Overreaction is worse than non-reaction.</title>
	<author>Medievalist</author>
	<datestamp>1262684160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's even cheaper to just face reality and understand that anyone who really wants to bypass security can do so.</p><p>That's the results of hundreds of tests, repeated ad nauseum, at all major US airports.  The evidence is incontrovertible. We need to stop pretending that airport security has any useful function other than controlling the aftermath of an incident.</p><p>And stop pretending terrorist activity is more common than normal incidents like equipment malfunction, disease, thievery, etc. that we don't react to so hysterically (and ineffectively).</p><p>Terrorists are losers, incompetents, and not a real-life hazard to 99\% of all people.  Whiskey kills more people than terrorists and we <i>serve</i> whiskey on the damn planes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's even cheaper to just face reality and understand that anyone who really wants to bypass security can do so.That 's the results of hundreds of tests , repeated ad nauseum , at all major US airports .
The evidence is incontrovertible .
We need to stop pretending that airport security has any useful function other than controlling the aftermath of an incident.And stop pretending terrorist activity is more common than normal incidents like equipment malfunction , disease , thievery , etc .
that we do n't react to so hysterically ( and ineffectively ) .Terrorists are losers , incompetents , and not a real-life hazard to 99 \ % of all people .
Whiskey kills more people than terrorists and we serve whiskey on the damn planes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's even cheaper to just face reality and understand that anyone who really wants to bypass security can do so.That's the results of hundreds of tests, repeated ad nauseum, at all major US airports.
The evidence is incontrovertible.
We need to stop pretending that airport security has any useful function other than controlling the aftermath of an incident.And stop pretending terrorist activity is more common than normal incidents like equipment malfunction, disease, thievery, etc.
that we don't react to so hysterically (and ineffectively).Terrorists are losers, incompetents, and not a real-life hazard to 99\% of all people.
Whiskey kills more people than terrorists and we serve whiskey on the damn planes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659154</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659946</id>
	<title>Salad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262683800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I got to the airport a bit too early one time, so I started browsing through the in-airport shops and saw an interesting bottle of salad dressing.  It was cheap so I figured it was probably not that great, but just looked interesting and I wanted to try it.</p><p>Later I was heading through the security gates and got stopped and asked about it.  Long story short, they said I couldn't have it, the guard took it and threw it in the trash can and went back to his post.  I was kinda bummed, put on my shoes and about to walk away when I noticed that no one even paid attention to that trash can, and my bottle was right on top.  I reached in, pulled it out, thought it was a really good thing I wasn't a terrorist and went home and had salad the next day.</p><p>It wasn't very good dressing at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I got to the airport a bit too early one time , so I started browsing through the in-airport shops and saw an interesting bottle of salad dressing .
It was cheap so I figured it was probably not that great , but just looked interesting and I wanted to try it.Later I was heading through the security gates and got stopped and asked about it .
Long story short , they said I could n't have it , the guard took it and threw it in the trash can and went back to his post .
I was kinda bummed , put on my shoes and about to walk away when I noticed that no one even paid attention to that trash can , and my bottle was right on top .
I reached in , pulled it out , thought it was a really good thing I was n't a terrorist and went home and had salad the next day.It was n't very good dressing at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I got to the airport a bit too early one time, so I started browsing through the in-airport shops and saw an interesting bottle of salad dressing.
It was cheap so I figured it was probably not that great, but just looked interesting and I wanted to try it.Later I was heading through the security gates and got stopped and asked about it.
Long story short, they said I couldn't have it, the guard took it and threw it in the trash can and went back to his post.
I was kinda bummed, put on my shoes and about to walk away when I noticed that no one even paid attention to that trash can, and my bottle was right on top.
I reached in, pulled it out, thought it was a really good thing I wasn't a terrorist and went home and had salad the next day.It wasn't very good dressing at all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659932</id>
	<title>Re:The whole thing is nuts</title>
	<author>QuantumRiff</author>
	<datestamp>1262683680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In all your hatred at the current administration, did you stop and think that maybe, just maybe, we don't have federal agents at the Amsterdam airport?  We do not do the security at foreign airports.  Perhaps,in your fox news repeating Vitrol, that got lost.  But it was an international flight, from a foreign, soverign nation.</p><p>The system worked as best it can.  Bruce Schneiner  (how is that last name spelled anyways!) says the only 2 things to come out of 9/11 with regards to airport security, is re-inforced cockpit doors, and passengers to know to fight back.  Sounds like the second half worked perfectly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In all your hatred at the current administration , did you stop and think that maybe , just maybe , we do n't have federal agents at the Amsterdam airport ?
We do not do the security at foreign airports .
Perhaps,in your fox news repeating Vitrol , that got lost .
But it was an international flight , from a foreign , soverign nation.The system worked as best it can .
Bruce Schneiner ( how is that last name spelled anyways !
) says the only 2 things to come out of 9/11 with regards to airport security , is re-inforced cockpit doors , and passengers to know to fight back .
Sounds like the second half worked perfectly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In all your hatred at the current administration, did you stop and think that maybe, just maybe, we don't have federal agents at the Amsterdam airport?
We do not do the security at foreign airports.
Perhaps,in your fox news repeating Vitrol, that got lost.
But it was an international flight, from a foreign, soverign nation.The system worked as best it can.
Bruce Schneiner  (how is that last name spelled anyways!
) says the only 2 things to come out of 9/11 with regards to airport security, is re-inforced cockpit doors, and passengers to know to fight back.
Sounds like the second half worked perfectly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30665164</id>
	<title>Re:Sep 11</title>
	<author>Spatial</author>
	<datestamp>1262709360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I posit that we as a nation have suffered more death and injury than had we reacted to the Sep 11 attacks by literally doing nothing at all.</p></div><p>Besides a necessary initial response, "Nothing" is the ideal response to terrorism.  The entire point of it is to instill fear and create panic; to incite a reaction; to effect change and to cause damage in doing so.<br> <br>

3000 died in the terrorist attack on the WTC, but 5000 soldiers have died in Iraq and Afghanistan.  They also cost 950 billion dollars.<br> <br>

Knee-jerk reactions by politicians have lead to the circumvention of some rights.  Supposed countermeasures are criticised by security experts as 'theater'.  The USA's reputation has suffered.  There's much more, but you get the idea.<br> <br>

Thanks to this reaction, the terrorist's actions are a massive and ongoing success.  In terms of political fallout, in terms of lives lost, in terms of money lost, the reaction has been more damaging than the attack.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I posit that we as a nation have suffered more death and injury than had we reacted to the Sep 11 attacks by literally doing nothing at all.Besides a necessary initial response , " Nothing " is the ideal response to terrorism .
The entire point of it is to instill fear and create panic ; to incite a reaction ; to effect change and to cause damage in doing so .
3000 died in the terrorist attack on the WTC , but 5000 soldiers have died in Iraq and Afghanistan .
They also cost 950 billion dollars .
Knee-jerk reactions by politicians have lead to the circumvention of some rights .
Supposed countermeasures are criticised by security experts as 'theater' .
The USA 's reputation has suffered .
There 's much more , but you get the idea .
Thanks to this reaction , the terrorist 's actions are a massive and ongoing success .
In terms of political fallout , in terms of lives lost , in terms of money lost , the reaction has been more damaging than the attack .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I posit that we as a nation have suffered more death and injury than had we reacted to the Sep 11 attacks by literally doing nothing at all.Besides a necessary initial response, "Nothing" is the ideal response to terrorism.
The entire point of it is to instill fear and create panic; to incite a reaction; to effect change and to cause damage in doing so.
3000 died in the terrorist attack on the WTC, but 5000 soldiers have died in Iraq and Afghanistan.
They also cost 950 billion dollars.
Knee-jerk reactions by politicians have lead to the circumvention of some rights.
Supposed countermeasures are criticised by security experts as 'theater'.
The USA's reputation has suffered.
There's much more, but you get the idea.
Thanks to this reaction, the terrorist's actions are a massive and ongoing success.
In terms of political fallout, in terms of lives lost, in terms of money lost, the reaction has been more damaging than the attack.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30661234</id>
	<title>A minor inconvenience, until Al-Qaeda realizes...</title>
	<author>Col. Klink (retired)</author>
	<datestamp>1262688600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Instead of sending 19 men on suicide missions, Al-Qaeda could just send 19 men to different airports and have them all run through the exits at the same time.</p><p>The cumulative effect would be that *all* airports would be shut down for the day.  We'd just assume that we didn't notice it at any airports that weren't "attacked".  At that point, the technical solution (one-way walkways, rotating doors, more guards, or whatever) would have to implemented very quickly and more costly than implementing it at our convenience.</p><p>Not that I think it fixing the exits will really change anything.  We've got bigger problems when a terrorist on a watch list and whose visa was revoked by the Brits can get on a plane without additional screening.  I never even knew we had a list of suspected terrorists that we let on planes without screening before now...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Instead of sending 19 men on suicide missions , Al-Qaeda could just send 19 men to different airports and have them all run through the exits at the same time.The cumulative effect would be that * all * airports would be shut down for the day .
We 'd just assume that we did n't notice it at any airports that were n't " attacked " .
At that point , the technical solution ( one-way walkways , rotating doors , more guards , or whatever ) would have to implemented very quickly and more costly than implementing it at our convenience.Not that I think it fixing the exits will really change anything .
We 've got bigger problems when a terrorist on a watch list and whose visa was revoked by the Brits can get on a plane without additional screening .
I never even knew we had a list of suspected terrorists that we let on planes without screening before now.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Instead of sending 19 men on suicide missions, Al-Qaeda could just send 19 men to different airports and have them all run through the exits at the same time.The cumulative effect would be that *all* airports would be shut down for the day.
We'd just assume that we didn't notice it at any airports that weren't "attacked".
At that point, the technical solution (one-way walkways, rotating doors, more guards, or whatever) would have to implemented very quickly and more costly than implementing it at our convenience.Not that I think it fixing the exits will really change anything.
We've got bigger problems when a terrorist on a watch list and whose visa was revoked by the Brits can get on a plane without additional screening.
I never even knew we had a list of suspected terrorists that we let on planes without screening before now...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659788</id>
	<title>Re:The whole thing is nuts</title>
	<author>dosilegecko</author>
	<datestamp>1262683080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't really understand how he survived to make it to jail. I would have personally bashed him to bits right there on the plane. I probably would not have stopped until he was in liquid form. These cowardly terrorists should be more afraid of observant U.S. citizens.

Seriously, how did he make it off that plane alive? A lawyer? WTF!? EPIC FAIL AGREED!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't really understand how he survived to make it to jail .
I would have personally bashed him to bits right there on the plane .
I probably would not have stopped until he was in liquid form .
These cowardly terrorists should be more afraid of observant U.S. citizens . Seriously , how did he make it off that plane alive ?
A lawyer ?
WTF ! ? EPIC FAIL AGREED !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't really understand how he survived to make it to jail.
I would have personally bashed him to bits right there on the plane.
I probably would not have stopped until he was in liquid form.
These cowardly terrorists should be more afraid of observant U.S. citizens.

Seriously, how did he make it off that plane alive?
A lawyer?
WTF!? EPIC FAIL AGREED!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659228</id>
	<title>Re:Overreaction</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262723880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, in a "sterile" security zone, one unapproved person can ruin everything. Even if you find him/her, they may have given an weapon to somebody else who was screened earlier and passed. Yep, you've got to clear out the zone, verify there's nothing hidden, then rescreen everybody.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , in a " sterile " security zone , one unapproved person can ruin everything .
Even if you find him/her , they may have given an weapon to somebody else who was screened earlier and passed .
Yep , you 've got to clear out the zone , verify there 's nothing hidden , then rescreen everybody .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, in a "sterile" security zone, one unapproved person can ruin everything.
Even if you find him/her, they may have given an weapon to somebody else who was screened earlier and passed.
Yep, you've got to clear out the zone, verify there's nothing hidden, then rescreen everybody.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659154</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660230</id>
	<title>Re:That's a really stupid idea!</title>
	<author>Chicken\_Kickers</author>
	<datestamp>1262684640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree. As a non-American, and a Muslim at that, I am regularly surprised and somewhat amused at the reaction of the US every time an air port security breach happened. I mean, stop and take a step back to look at the whole picture. Here we have the most powerful nation on Earth, with enough nukes to glass every major city on the planet and with aircraft carriers whose jets out number most third world nation's air forces, being afraid of people getting lost or with their pants on fire. I think al-qaeda or whoever they really are, very quickly realized that they don't even have to try very hard to send the US into a fear-over reaction-panic infinite loop, hence the "pants on fire" "bomber" (I don't even think that this term applied to him). By provoking the US to attempt to cover every possibility, eventually all its resources will be stretched thin while at the same time, innocent people will get caught in the net, increasing the noise to signal ratio not to mention animosity towards the US. Go ahead and adopt stricter screening procedures all you want, especially from Israel, that shining beacon of democracy and equality. It will only add to one more reason why people won't want to go the US. History (China, Japan etc.) has shown what happens to countries when they turn turtle and shut their borders.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree .
As a non-American , and a Muslim at that , I am regularly surprised and somewhat amused at the reaction of the US every time an air port security breach happened .
I mean , stop and take a step back to look at the whole picture .
Here we have the most powerful nation on Earth , with enough nukes to glass every major city on the planet and with aircraft carriers whose jets out number most third world nation 's air forces , being afraid of people getting lost or with their pants on fire .
I think al-qaeda or whoever they really are , very quickly realized that they do n't even have to try very hard to send the US into a fear-over reaction-panic infinite loop , hence the " pants on fire " " bomber " ( I do n't even think that this term applied to him ) .
By provoking the US to attempt to cover every possibility , eventually all its resources will be stretched thin while at the same time , innocent people will get caught in the net , increasing the noise to signal ratio not to mention animosity towards the US .
Go ahead and adopt stricter screening procedures all you want , especially from Israel , that shining beacon of democracy and equality .
It will only add to one more reason why people wo n't want to go the US .
History ( China , Japan etc .
) has shown what happens to countries when they turn turtle and shut their borders .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.
As a non-American, and a Muslim at that, I am regularly surprised and somewhat amused at the reaction of the US every time an air port security breach happened.
I mean, stop and take a step back to look at the whole picture.
Here we have the most powerful nation on Earth, with enough nukes to glass every major city on the planet and with aircraft carriers whose jets out number most third world nation's air forces, being afraid of people getting lost or with their pants on fire.
I think al-qaeda or whoever they really are, very quickly realized that they don't even have to try very hard to send the US into a fear-over reaction-panic infinite loop, hence the "pants on fire" "bomber" (I don't even think that this term applied to him).
By provoking the US to attempt to cover every possibility, eventually all its resources will be stretched thin while at the same time, innocent people will get caught in the net, increasing the noise to signal ratio not to mention animosity towards the US.
Go ahead and adopt stricter screening procedures all you want, especially from Israel, that shining beacon of democracy and equality.
It will only add to one more reason why people won't want to go the US.
History (China, Japan etc.
) has shown what happens to countries when they turn turtle and shut their borders.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659340</id>
	<title>Bomb(!) on a plane flight few days ago</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262724240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Our government fucked us again: http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/fury-over-slovakia-smuggling-explosive-on-flight-440837.html</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Our government fucked us again : http : //www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/fury-over-slovakia-smuggling-explosive-on-flight-440837.html</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Our government fucked us again: http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/fury-over-slovakia-smuggling-explosive-on-flight-440837.html</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660258</id>
	<title>Re:Overreaction</title>
	<author>vlm</author>
	<datestamp>1262684700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is why there's a wait before the first person is let in. The staff in an airport are trained to look under every seat, etc.</p></div><p>Unless, of course, his accomplice was one of the staff.  How hard is it to get a job as a baggage handler, a flight attendant, a contracted guard, or those check in people?  Probably not too hard.  Or, someone else sneaks in with fake uniform and ID, then F around while holding the goods while everyone else in uniform is "searching the zone" then hand "it" back once regular travelers are returned and sneak back out, thus eliminating the job interview/background check/hiring phase.</p><p>Also assumes they didn't sneak a screwdriver in to unscrew the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. whatever<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. and hide something inside or behind the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. whatever<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.., and leave the screw loose enough to remove by hand.  Like an air duct, or an electrical outlet, or plumbing access panel, or computer thingy...</p><p>And you can't seriously tell me that every boxed item in the gift shop was opened and searched.  Or even more sneaky, buy an item from the shop, take it home, stuff what you want in the item, someone else sneaks it back into the store (reverse shoplift), you buy the same item again, now with extra something.  Or really special bottled water.  Etc.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why there 's a wait before the first person is let in .
The staff in an airport are trained to look under every seat , etc.Unless , of course , his accomplice was one of the staff .
How hard is it to get a job as a baggage handler , a flight attendant , a contracted guard , or those check in people ?
Probably not too hard .
Or , someone else sneaks in with fake uniform and ID , then F around while holding the goods while everyone else in uniform is " searching the zone " then hand " it " back once regular travelers are returned and sneak back out , thus eliminating the job interview/background check/hiring phase.Also assumes they did n't sneak a screwdriver in to unscrew the .. whatever .. and hide something inside or behind the .. whatever .. , and leave the screw loose enough to remove by hand .
Like an air duct , or an electrical outlet , or plumbing access panel , or computer thingy...And you ca n't seriously tell me that every boxed item in the gift shop was opened and searched .
Or even more sneaky , buy an item from the shop , take it home , stuff what you want in the item , someone else sneaks it back into the store ( reverse shoplift ) , you buy the same item again , now with extra something .
Or really special bottled water .
Etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why there's a wait before the first person is let in.
The staff in an airport are trained to look under every seat, etc.Unless, of course, his accomplice was one of the staff.
How hard is it to get a job as a baggage handler, a flight attendant, a contracted guard, or those check in people?
Probably not too hard.
Or, someone else sneaks in with fake uniform and ID, then F around while holding the goods while everyone else in uniform is "searching the zone" then hand "it" back once regular travelers are returned and sneak back out, thus eliminating the job interview/background check/hiring phase.Also assumes they didn't sneak a screwdriver in to unscrew the .. whatever .. and hide something inside or behind the .. whatever .., and leave the screw loose enough to remove by hand.
Like an air duct, or an electrical outlet, or plumbing access panel, or computer thingy...And you can't seriously tell me that every boxed item in the gift shop was opened and searched.
Or even more sneaky, buy an item from the shop, take it home, stuff what you want in the item, someone else sneaks it back into the store (reverse shoplift), you buy the same item again, now with extra something.
Or really special bottled water.
Etc.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659840</id>
	<title>Re:US Airports suck for security</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1262683380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Sorry folks but the US airport system was designed for a time when there was no threat of terrorism</i></p><p>There is still little REAL threat of terrorism. One taser-armed sky marshall per plane and good cockpit doors could replace all the expensive security theater and actually make you safer, instead of making you think you're safer.</p><p>Plus, your odds of dying in a plane crash caused by equipment failure or human error are vastly higher than your odds of dying at the hands of terrorists.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry folks but the US airport system was designed for a time when there was no threat of terrorismThere is still little REAL threat of terrorism .
One taser-armed sky marshall per plane and good cockpit doors could replace all the expensive security theater and actually make you safer , instead of making you think you 're safer.Plus , your odds of dying in a plane crash caused by equipment failure or human error are vastly higher than your odds of dying at the hands of terrorists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry folks but the US airport system was designed for a time when there was no threat of terrorismThere is still little REAL threat of terrorism.
One taser-armed sky marshall per plane and good cockpit doors could replace all the expensive security theater and actually make you safer, instead of making you think you're safer.Plus, your odds of dying in a plane crash caused by equipment failure or human error are vastly higher than your odds of dying at the hands of terrorists.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30661314</id>
	<title>Things NOT to say to security screeners</title>
	<author>Tisha\_AH</author>
	<datestamp>1262688900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Back in the 80's I was working for an oil company and had to catch a flight to a different city to make a determination on a potentially contaminated batch of jet fuel. This was to a very small fuel terminal that did not necessarily have the right equipment to capture a sample of fuel. What I was dragging along with me was some sampling and analysis gear. Being in a hurry, since this was going to be a flight to an airport, to do work on airport property, catch a flight back the same day, I hand-carried my gear along.</p><p>Here is how the conversation went at security screening;</p><p>"Miss, what is this thing in the box?"</p><p>"Oh, that's a test bomb"</p><p>-- you can imagine what happened next, needless to say I was NOT catching that flight and United would not reschedule me on ANY flights for several days. ---</p><p>What I had was a "bacon test bomb"  <a href="http://www.koehlerinstrument.com/products/K27700.html" title="koehlerinstrument.com">http://www.koehlerinstrument.com/products/K27700.html</a> [koehlerinstrument.com]  it was packed in a wooden crate that I was hand-carrying on-board the aircraft. It is just a shiny steel cylinder, about the size of a thermos container but has a funky plunger assembly inside and a length of coiled up line to lower it into the tank.</p><p>It is used to grab a sample off of the bottom of a storage tank so I could in turn, run flash-point tests on a 50,000 BBL tank of aviation fuel. The airline was rejecting the batch, claiming that it was contaminated with gasoline (bad, bad thing for jet aircraft).</p><p>Since then I have learned to give pause when speaking to security screeners</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Back in the 80 's I was working for an oil company and had to catch a flight to a different city to make a determination on a potentially contaminated batch of jet fuel .
This was to a very small fuel terminal that did not necessarily have the right equipment to capture a sample of fuel .
What I was dragging along with me was some sampling and analysis gear .
Being in a hurry , since this was going to be a flight to an airport , to do work on airport property , catch a flight back the same day , I hand-carried my gear along.Here is how the conversation went at security screening ; " Miss , what is this thing in the box ?
" " Oh , that 's a test bomb " -- you can imagine what happened next , needless to say I was NOT catching that flight and United would not reschedule me on ANY flights for several days .
---What I had was a " bacon test bomb " http : //www.koehlerinstrument.com/products/K27700.html [ koehlerinstrument.com ] it was packed in a wooden crate that I was hand-carrying on-board the aircraft .
It is just a shiny steel cylinder , about the size of a thermos container but has a funky plunger assembly inside and a length of coiled up line to lower it into the tank.It is used to grab a sample off of the bottom of a storage tank so I could in turn , run flash-point tests on a 50,000 BBL tank of aviation fuel .
The airline was rejecting the batch , claiming that it was contaminated with gasoline ( bad , bad thing for jet aircraft ) .Since then I have learned to give pause when speaking to security screeners</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back in the 80's I was working for an oil company and had to catch a flight to a different city to make a determination on a potentially contaminated batch of jet fuel.
This was to a very small fuel terminal that did not necessarily have the right equipment to capture a sample of fuel.
What I was dragging along with me was some sampling and analysis gear.
Being in a hurry, since this was going to be a flight to an airport, to do work on airport property, catch a flight back the same day, I hand-carried my gear along.Here is how the conversation went at security screening;"Miss, what is this thing in the box?
""Oh, that's a test bomb"-- you can imagine what happened next, needless to say I was NOT catching that flight and United would not reschedule me on ANY flights for several days.
---What I had was a "bacon test bomb"  http://www.koehlerinstrument.com/products/K27700.html [koehlerinstrument.com]  it was packed in a wooden crate that I was hand-carrying on-board the aircraft.
It is just a shiny steel cylinder, about the size of a thermos container but has a funky plunger assembly inside and a length of coiled up line to lower it into the tank.It is used to grab a sample off of the bottom of a storage tank so I could in turn, run flash-point tests on a 50,000 BBL tank of aviation fuel.
The airline was rejecting the batch, claiming that it was contaminated with gasoline (bad, bad thing for jet aircraft).Since then I have learned to give pause when speaking to security screeners</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659716</id>
	<title>Re:Overreaction</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262682720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know what the answer is, but "terrorists" could have a field day with this.  Imagine a group of a guys going through security the wrong way at a dozen major airports nationwide.  The resulting delay due to evacuating everybody, screening the facility, and then rescreening everybody would result in millions if not billions of dollars worth of time and money lost.  It is basically impossible to prevent this, the risks are low (this particular guy didn't get caught, and even if you do get caught you'll be out of jail in a short while), and the impact is potentially huge - majorly inconveniencing hundreds of thousands if not millions of people for half a day or more (not to mention all the lost time and money I spoke of earlier).  I think this would be much more effective than any previous terrorist incidents, particularly if they did it regularly every couple of months or so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know what the answer is , but " terrorists " could have a field day with this .
Imagine a group of a guys going through security the wrong way at a dozen major airports nationwide .
The resulting delay due to evacuating everybody , screening the facility , and then rescreening everybody would result in millions if not billions of dollars worth of time and money lost .
It is basically impossible to prevent this , the risks are low ( this particular guy did n't get caught , and even if you do get caught you 'll be out of jail in a short while ) , and the impact is potentially huge - majorly inconveniencing hundreds of thousands if not millions of people for half a day or more ( not to mention all the lost time and money I spoke of earlier ) .
I think this would be much more effective than any previous terrorist incidents , particularly if they did it regularly every couple of months or so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know what the answer is, but "terrorists" could have a field day with this.
Imagine a group of a guys going through security the wrong way at a dozen major airports nationwide.
The resulting delay due to evacuating everybody, screening the facility, and then rescreening everybody would result in millions if not billions of dollars worth of time and money lost.
It is basically impossible to prevent this, the risks are low (this particular guy didn't get caught, and even if you do get caught you'll be out of jail in a short while), and the impact is potentially huge - majorly inconveniencing hundreds of thousands if not millions of people for half a day or more (not to mention all the lost time and money I spoke of earlier).
I think this would be much more effective than any previous terrorist incidents, particularly if they did it regularly every couple of months or so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659154</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660254</id>
	<title>Re:Death is not an inconvenience?</title>
	<author>Xeno man</author>
	<datestamp>1262684700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Holy shit! What the hell are you selling? Life insurance or turnstiles that everyone is suggesting? It's exactly your type of attitude that has made airports as shitty as they are today, all with the premise of making things safer for everyone. Everyone needs to face the fact that at some point there will be another attack on American soil but it won't be for a long time and when it does happen, no one is going to predict how and where it's going to be done and all of these security measures won't mean a thing because security is going to be focused on guarding a door and they will use a window. Now for a quick reality check, your far more likely to die in a car accident going to or from the airport than you are from the plane crashing, let alone terrorist attack. So are you telling me Mr Safety that your going do drive slower than the limit or not drive at all because how much is it worth if you crashed doing 60mph (100kph) and killed your family? Still there are more dangers at home. Your even more likely to die falling down the stairs than all the above. You better hire a stair climbing expert to assist your family when you not home to help them yourself. Sure it could be expensive for you but is that what your going to be thinking about if you come home and find you mother dead at the bottom of the stairs with a broken neck?

If everyone stopped over reacting to nothing incidents, everyone would feel safer and happier but the problem is that if something does happen, no one wants to be caught with their pants down and loose face in the public eye which is mostly government leaders and the such.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Holy shit !
What the hell are you selling ?
Life insurance or turnstiles that everyone is suggesting ?
It 's exactly your type of attitude that has made airports as shitty as they are today , all with the premise of making things safer for everyone .
Everyone needs to face the fact that at some point there will be another attack on American soil but it wo n't be for a long time and when it does happen , no one is going to predict how and where it 's going to be done and all of these security measures wo n't mean a thing because security is going to be focused on guarding a door and they will use a window .
Now for a quick reality check , your far more likely to die in a car accident going to or from the airport than you are from the plane crashing , let alone terrorist attack .
So are you telling me Mr Safety that your going do drive slower than the limit or not drive at all because how much is it worth if you crashed doing 60mph ( 100kph ) and killed your family ?
Still there are more dangers at home .
Your even more likely to die falling down the stairs than all the above .
You better hire a stair climbing expert to assist your family when you not home to help them yourself .
Sure it could be expensive for you but is that what your going to be thinking about if you come home and find you mother dead at the bottom of the stairs with a broken neck ?
If everyone stopped over reacting to nothing incidents , everyone would feel safer and happier but the problem is that if something does happen , no one wants to be caught with their pants down and loose face in the public eye which is mostly government leaders and the such .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Holy shit!
What the hell are you selling?
Life insurance or turnstiles that everyone is suggesting?
It's exactly your type of attitude that has made airports as shitty as they are today, all with the premise of making things safer for everyone.
Everyone needs to face the fact that at some point there will be another attack on American soil but it won't be for a long time and when it does happen, no one is going to predict how and where it's going to be done and all of these security measures won't mean a thing because security is going to be focused on guarding a door and they will use a window.
Now for a quick reality check, your far more likely to die in a car accident going to or from the airport than you are from the plane crashing, let alone terrorist attack.
So are you telling me Mr Safety that your going do drive slower than the limit or not drive at all because how much is it worth if you crashed doing 60mph (100kph) and killed your family?
Still there are more dangers at home.
Your even more likely to die falling down the stairs than all the above.
You better hire a stair climbing expert to assist your family when you not home to help them yourself.
Sure it could be expensive for you but is that what your going to be thinking about if you come home and find you mother dead at the bottom of the stairs with a broken neck?
If everyone stopped over reacting to nothing incidents, everyone would feel safer and happier but the problem is that if something does happen, no one wants to be caught with their pants down and loose face in the public eye which is mostly government leaders and the such.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30663588</id>
	<title>Prior Art</title>
	<author>cowboy76Spain</author>
	<datestamp>1262699340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh, the Onion... <a href="http://www.theonion.com/content/node/27687" title="theonion.com">FAA Considering Passenger Ban</a> [theonion.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , the Onion... FAA Considering Passenger Ban [ theonion.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, the Onion... FAA Considering Passenger Ban [theonion.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659404</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30662502</id>
	<title>Re:The whole thing is nuts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262694300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and worse than all that...</p><p>When I flew a week afterwards they didn't even make the cute chicks ahead of me take their underwear off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and worse than all that...When I flew a week afterwards they did n't even make the cute chicks ahead of me take their underwear off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and worse than all that...When I flew a week afterwards they didn't even make the cute chicks ahead of me take their underwear off.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30661656</id>
	<title>Re:Death is not an inconvenience?</title>
	<author>phoenix321</author>
	<datestamp>1262690280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Crowded subways<br>- carry a lot of people, but a whole lot less than 30.000 liters of highly flammable fuel.<br>- don't travel at 600kph and cannot be aimed at buildings, landmarks and nuclear power plants.<br>- can stop at any time and throw the terrorist out.<br>- have hundreds of exits along the way.<br>- are used by more people per day than an airport sees in a week.<br>- have fares so cheap that an airport-like security check would cause a tenfold increase in ticket price.<br>- have less media value and attacks don't produce much spectacular imagery, so terrorists gain less media echo<br>- cannot be avoided by most of its passengers, so an attack would cause much more backlash than "usual"</p><p>To be serious: the terrorists either didn't notice or don't want to attack these targets. But let them do - a few attacks on the subway, where people cannot avoid it and have to travel daily there, with the usual Muslim perpetrators, and we make them wear "I am Muslim" badges and make them use their own goddamn planes. If we have a major Muslim attack every week, we will see that faster than you can say "Islamophobe". Because "phobia" is an irrational fear and with these things happen daily, it's no longer irrational.</p><p>Until then, I am confident that our terrorists will go after the tried and true airliner target, because the images are much more emotional and the inherent fear that many people have for air travel is a catalyst and amplifier for them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Crowded subways- carry a lot of people , but a whole lot less than 30.000 liters of highly flammable fuel.- do n't travel at 600kph and can not be aimed at buildings , landmarks and nuclear power plants.- can stop at any time and throw the terrorist out.- have hundreds of exits along the way.- are used by more people per day than an airport sees in a week.- have fares so cheap that an airport-like security check would cause a tenfold increase in ticket price.- have less media value and attacks do n't produce much spectacular imagery , so terrorists gain less media echo- can not be avoided by most of its passengers , so an attack would cause much more backlash than " usual " To be serious : the terrorists either did n't notice or do n't want to attack these targets .
But let them do - a few attacks on the subway , where people can not avoid it and have to travel daily there , with the usual Muslim perpetrators , and we make them wear " I am Muslim " badges and make them use their own goddamn planes .
If we have a major Muslim attack every week , we will see that faster than you can say " Islamophobe " .
Because " phobia " is an irrational fear and with these things happen daily , it 's no longer irrational.Until then , I am confident that our terrorists will go after the tried and true airliner target , because the images are much more emotional and the inherent fear that many people have for air travel is a catalyst and amplifier for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Crowded subways- carry a lot of people, but a whole lot less than 30.000 liters of highly flammable fuel.- don't travel at 600kph and cannot be aimed at buildings, landmarks and nuclear power plants.- can stop at any time and throw the terrorist out.- have hundreds of exits along the way.- are used by more people per day than an airport sees in a week.- have fares so cheap that an airport-like security check would cause a tenfold increase in ticket price.- have less media value and attacks don't produce much spectacular imagery, so terrorists gain less media echo- cannot be avoided by most of its passengers, so an attack would cause much more backlash than "usual"To be serious: the terrorists either didn't notice or don't want to attack these targets.
But let them do - a few attacks on the subway, where people cannot avoid it and have to travel daily there, with the usual Muslim perpetrators, and we make them wear "I am Muslim" badges and make them use their own goddamn planes.
If we have a major Muslim attack every week, we will see that faster than you can say "Islamophobe".
Because "phobia" is an irrational fear and with these things happen daily, it's no longer irrational.Until then, I am confident that our terrorists will go after the tried and true airliner target, because the images are much more emotional and the inherent fear that many people have for air travel is a catalyst and amplifier for them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30661044</id>
	<title>Re:Overreaction</title>
	<author>dov\_0</author>
	<datestamp>1262687760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Install a turnstile. Problem solved. Where's my fee?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Install a turnstile .
Problem solved .
Where 's my fee ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Install a turnstile.
Problem solved.
Where's my fee?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659154</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30668140</id>
	<title>Re:That's a really stupid idea!</title>
	<author>shilly</author>
	<datestamp>1262784660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The idea that the Israelis really fall back on racial profiling rather than behavioural profiling just isn't true. It wouldn't be practical given that many Arabs can pass for Israelis<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... and when it would risk giving a free pass to eg Caucasians.</p><p>Look at this comment by Philip Baum and you will see what behavioural profiling involves:<br><a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest\_contributors/article6973408.ece" title="timesonline.co.uk">http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest\_contributors/article6973408.ece</a> [timesonline.co.uk]<br>It's not all about looking shifty, although that is part of it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The idea that the Israelis really fall back on racial profiling rather than behavioural profiling just is n't true .
It would n't be practical given that many Arabs can pass for Israelis .... and when it would risk giving a free pass to eg Caucasians.Look at this comment by Philip Baum and you will see what behavioural profiling involves : http : //www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest \ _contributors/article6973408.ece [ timesonline.co.uk ] It 's not all about looking shifty , although that is part of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The idea that the Israelis really fall back on racial profiling rather than behavioural profiling just isn't true.
It wouldn't be practical given that many Arabs can pass for Israelis .... and when it would risk giving a free pass to eg Caucasians.Look at this comment by Philip Baum and you will see what behavioural profiling involves:http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest\_contributors/article6973408.ece [timesonline.co.uk]It's not all about looking shifty, although that is part of it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30662880</id>
	<title>Re:The whole thing is nuts</title>
	<author>DarkOx</author>
	<datestamp>1262696040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We've had airport security for decades. When did it start? Early seventies? The only time we needed airport security to work, it didn't</p></div><p>I don't see how you can make that statement.  It requires you to prove a negative.  How many would be attackers and terrorists has the perception that airport security would prevent success has caused them not to try?  Do you think you always hear about it when arrests are made successfully? Has the do not fly list stopped any would be terrorists at the ticket counter?  You don't know and you can't.</p><p>I don't think the security can be made perfect either not unless you want all your flying to be done naked and handcuffed anyway.  I do think there is some value in perpetuating the belief airport security work; regardless of if that is accomplished by making it actually work better or just good theater.  The thing I hope the PTBs keep in mind is that if it is just theater don't impose costs that are to great or create trouble to aggravating.<br>
&nbsp;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We 've had airport security for decades .
When did it start ?
Early seventies ?
The only time we needed airport security to work , it didn'tI do n't see how you can make that statement .
It requires you to prove a negative .
How many would be attackers and terrorists has the perception that airport security would prevent success has caused them not to try ?
Do you think you always hear about it when arrests are made successfully ?
Has the do not fly list stopped any would be terrorists at the ticket counter ?
You do n't know and you ca n't.I do n't think the security can be made perfect either not unless you want all your flying to be done naked and handcuffed anyway .
I do think there is some value in perpetuating the belief airport security work ; regardless of if that is accomplished by making it actually work better or just good theater .
The thing I hope the PTBs keep in mind is that if it is just theater do n't impose costs that are to great or create trouble to aggravating .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>We've had airport security for decades.
When did it start?
Early seventies?
The only time we needed airport security to work, it didn'tI don't see how you can make that statement.
It requires you to prove a negative.
How many would be attackers and terrorists has the perception that airport security would prevent success has caused them not to try?
Do you think you always hear about it when arrests are made successfully?
Has the do not fly list stopped any would be terrorists at the ticket counter?
You don't know and you can't.I don't think the security can be made perfect either not unless you want all your flying to be done naked and handcuffed anyway.
I do think there is some value in perpetuating the belief airport security work; regardless of if that is accomplished by making it actually work better or just good theater.
The thing I hope the PTBs keep in mind is that if it is just theater don't impose costs that are to great or create trouble to aggravating.
 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30667682</id>
	<title>Re:Overreaction</title>
	<author>iMac Were</author>
	<datestamp>1262779920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>How big of a problem would it be to put the 80 grams of explosives needed in a condom and stuff it up your ass before entering the airport ?</p></div></blockquote><p>None at all.  Making it stay there might be a little tricky...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How big of a problem would it be to put the 80 grams of explosives needed in a condom and stuff it up your ass before entering the airport ? None at all .
Making it stay there might be a little tricky.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How big of a problem would it be to put the 80 grams of explosives needed in a condom and stuff it up your ass before entering the airport ?None at all.
Making it stay there might be a little tricky...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660652</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660044</id>
	<title>Technology doesnt help</title>
	<author>SnarfQuest</author>
	<datestamp>1262684100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Technology doesn't help when you put idiots in charge of it. Remember how proudly that one officer was when he displayed the plastic GI Joe rifle he confiscated? Putting stupid people in your security detail means that only really stupid people will be caught. Until airport security figures this out, no technology will be any help. Hiring the cheapest help does not give you the best people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Technology does n't help when you put idiots in charge of it .
Remember how proudly that one officer was when he displayed the plastic GI Joe rifle he confiscated ?
Putting stupid people in your security detail means that only really stupid people will be caught .
Until airport security figures this out , no technology will be any help .
Hiring the cheapest help does not give you the best people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Technology doesn't help when you put idiots in charge of it.
Remember how proudly that one officer was when he displayed the plastic GI Joe rifle he confiscated?
Putting stupid people in your security detail means that only really stupid people will be caught.
Until airport security figures this out, no technology will be any help.
Hiring the cheapest help does not give you the best people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659646</id>
	<title>Re:Overreaction</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262682360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is why there's a wait before the first person is let in. The staff in an airport are trained to look under every seat, etc.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why there 's a wait before the first person is let in .
The staff in an airport are trained to look under every seat , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why there's a wait before the first person is let in.
The staff in an airport are trained to look under every seat, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660298</id>
	<title>Re:Overreaction</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262684880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or say, shoved a bomb with an RF triggered detonator up their ass and had it set off by someone on the ground with a directional transmitter at the landing point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or say , shoved a bomb with an RF triggered detonator up their ass and had it set off by someone on the ground with a directional transmitter at the landing point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or say, shoved a bomb with an RF triggered detonator up their ass and had it set off by someone on the ground with a directional transmitter at the landing point.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659256</id>
	<title>Re:Overreaction</title>
	<author>PPH</author>
	<datestamp>1262723940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>wouldn't it be cheaper to hire a guy to stand there to stop people from coming in?</p></div><p>No, because the people who are capable of staying awake through an entire shift of this duty command very high salaries.
</p><p>A turnstile (as others have suggested) would be far cheaper. But it doesn't contribute to the security theater, so its not done.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>would n't it be cheaper to hire a guy to stand there to stop people from coming in ? No , because the people who are capable of staying awake through an entire shift of this duty command very high salaries .
A turnstile ( as others have suggested ) would be far cheaper .
But it does n't contribute to the security theater , so its not done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>wouldn't it be cheaper to hire a guy to stand there to stop people from coming in?No, because the people who are capable of staying awake through an entire shift of this duty command very high salaries.
A turnstile (as others have suggested) would be far cheaper.
But it doesn't contribute to the security theater, so its not done.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659154</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659914</id>
	<title>Re:Perfectly secure airport</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1262683620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well I think part of the point here is that there's no "perfect security".  It all has trade-offs in terms of cost, accessibility, and even opening new security holes.
</p><p>For example, if you put a bunch of robots in charge and have no people present, that means that there's no one monitoring the robots.  If a robot is hacked, it could do absolutely anything.  Not having a single conscious person on the flight means that if a terrorist somehow gets on, no one will be there to take him down.  Or there's this:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>In case of emergency, all crates have auto-ejectors.</p></div><p>That seems like something you could exploit.  Even if you can't cause an actual problem on the flight, if you can cause enough of an appearance of a problem to trigger the auto-ejectors, then you could potentially dump the passengers anywhere along the flight course you wanted.  Given the right flight plan, you might be able to dump everyone into a volcano or something.  At the very least, you could probably find a way to drop the crates into a building or drop them into an inhospitable place (the middle of an ocean, maybe...?).
</p><p>There is no perfect security.  The goal should be to find a balance which discourages attackers and makes it more likely that attackers will be caught without inconveniencing innocent people too much.
</p><p>And then there's this:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Passengers are hooked up to neural interface, and last years crappy films are played directly into their minds.</p></div><p>I thought the purpose was to prevent people being terrorized...?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well I think part of the point here is that there 's no " perfect security " .
It all has trade-offs in terms of cost , accessibility , and even opening new security holes .
For example , if you put a bunch of robots in charge and have no people present , that means that there 's no one monitoring the robots .
If a robot is hacked , it could do absolutely anything .
Not having a single conscious person on the flight means that if a terrorist somehow gets on , no one will be there to take him down .
Or there 's this : In case of emergency , all crates have auto-ejectors.That seems like something you could exploit .
Even if you ca n't cause an actual problem on the flight , if you can cause enough of an appearance of a problem to trigger the auto-ejectors , then you could potentially dump the passengers anywhere along the flight course you wanted .
Given the right flight plan , you might be able to dump everyone into a volcano or something .
At the very least , you could probably find a way to drop the crates into a building or drop them into an inhospitable place ( the middle of an ocean , maybe... ? ) .
There is no perfect security .
The goal should be to find a balance which discourages attackers and makes it more likely that attackers will be caught without inconveniencing innocent people too much .
And then there 's this : Passengers are hooked up to neural interface , and last years crappy films are played directly into their minds.I thought the purpose was to prevent people being terrorized... ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well I think part of the point here is that there's no "perfect security".
It all has trade-offs in terms of cost, accessibility, and even opening new security holes.
For example, if you put a bunch of robots in charge and have no people present, that means that there's no one monitoring the robots.
If a robot is hacked, it could do absolutely anything.
Not having a single conscious person on the flight means that if a terrorist somehow gets on, no one will be there to take him down.
Or there's this:In case of emergency, all crates have auto-ejectors.That seems like something you could exploit.
Even if you can't cause an actual problem on the flight, if you can cause enough of an appearance of a problem to trigger the auto-ejectors, then you could potentially dump the passengers anywhere along the flight course you wanted.
Given the right flight plan, you might be able to dump everyone into a volcano or something.
At the very least, you could probably find a way to drop the crates into a building or drop them into an inhospitable place (the middle of an ocean, maybe...?).
There is no perfect security.
The goal should be to find a balance which discourages attackers and makes it more likely that attackers will be caught without inconveniencing innocent people too much.
And then there's this:Passengers are hooked up to neural interface, and last years crappy films are played directly into their minds.I thought the purpose was to prevent people being terrorized...?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660646</id>
	<title>Re:That's a really stupid idea!</title>
	<author>Xeno man</author>
	<datestamp>1262686140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually it's been show that profiling makes things less safe. Let me explain.

There is a limited amount of resources to thoroughly inspect everyone. Most people like yourself get waved through. Lets say about 5\% of people get the special treatment of a full inspection. That only changes when you either hire more staff to do more or choose not to inspect as many people as possible meaning less inspections.
Now lets start profiling and devote 4\% to Muslims and shifty eye people and the nervous looking lot and still do 1\% random inspection just so they can't call us raciest.
Want to know if your being profiled? Just start flying. Fly all over and see how often you get the special treatment. If you get pulled aside a few times, your probably not the best choice for carrying the bomb or knife or what ever.
Now if you get waved through all the time you know your not being profiled and have a much better chance of bringing something on board that isn't allowed. Before you had a 5\% chance of being inspected but now there is only a 1\% chance. Seems less safe to me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually it 's been show that profiling makes things less safe .
Let me explain .
There is a limited amount of resources to thoroughly inspect everyone .
Most people like yourself get waved through .
Lets say about 5 \ % of people get the special treatment of a full inspection .
That only changes when you either hire more staff to do more or choose not to inspect as many people as possible meaning less inspections .
Now lets start profiling and devote 4 \ % to Muslims and shifty eye people and the nervous looking lot and still do 1 \ % random inspection just so they ca n't call us raciest .
Want to know if your being profiled ?
Just start flying .
Fly all over and see how often you get the special treatment .
If you get pulled aside a few times , your probably not the best choice for carrying the bomb or knife or what ever .
Now if you get waved through all the time you know your not being profiled and have a much better chance of bringing something on board that is n't allowed .
Before you had a 5 \ % chance of being inspected but now there is only a 1 \ % chance .
Seems less safe to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually it's been show that profiling makes things less safe.
Let me explain.
There is a limited amount of resources to thoroughly inspect everyone.
Most people like yourself get waved through.
Lets say about 5\% of people get the special treatment of a full inspection.
That only changes when you either hire more staff to do more or choose not to inspect as many people as possible meaning less inspections.
Now lets start profiling and devote 4\% to Muslims and shifty eye people and the nervous looking lot and still do 1\% random inspection just so they can't call us raciest.
Want to know if your being profiled?
Just start flying.
Fly all over and see how often you get the special treatment.
If you get pulled aside a few times, your probably not the best choice for carrying the bomb or knife or what ever.
Now if you get waved through all the time you know your not being profiled and have a much better chance of bringing something on board that isn't allowed.
Before you had a 5\% chance of being inspected but now there is only a 1\% chance.
Seems less safe to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30674532</id>
	<title>You'd be right, if an actual terrorist did it.</title>
	<author>ReedYoung</author>
	<datestamp>1262770500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>However, remember that the point of terrorism is to cause fear and economic loss to industrialized countries, and to bait us into a self-destructive overreaction. By that standard, they guy who walked through the wrong gate pulled off a pretty impressive piece of terrorism, at basically no real risk to himself. You don't want to enshrine a system where this sort of exploit is possible, or else every group with a quibble can hold an airport hostage.</p></div></blockquote><p>
But it wasn't a terrorist, and the occasional occurrences Schneier is analysing are also not terrorism, they're just cases of travelers taking the shortest route from point a to point b, which also happens to be a prohibited route, past dozing guards or whatever.  Currently, this is not a terrorist tactic and we have no reason to suspect it will become one, so it should not be treated as though it is a threat.  It is just an inconvenience, and not even high on the list of inconveniences.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>However , remember that the point of terrorism is to cause fear and economic loss to industrialized countries , and to bait us into a self-destructive overreaction .
By that standard , they guy who walked through the wrong gate pulled off a pretty impressive piece of terrorism , at basically no real risk to himself .
You do n't want to enshrine a system where this sort of exploit is possible , or else every group with a quibble can hold an airport hostage .
But it was n't a terrorist , and the occasional occurrences Schneier is analysing are also not terrorism , they 're just cases of travelers taking the shortest route from point a to point b , which also happens to be a prohibited route , past dozing guards or whatever .
Currently , this is not a terrorist tactic and we have no reason to suspect it will become one , so it should not be treated as though it is a threat .
It is just an inconvenience , and not even high on the list of inconveniences .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However, remember that the point of terrorism is to cause fear and economic loss to industrialized countries, and to bait us into a self-destructive overreaction.
By that standard, they guy who walked through the wrong gate pulled off a pretty impressive piece of terrorism, at basically no real risk to himself.
You don't want to enshrine a system where this sort of exploit is possible, or else every group with a quibble can hold an airport hostage.
But it wasn't a terrorist, and the occasional occurrences Schneier is analysing are also not terrorism, they're just cases of travelers taking the shortest route from point a to point b, which also happens to be a prohibited route, past dozing guards or whatever.
Currently, this is not a terrorist tactic and we have no reason to suspect it will become one, so it should not be treated as though it is a threat.
It is just an inconvenience, and not even high on the list of inconveniences.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659404</id>
	<title>Ultimate Security Solution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262724540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just ban everyone from airplanes altogether. Problem solved.</p><p>(It seems as if we're heading down that road, really...)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just ban everyone from airplanes altogether .
Problem solved .
( It seems as if we 're heading down that road , really... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just ban everyone from airplanes altogether.
Problem solved.
(It seems as if we're heading down that road, really...)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659836</id>
	<title>Sep 11</title>
	<author>nsayer</author>
	<datestamp>1262683380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I take it a step further.</p><p>The security theater that has been implemented since 2001 has raised the cost (in dollars, time and convenience) of air travel enough to divert enough travelers to the nations highways that I posit that we as a nation have suffered more death and injury than had we reacted to the Sep 11 attacks by literally doing nothing at all.</p><p>We kill more people on the roads annually than more than 15 such attacks would have done.</p><p>Meanwhile, UBL's grand master plan stopped working <i>even before the last airplane was grounded that day</i> - the passengers found out that the rules (give hijackers what they want and you get out alive) had changed and the last plane did not make its target. And because everybody knows the new rules of engagement, that plan will never work again - regardless of any changes (or lack thereof) in government policy.</p><p>There are exactly 3 things necessary for airport security:</p><p>1. Make sure that no luggage gets on the plane without its associated passenger (you can't blow up the plane without going along for the ride).</p><p>2. Metal detectors to keep guns out. The alternative is allowing anybody to carry, thus insuring the entire plane will wind up swiss cheese if any funny business starts. That's a less than positive outcome, IMHO.</p><p>3. Lock and bar the cockpit doors for the flight's duration.</p><p>And for extra credit</p><p>4. Research applying the military's UAV technology to the air transport system. If enough improvements can be made in assuring positive aircraft control, there's no reason the flight deck as we know it needs to exist on the plane at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I take it a step further.The security theater that has been implemented since 2001 has raised the cost ( in dollars , time and convenience ) of air travel enough to divert enough travelers to the nations highways that I posit that we as a nation have suffered more death and injury than had we reacted to the Sep 11 attacks by literally doing nothing at all.We kill more people on the roads annually than more than 15 such attacks would have done.Meanwhile , UBL 's grand master plan stopped working even before the last airplane was grounded that day - the passengers found out that the rules ( give hijackers what they want and you get out alive ) had changed and the last plane did not make its target .
And because everybody knows the new rules of engagement , that plan will never work again - regardless of any changes ( or lack thereof ) in government policy.There are exactly 3 things necessary for airport security : 1 .
Make sure that no luggage gets on the plane without its associated passenger ( you ca n't blow up the plane without going along for the ride ) .2 .
Metal detectors to keep guns out .
The alternative is allowing anybody to carry , thus insuring the entire plane will wind up swiss cheese if any funny business starts .
That 's a less than positive outcome , IMHO.3 .
Lock and bar the cockpit doors for the flight 's duration.And for extra credit4 .
Research applying the military 's UAV technology to the air transport system .
If enough improvements can be made in assuring positive aircraft control , there 's no reason the flight deck as we know it needs to exist on the plane at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I take it a step further.The security theater that has been implemented since 2001 has raised the cost (in dollars, time and convenience) of air travel enough to divert enough travelers to the nations highways that I posit that we as a nation have suffered more death and injury than had we reacted to the Sep 11 attacks by literally doing nothing at all.We kill more people on the roads annually than more than 15 such attacks would have done.Meanwhile, UBL's grand master plan stopped working even before the last airplane was grounded that day - the passengers found out that the rules (give hijackers what they want and you get out alive) had changed and the last plane did not make its target.
And because everybody knows the new rules of engagement, that plan will never work again - regardless of any changes (or lack thereof) in government policy.There are exactly 3 things necessary for airport security:1.
Make sure that no luggage gets on the plane without its associated passenger (you can't blow up the plane without going along for the ride).2.
Metal detectors to keep guns out.
The alternative is allowing anybody to carry, thus insuring the entire plane will wind up swiss cheese if any funny business starts.
That's a less than positive outcome, IMHO.3.
Lock and bar the cockpit doors for the flight's duration.And for extra credit4.
Research applying the military's UAV technology to the air transport system.
If enough improvements can be made in assuring positive aircraft control, there's no reason the flight deck as we know it needs to exist on the plane at all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30661308</id>
	<title>I love you Americans</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262688840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, okay, so someone flew two airplanes into the World Trade center, a third into the Pentagon, and a fourth into the ground in Pennsylvania. May I remind you Americans that all of those people HAD TICKETS!!! They did not 'sneak' on to the planes. They did not have bombs or guns. All they had were box cutters. BOX CUTTERS! As far as we know everyone on board three passenger jets just sat there and watched it happen. Only on the fourth plane did anyone take a stand.</p><p>Here's your security solution and it doesn't require guns or x-rays or guards with rubber gloves.</p><p>1) Grow some balls. When people come to take over your plane suck it up and go die.<br>2) Realize that life isn't TV. Quit sitting around and waiting for other people to do something.<br>3) Armor and seal the cockpit doors before take off. No one in or out until the wheels hit the ground.<br>4) Train the stewardesses in hand-to-hand combat techniques.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , okay , so someone flew two airplanes into the World Trade center , a third into the Pentagon , and a fourth into the ground in Pennsylvania .
May I remind you Americans that all of those people HAD TICKETS ! ! !
They did not 'sneak ' on to the planes .
They did not have bombs or guns .
All they had were box cutters .
BOX CUTTERS !
As far as we know everyone on board three passenger jets just sat there and watched it happen .
Only on the fourth plane did anyone take a stand.Here 's your security solution and it does n't require guns or x-rays or guards with rubber gloves.1 ) Grow some balls .
When people come to take over your plane suck it up and go die.2 ) Realize that life is n't TV .
Quit sitting around and waiting for other people to do something.3 ) Armor and seal the cockpit doors before take off .
No one in or out until the wheels hit the ground.4 ) Train the stewardesses in hand-to-hand combat techniques .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, okay, so someone flew two airplanes into the World Trade center, a third into the Pentagon, and a fourth into the ground in Pennsylvania.
May I remind you Americans that all of those people HAD TICKETS!!!
They did not 'sneak' on to the planes.
They did not have bombs or guns.
All they had were box cutters.
BOX CUTTERS!
As far as we know everyone on board three passenger jets just sat there and watched it happen.
Only on the fourth plane did anyone take a stand.Here's your security solution and it doesn't require guns or x-rays or guards with rubber gloves.1) Grow some balls.
When people come to take over your plane suck it up and go die.2) Realize that life isn't TV.
Quit sitting around and waiting for other people to do something.3) Armor and seal the cockpit doors before take off.
No one in or out until the wheels hit the ground.4) Train the stewardesses in hand-to-hand combat techniques.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30691326</id>
	<title>TSA Hooliganism on parade</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262892180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now they are adding hostages to their bag of extortion and black market tricks.</p><p>The sad thing about national security, let alone airline security, is that even if<br>any of the minions, from Janet Planet Neopolitan all the way down to the TSA<br>goons, had a single sheet of paper, with the aledged perp's name on it, the ONLY<br>name, and a message to stop him from boarding a flight to the US, nothing<br>would have been done, because each and every human in the US security<br>"animal house" does NOT have the intelligence to understand, reason, "connect<br>the dots", or even behave rationally, as the Newark Incident has made perfectly<br>clear.</p><p>Basically, the function of the Department of Homeland Security is to be the last<br>resort for incompents, perverts and idiots to have a job, i.e. a safe haven for<br>the erstwhile unemployable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now they are adding hostages to their bag of extortion and black market tricks.The sad thing about national security , let alone airline security , is that even ifany of the minions , from Janet Planet Neopolitan all the way down to the TSAgoons , had a single sheet of paper , with the aledged perp 's name on it , the ONLYname , and a message to stop him from boarding a flight to the US , nothingwould have been done , because each and every human in the US security " animal house " does NOT have the intelligence to understand , reason , " connectthe dots " , or even behave rationally , as the Newark Incident has made perfectlyclear.Basically , the function of the Department of Homeland Security is to be the lastresort for incompents , perverts and idiots to have a job , i.e .
a safe haven forthe erstwhile unemployable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now they are adding hostages to their bag of extortion and black market tricks.The sad thing about national security, let alone airline security, is that even ifany of the minions, from Janet Planet Neopolitan all the way down to the TSAgoons, had a single sheet of paper, with the aledged perp's name on it, the ONLYname, and a message to stop him from boarding a flight to the US, nothingwould have been done, because each and every human in the US security"animal house" does NOT have the intelligence to understand, reason, "connectthe dots", or even behave rationally, as the Newark Incident has made perfectlyclear.Basically, the function of the Department of Homeland Security is to be the lastresort for incompents, perverts and idiots to have a job, i.e.
a safe haven forthe erstwhile unemployable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30675064</id>
	<title>Re:Death is not an inconvenience?</title>
	<author>LeadSongDog</author>
	<datestamp>1262773260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>19 bytes ought to do it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>19 bytes ought to do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>19 bytes ought to do it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659708</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1813217_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30665552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1813217_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30671048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1813217_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1813217_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1813217_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660174
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1813217_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659444
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1813217_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660428
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1813217_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30662552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1813217_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30670320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1813217_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659930
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1813217_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30661656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1813217_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30662504
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1813217_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30665164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1813217_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1813217_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660940
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1813217_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1813217_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30661710
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1813217_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1813217_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1813217_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30662586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1813217_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30661900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1813217_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30661192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1813217_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1813217_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659524
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1813217_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660646
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1813217_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1813217_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1813217_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30667682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1813217_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30662502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1813217_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30661024
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1813217_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30663608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1813217_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30674532
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1813217_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1813217_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1813217_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30661634
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1813217_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30661898
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1813217_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30661724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1813217_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30675064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1813217_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30661150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1813217_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30661162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1813217_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30662398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1813217_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1813217_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1813217_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30661524
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1813217_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30661230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1813217_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30661254
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1813217_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30661810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30662216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1813217_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660254
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1813217_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30661968
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1813217_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30661426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1813217_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659950
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1813217_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30661198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1813217_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1813217_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1813217_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30661154
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1813217_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30666274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1813217_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30661966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1813217_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30668140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1813217_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30663888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1813217_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30663588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1813217_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30661044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1813217_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30662880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1813217_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30665092
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1813217_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30661414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1813217_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659892
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1813217_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1813217_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30661620
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1813217_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30661830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1813217_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30664398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1813217_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1813217_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1813217_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30669082
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1813217_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660114
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1813217_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1813217_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659332
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1813217_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660138
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1813217_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659256
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1813217_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30662822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30666388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1813217_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1813217.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659240
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30661620
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660174
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659444
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660254
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659708
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30675064
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30661230
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659496
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30661656
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1813217.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659724
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1813217.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659750
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1813217.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660044
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1813217.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659836
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30665164
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30662822
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30666388
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30661900
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30670320
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30661966
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30661898
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1813217.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30665160
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1813217.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659404
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30663588
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30662504
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1813217.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659580
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1813217.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659486
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30661254
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659930
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30662586
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30661710
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30661414
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1813217.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659342
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1813217.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659386
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659778
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660640
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659840
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30663608
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1813217.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659154
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660138
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660114
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659476
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660062
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660912
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659206
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30661634
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30661426
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30661044
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30661198
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660064
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659540
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659332
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659256
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659524
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659228
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659474
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30665092
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659646
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660630
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660258
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660808
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660686
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660298
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660160
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30669082
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30661192
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660652
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30667682
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659716
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30661024
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660494
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30671048
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30661162
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1813217.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30661314
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1813217.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659598
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659892
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659950
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1813217.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659330
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659424
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30666274
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30662398
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660838
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660428
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660848
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659914
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659526
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659638
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1813217.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30662768
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1813217.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659482
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30661968
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659932
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30662552
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30662502
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659788
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30661724
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30661524
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30661150
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30661830
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30662880
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1813217.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659702
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1813217.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659464
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1813217.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659946
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1813217.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659406
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30665552
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660206
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30661810
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30662216
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660940
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30663888
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30668140
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660858
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660646
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30664398
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30674532
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660230
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30661154
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1813217.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30660612
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1813217.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30659248
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1813217.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1813217.30661446
</commentlist>
</conversation>
