<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_14_1637251</id>
	<title>Google Attackers Identified as Chinese Government</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1263491160000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>forand writes <i>Researchers, examining the attacks on Google and over 20 other companies in December, have determined 'the source IPs and drop server of the attack correspond to a single foreign entity consisting either of <a href="http://arstechnica.com/security/news/2010/01/researchers-identify-command-servers-behind-google-attack.ars">agents of the Chinese state or proxies thereof</a>.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>forand writes Researchers , examining the attacks on Google and over 20 other companies in December , have determined 'the source IPs and drop server of the attack correspond to a single foreign entity consisting either of agents of the Chinese state or proxies thereof .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>forand writes Researchers, examining the attacks on Google and over 20 other companies in December, have determined 'the source IPs and drop server of the attack correspond to a single foreign entity consisting either of agents of the Chinese state or proxies thereof.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767294</id>
	<title>MOD PARENT DOWN</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263495180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Idiot is trying to get a +5, Insightful rating by FP'ing idiot banter. Amen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Idiot is trying to get a + 5 , Insightful rating by FP'ing idiot banter .
Amen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Idiot is trying to get a +5, Insightful rating by FP'ing idiot banter.
Amen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767570</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263495960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This question is repeated endlessly at almost every major world event, "Does this come as a surprise to anyone?"</p><p>Stop already, its just a useless waste of bits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This question is repeated endlessly at almost every major world event , " Does this come as a surprise to anyone ?
" Stop already , its just a useless waste of bits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This question is repeated endlessly at almost every major world event, "Does this come as a surprise to anyone?
"Stop already, its just a useless waste of bits.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768996</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>maxwell demon</author>
	<datestamp>1263500460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>This question is repeated endlessly at almost every major world event</p></div></blockquote><p>Does this come as a surprise to anyone?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This question is repeated endlessly at almost every major world eventDoes this come as a surprise to anyone ?
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This question is repeated endlessly at almost every major world eventDoes this come as a surprise to anyone?
:-)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767384</id>
	<title>SHOCKING</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1263495480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who didn't see that one coming from a mile away? I called it the moment I read that there was a sophisticated attack on Google.</p><p>Whether its all fabricated or not, I like the idea of Google pulling out of China. Google is one of the leading innovators in the western world - and by keeping their services out of China it sends a message to the government: Stop Oppression.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who did n't see that one coming from a mile away ?
I called it the moment I read that there was a sophisticated attack on Google.Whether its all fabricated or not , I like the idea of Google pulling out of China .
Google is one of the leading innovators in the western world - and by keeping their services out of China it sends a message to the government : Stop Oppression .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who didn't see that one coming from a mile away?
I called it the moment I read that there was a sophisticated attack on Google.Whether its all fabricated or not, I like the idea of Google pulling out of China.
Google is one of the leading innovators in the western world - and by keeping their services out of China it sends a message to the government: Stop Oppression.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30776616</id>
	<title>Re:No, Seriously...</title>
	<author>IrquiM</author>
	<datestamp>1263550860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think it has something to do with Chinese savings now being the foundation of much of the western economy, and the fact that China is a major nuclear power.</p></div><p>Please, don't confuse "western economy" and "US economy" - they are two different things, but you are correct in that US eceonomy is (or soon used to be) a part of the western economy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it has something to do with Chinese savings now being the foundation of much of the western economy , and the fact that China is a major nuclear power.Please , do n't confuse " western economy " and " US economy " - they are two different things , but you are correct in that US eceonomy is ( or soon used to be ) a part of the western economy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it has something to do with Chinese savings now being the foundation of much of the western economy, and the fact that China is a major nuclear power.Please, don't confuse "western economy" and "US economy" - they are two different things, but you are correct in that US eceonomy is (or soon used to be) a part of the western economy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767854</id>
	<title>Re:No, Seriously...</title>
	<author>Neoprofin</author>
	<datestamp>1263496920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem with this theory of winning the new cold war simply by buying the opponent is that it doesn't, and can't, lead to any kind of victory.

By investing in US debt China has bound themselves in an unholy blood pact to the U.S. economy. We on some level need them to continue pouring money into the economy to pay for poorly thought out foreign policy, they on the other hand need us to continue to prosper or all of their investments become worthless. If one side wins both sides win, if one sides loose both sides loose. The Chinese have already shown their realization of this in their effort to keep interest rates low to prevent inflation from devaluing their assets.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with this theory of winning the new cold war simply by buying the opponent is that it does n't , and ca n't , lead to any kind of victory .
By investing in US debt China has bound themselves in an unholy blood pact to the U.S. economy. We on some level need them to continue pouring money into the economy to pay for poorly thought out foreign policy , they on the other hand need us to continue to prosper or all of their investments become worthless .
If one side wins both sides win , if one sides loose both sides loose .
The Chinese have already shown their realization of this in their effort to keep interest rates low to prevent inflation from devaluing their assets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with this theory of winning the new cold war simply by buying the opponent is that it doesn't, and can't, lead to any kind of victory.
By investing in US debt China has bound themselves in an unholy blood pact to the U.S. economy. We on some level need them to continue pouring money into the economy to pay for poorly thought out foreign policy, they on the other hand need us to continue to prosper or all of their investments become worthless.
If one side wins both sides win, if one sides loose both sides loose.
The Chinese have already shown their realization of this in their effort to keep interest rates low to prevent inflation from devaluing their assets.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30772472</id>
	<title>Credible source</title>
	<author>henrypijames</author>
	<datestamp>1263470940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From TFA: "Citing sources in the defense contracting and intelligence consulting community, the iDefense report unambiguously declares that the Chinese government was, in fact, behind the effort."</p><p>Right, for what possible sinister reason could people in the American "defense contracting and intelligence consulting community" have to paint China as a threat to US national security?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFA : " Citing sources in the defense contracting and intelligence consulting community , the iDefense report unambiguously declares that the Chinese government was , in fact , behind the effort .
" Right , for what possible sinister reason could people in the American " defense contracting and intelligence consulting community " have to paint China as a threat to US national security ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFA: "Citing sources in the defense contracting and intelligence consulting community, the iDefense report unambiguously declares that the Chinese government was, in fact, behind the effort.
"Right, for what possible sinister reason could people in the American "defense contracting and intelligence consulting community" have to paint China as a threat to US national security?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30771276</id>
	<title>Re:Unleash the hounds</title>
	<author>alop</author>
	<datestamp>1263465420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wish slashdot had a "Like" button.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wish slashdot had a " Like " button .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wish slashdot had a "Like" button.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767878</id>
	<title>Oooo....</title>
	<author>Hasai</author>
	<datestamp>1263496980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry, but the only sort of "Stop Oppression" message a totalitarian state ever pays attention to is the the type that's steel-jacketed and arrives at a velocity of 930 m/s.</p><p>A "stiff letter of diplomatic protest" doesn't cut it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , but the only sort of " Stop Oppression " message a totalitarian state ever pays attention to is the the type that 's steel-jacketed and arrives at a velocity of 930 m/s.A " stiff letter of diplomatic protest " does n't cut it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, but the only sort of "Stop Oppression" message a totalitarian state ever pays attention to is the the type that's steel-jacketed and arrives at a velocity of 930 m/s.A "stiff letter of diplomatic protest" doesn't cut it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30769796</id>
	<title>Re:But...</title>
	<author>calmofthestorm</author>
	<datestamp>1263460080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Works great if you're a stand up comedian.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Works great if you 're a stand up comedian .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Works great if you're a stand up comedian.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767438</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30788760</id>
	<title>Re:Our response is?</title>
	<author>yuhong</author>
	<datestamp>1263636840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yep, the problems of shareholder value and agency theory yet again. I even wrote a slashdot submission on it that was rejected.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep , the problems of shareholder value and agency theory yet again .
I even wrote a slashdot submission on it that was rejected .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep, the problems of shareholder value and agency theory yet again.
I even wrote a slashdot submission on it that was rejected.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767432</id>
	<title>Re:can't say i'm surprised</title>
	<author>oodaloop</author>
	<datestamp>1263495600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm sure we'll respond with the same resolute and determined stance as we did with the Christmas Day Bomber.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure we 'll respond with the same resolute and determined stance as we did with the Christmas Day Bomber .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure we'll respond with the same resolute and determined stance as we did with the Christmas Day Bomber.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767390</id>
	<title>Write Google</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263495480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>and tell them how proud you are that they finally took a stance befitting their "do no evil" stance. Better late than never, and they deserve our support for this courageous action. I for one have changed my mind about them significantly based on this single action alone.</htmltext>
<tokenext>and tell them how proud you are that they finally took a stance befitting their " do no evil " stance .
Better late than never , and they deserve our support for this courageous action .
I for one have changed my mind about them significantly based on this single action alone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and tell them how proud you are that they finally took a stance befitting their "do no evil" stance.
Better late than never, and they deserve our support for this courageous action.
I for one have changed my mind about them significantly based on this single action alone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30776914</id>
	<title>Re:Unleash the hounds</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263555120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Imagine if China pissed off "the community"... Oh you want updates for your linux servers?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Imagine if China pissed off " the community " ... Oh you want updates for your linux servers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Imagine if China pissed off "the community"... Oh you want updates for your linux servers?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30779044</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263571680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Universities: now is the time to step up, go public, and admit you too were victims of IP theft at the hands of Chinese.  I'm at one of the top research universities in the US.  I can tell you our data servers have been hit by Chinese IPs taking gigabytes of unpublished data.  The university, however, is too PC to step and do something about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Universities : now is the time to step up , go public , and admit you too were victims of IP theft at the hands of Chinese .
I 'm at one of the top research universities in the US .
I can tell you our data servers have been hit by Chinese IPs taking gigabytes of unpublished data .
The university , however , is too PC to step and do something about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Universities: now is the time to step up, go public, and admit you too were victims of IP theft at the hands of Chinese.
I'm at one of the top research universities in the US.
I can tell you our data servers have been hit by Chinese IPs taking gigabytes of unpublished data.
The university, however, is too PC to step and do something about it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767468</id>
	<title>Re:Finally above ground</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263495660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I couldn't agree more. Something else is clearly going on here. The response by government officials is a marked difference from previous instances of espionage conducted by China. My wild speculation is that the information which was sought was of a different calibre than previously seen, that is they wanted to use the information to quash internal strife. The US has been playing along with China in the belief that given a long enough time they will succumb to a free market capitalism. Perhaps the US government is finally realizing that to change China needs to have information more widely available.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I could n't agree more .
Something else is clearly going on here .
The response by government officials is a marked difference from previous instances of espionage conducted by China .
My wild speculation is that the information which was sought was of a different calibre than previously seen , that is they wanted to use the information to quash internal strife .
The US has been playing along with China in the belief that given a long enough time they will succumb to a free market capitalism .
Perhaps the US government is finally realizing that to change China needs to have information more widely available .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I couldn't agree more.
Something else is clearly going on here.
The response by government officials is a marked difference from previous instances of espionage conducted by China.
My wild speculation is that the information which was sought was of a different calibre than previously seen, that is they wanted to use the information to quash internal strife.
The US has been playing along with China in the belief that given a long enough time they will succumb to a free market capitalism.
Perhaps the US government is finally realizing that to change China needs to have information more widely available.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767958</id>
	<title>and this is a surprise, exactly, how?</title>
	<author>swschrad</author>
	<datestamp>1263497220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>even more fun if your computer uses processors that were fabbed in China, I suspect.  else why would DoD have a certified fab system to insure there are no back doors?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>even more fun if your computer uses processors that were fabbed in China , I suspect .
else why would DoD have a certified fab system to insure there are no back doors ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>even more fun if your computer uses processors that were fabbed in China, I suspect.
else why would DoD have a certified fab system to insure there are no back doors?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767888</id>
	<title>Re:Write Google</title>
	<author>Dutchie</author>
	<datestamp>1263496980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Curious what people think about Google's actions. Vote on: <a href="http://wordpress.3dn.nl/2010/01/14/google-china/" title="3dn.nl">Don't be evil</a> [3dn.nl].</htmltext>
<tokenext>Curious what people think about Google 's actions .
Vote on : Do n't be evil [ 3dn.nl ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Curious what people think about Google's actions.
Vote on: Don't be evil [3dn.nl].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30769724</id>
	<title>Re:In the words of Master from Mad Max: Thunderdom</title>
	<author>natehoy</author>
	<datestamp>1263459720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Two countries go in, one come out.</p><p>I'm not all that confident of the outcome, though...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Two countries go in , one come out.I 'm not all that confident of the outcome , though.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Two countries go in, one come out.I'm not all that confident of the outcome, though...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767606</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30788436</id>
	<title>oldschool for sure</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263672120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The hong kong blondes did it</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The hong kong blondes did it</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The hong kong blondes did it</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767242</id>
	<title>and...</title>
	<author>tangelogee</author>
	<datestamp>1263495000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>...dun dun duuuuuuunnnnnn...
(cheesy cliffhanger music)</htmltext>
<tokenext>...dun dun duuuuuuunnnnnn.. . ( cheesy cliffhanger music )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...dun dun duuuuuuunnnnnn...
(cheesy cliffhanger music)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30777170</id>
	<title>Cheap mudslinging</title>
	<author>jandersen</author>
	<datestamp>1263557760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So "researchers" have determined that this was in fact perpetrated by "the Chinese government"? Why is it that one should have confidence in an article that refers to unspecified "researchers" and "sources in the defense contracting and intelligence consulting community"? As far as I can see, the article makes largely unsubstantiated claims, such as:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The source IPs and drop server of the attack correspond to a single foreign entity consisting either of agents of the Chinese state or proxies thereof</p></div><p>Why don't they tell us what that "single, foreign entity" is? Apart from the fact that you can spoof your IP address very easily; something I think we can assume a Chinese agent would take advantage of. In fact, if the IP addresses used are so easily traced back to China, could it not be because somebody wants to point a finger in that direction? Nah, I'm probably just too suspicious.</p><p>It is not that I can't believe that an agency in the Chinese state would engage in undercover activity, even if the execution seems a bit amateurish; I just hate it when people insult my intelligence like this.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So " researchers " have determined that this was in fact perpetrated by " the Chinese government " ?
Why is it that one should have confidence in an article that refers to unspecified " researchers " and " sources in the defense contracting and intelligence consulting community " ?
As far as I can see , the article makes largely unsubstantiated claims , such as : The source IPs and drop server of the attack correspond to a single foreign entity consisting either of agents of the Chinese state or proxies thereofWhy do n't they tell us what that " single , foreign entity " is ?
Apart from the fact that you can spoof your IP address very easily ; something I think we can assume a Chinese agent would take advantage of .
In fact , if the IP addresses used are so easily traced back to China , could it not be because somebody wants to point a finger in that direction ?
Nah , I 'm probably just too suspicious.It is not that I ca n't believe that an agency in the Chinese state would engage in undercover activity , even if the execution seems a bit amateurish ; I just hate it when people insult my intelligence like this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So "researchers" have determined that this was in fact perpetrated by "the Chinese government"?
Why is it that one should have confidence in an article that refers to unspecified "researchers" and "sources in the defense contracting and intelligence consulting community"?
As far as I can see, the article makes largely unsubstantiated claims, such as:The source IPs and drop server of the attack correspond to a single foreign entity consisting either of agents of the Chinese state or proxies thereofWhy don't they tell us what that "single, foreign entity" is?
Apart from the fact that you can spoof your IP address very easily; something I think we can assume a Chinese agent would take advantage of.
In fact, if the IP addresses used are so easily traced back to China, could it not be because somebody wants to point a finger in that direction?
Nah, I'm probably just too suspicious.It is not that I can't believe that an agency in the Chinese state would engage in undercover activity, even if the execution seems a bit amateurish; I just hate it when people insult my intelligence like this.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30772124</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263469380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are we running out of bits?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are we running out of bits ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are we running out of bits?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768004</id>
	<title>Re:But...</title>
	<author>dave562</author>
	<datestamp>1263497340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The articles I've read have only had two details that are relevant to your question.  According to the Wall Street Journal, one of the primary focuses of the investigation is a compromised server at RackSpace (big surprise, right?).  The details about the forensic analysis of that server haven't been available, but it appears to have been the equivalent of the digital dead drop through which information was passed.  The second detail is that most if not all of the attacks appear to have originated in Taiwan.  According to the article, the Chinese often use compromised Taiwanese machines to proxy their hacks through.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The articles I 've read have only had two details that are relevant to your question .
According to the Wall Street Journal , one of the primary focuses of the investigation is a compromised server at RackSpace ( big surprise , right ? ) .
The details about the forensic analysis of that server have n't been available , but it appears to have been the equivalent of the digital dead drop through which information was passed .
The second detail is that most if not all of the attacks appear to have originated in Taiwan .
According to the article , the Chinese often use compromised Taiwanese machines to proxy their hacks through .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The articles I've read have only had two details that are relevant to your question.
According to the Wall Street Journal, one of the primary focuses of the investigation is a compromised server at RackSpace (big surprise, right?).
The details about the forensic analysis of that server haven't been available, but it appears to have been the equivalent of the digital dead drop through which information was passed.
The second detail is that most if not all of the attacks appear to have originated in Taiwan.
According to the article, the Chinese often use compromised Taiwanese machines to proxy their hacks through.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767208</id>
	<title>World War III - The Cyber War</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263494880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Coming to a planet near you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Coming to a planet near you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Coming to a planet near you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30769294</id>
	<title>Re:Our response is?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263501420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dont you have a 401k plan?  if you do youre a shareholder, unless youre a moron and its sitting in cash earning<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.1\%.  If you arent a shareholder of any corporation in this country, you need a better job, or you need to get a clue.  If you are, then you just want money, and youre talking shit about yourself, which is kind of fun to do sometimes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dont you have a 401k plan ?
if you do youre a shareholder , unless youre a moron and its sitting in cash earning .1 \ % .
If you arent a shareholder of any corporation in this country , you need a better job , or you need to get a clue .
If you are , then you just want money , and youre talking shit about yourself , which is kind of fun to do sometimes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dont you have a 401k plan?
if you do youre a shareholder, unless youre a moron and its sitting in cash earning .1\%.
If you arent a shareholder of any corporation in this country, you need a better job, or you need to get a clue.
If you are, then you just want money, and youre talking shit about yourself, which is kind of fun to do sometimes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30771040</id>
	<title>Really</title>
	<author>doomicon</author>
	<datestamp>1263464580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"If the report's findings are correct, it suggests that the government of China has been engaged for months in a massive campaign of industrial espionage against US companies."</p><p>Thank you Captain Obvious, isn't this common knowledge.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" If the report 's findings are correct , it suggests that the government of China has been engaged for months in a massive campaign of industrial espionage against US companies .
" Thank you Captain Obvious , is n't this common knowledge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"If the report's findings are correct, it suggests that the government of China has been engaged for months in a massive campaign of industrial espionage against US companies.
"Thank you Captain Obvious, isn't this common knowledge.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30773698</id>
	<title>Re:Fight China -- the capitalist way!</title>
	<author>JordanL</author>
	<datestamp>1263477300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thank you Clinton.[/sarcasm]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank you Clinton .
[ /sarcasm ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank you Clinton.
[/sarcasm]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30774980</id>
	<title>Bow to your search engine overlords...</title>
	<author>kd4zqe</author>
	<datestamp>1263487140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not sure that China knows what they're messing with. If they keep poking Google's assets, the GoogCloud could very well go SkyNet on their asses.<br> <br>

"Google's Search Algorithm became self-aware at 3:37am on Friday, January 15 2010."</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure that China knows what they 're messing with .
If they keep poking Google 's assets , the GoogCloud could very well go SkyNet on their asses .
" Google 's Search Algorithm became self-aware at 3 : 37am on Friday , January 15 2010 .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure that China knows what they're messing with.
If they keep poking Google's assets, the GoogCloud could very well go SkyNet on their asses.
"Google's Search Algorithm became self-aware at 3:37am on Friday, January 15 2010.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767416</id>
	<title>heh</title>
	<author>mackinaw\_apx </author>
	<datestamp>1263495600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>God damn mongorians, tear down my shitty (fire)wok!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/southpark</htmltext>
<tokenext>God damn mongorians , tear down my shitty ( fire ) wok !
/southpark</tokentext>
<sentencetext>God damn mongorians, tear down my shitty (fire)wok!
/southpark</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768896</id>
	<title>Re:can't say i'm surprised</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1263500160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Reminds me of a story I read about during the cold war, when the US built their embassy in Russia, they did it with American labor, but the materials came from Russia.  Russian spies couldn't resist the opportunity, and built bugs into the building materials.  Seems they got away with it for a while, but when the US rebuilt their embassy, they imported all the materials as well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Reminds me of a story I read about during the cold war , when the US built their embassy in Russia , they did it with American labor , but the materials came from Russia .
Russian spies could n't resist the opportunity , and built bugs into the building materials .
Seems they got away with it for a while , but when the US rebuilt their embassy , they imported all the materials as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reminds me of a story I read about during the cold war, when the US built their embassy in Russia, they did it with American labor, but the materials came from Russia.
Russian spies couldn't resist the opportunity, and built bugs into the building materials.
Seems they got away with it for a while, but when the US rebuilt their embassy, they imported all the materials as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768114</id>
	<title>Afraid and will jump on anything.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263497640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All this fuss makes it clear how threatened Americans feel. Amazing how easily manipulated people are, that is if the conclusion is wrong/faked. A few more dubios stories like this and all you rednecks will want to go to war again... priceless.</p><p>Al Queda is dead long live China!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All this fuss makes it clear how threatened Americans feel .
Amazing how easily manipulated people are , that is if the conclusion is wrong/faked .
A few more dubios stories like this and all you rednecks will want to go to war again... priceless.Al Queda is dead long live China !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All this fuss makes it clear how threatened Americans feel.
Amazing how easily manipulated people are, that is if the conclusion is wrong/faked.
A few more dubios stories like this and all you rednecks will want to go to war again... priceless.Al Queda is dead long live China!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768762</id>
	<title>Ball our fists, stamp our feet,</title>
	<author>Shivetya</author>
	<datestamp>1263499620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and wait for the next human rights atrocity they commit and repeat?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and wait for the next human rights atrocity they commit and repeat ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and wait for the next human rights atrocity they commit and repeat?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30769258</id>
	<title>Re:But...</title>
	<author>ydrol</author>
	<datestamp>1263501300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google just dropped in share price AND embroiled in international posturing with China AND is a tech company - I'd like to think they did their homework first!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google just dropped in share price AND embroiled in international posturing with China AND is a tech company - I 'd like to think they did their homework first !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google just dropped in share price AND embroiled in international posturing with China AND is a tech company - I'd like to think they did their homework first!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767506</id>
	<title>Buh bye to China</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263495720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know it was you, China. You broke my heart. You broke my heart!<br>sincerely,<br>Google.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know it was you , China .
You broke my heart .
You broke my heart ! sincerely,Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know it was you, China.
You broke my heart.
You broke my heart!sincerely,Google.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30770530</id>
	<title>It's not even illegal.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263462840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Chinese government hacking the servers of commercial firms in other countries is not even illegal.  They are following their own military commands. They have not signed or agreed to enforce those treaties.  They are exploiting weaknesses in commercial assets to take them by guile and skill for their own use without recourse.  How much longer do you think it will take for them to sign these treaties now?  10 seconds after effective security is installed?</p><p>JJ</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Chinese government hacking the servers of commercial firms in other countries is not even illegal .
They are following their own military commands .
They have not signed or agreed to enforce those treaties .
They are exploiting weaknesses in commercial assets to take them by guile and skill for their own use without recourse .
How much longer do you think it will take for them to sign these treaties now ?
10 seconds after effective security is installed ? JJ</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Chinese government hacking the servers of commercial firms in other countries is not even illegal.
They are following their own military commands.
They have not signed or agreed to enforce those treaties.
They are exploiting weaknesses in commercial assets to take them by guile and skill for their own use without recourse.
How much longer do you think it will take for them to sign these treaties now?
10 seconds after effective security is installed?JJ</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30769310</id>
	<title>Re:Unleash the hounds</title>
	<author>EMG at MU</author>
	<datestamp>1263501480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Are you suggesting that the U.S. or its citizens commit malicious attacks against a possibly uninvolved Chinese company's networks?
<br>
<br>
Would you also purpose that the U.S. or its citizens commit suicide attacks against the nations of origin of those who commit terrorist acts in the U.S?
<br>
<br>
Your thought process is reactionary, and not wise. If we are to expect to live in a civilized world, we can't go around breaking the same laws and ethics we are trying to live by just because someone else does.
<br>
<br>
As children we should have learned that just because little Billy broke the rules doesn't mean we can.
<br>
<br>
As a civilization we should have evloved past an eye for an eye.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you suggesting that the U.S. or its citizens commit malicious attacks against a possibly uninvolved Chinese company 's networks ?
Would you also purpose that the U.S. or its citizens commit suicide attacks against the nations of origin of those who commit terrorist acts in the U.S ?
Your thought process is reactionary , and not wise .
If we are to expect to live in a civilized world , we ca n't go around breaking the same laws and ethics we are trying to live by just because someone else does .
As children we should have learned that just because little Billy broke the rules does n't mean we can .
As a civilization we should have evloved past an eye for an eye .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you suggesting that the U.S. or its citizens commit malicious attacks against a possibly uninvolved Chinese company's networks?
Would you also purpose that the U.S. or its citizens commit suicide attacks against the nations of origin of those who commit terrorist acts in the U.S?
Your thought process is reactionary, and not wise.
If we are to expect to live in a civilized world, we can't go around breaking the same laws and ethics we are trying to live by just because someone else does.
As children we should have learned that just because little Billy broke the rules doesn't mean we can.
As a civilization we should have evloved past an eye for an eye.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30769244</id>
	<title>Re:can't say i'm surprised</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263501240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is this the norm now?</p><p>The 2 superpowers basically back-stab one another, and each just shrugs it off as business as usual? THAT is how International relations and business is going to continue flourishing?</p><p>This reeks of the powers that be maintaining a nice 'unstable' environment, just enough to put off 'social progress' for either side. On the U.S., see the opposite that is going on now... withering of rights, financially, as well as personal, and 'basic rights' still being suppressed in China.</p><p>Sadly, this sort of thing will be dealt with using kid-gloves and what amounts to a slightly louder than usual verbal warning. I hope the International Business community takes a good long look at this, and heeds the warning. China, no matter what the opportunity, is not a viable scenario for business.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this the norm now ? The 2 superpowers basically back-stab one another , and each just shrugs it off as business as usual ?
THAT is how International relations and business is going to continue flourishing ? This reeks of the powers that be maintaining a nice 'unstable ' environment , just enough to put off 'social progress ' for either side .
On the U.S. , see the opposite that is going on now... withering of rights , financially , as well as personal , and 'basic rights ' still being suppressed in China.Sadly , this sort of thing will be dealt with using kid-gloves and what amounts to a slightly louder than usual verbal warning .
I hope the International Business community takes a good long look at this , and heeds the warning .
China , no matter what the opportunity , is not a viable scenario for business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this the norm now?The 2 superpowers basically back-stab one another, and each just shrugs it off as business as usual?
THAT is how International relations and business is going to continue flourishing?This reeks of the powers that be maintaining a nice 'unstable' environment, just enough to put off 'social progress' for either side.
On the U.S., see the opposite that is going on now... withering of rights, financially, as well as personal, and 'basic rights' still being suppressed in China.Sadly, this sort of thing will be dealt with using kid-gloves and what amounts to a slightly louder than usual verbal warning.
I hope the International Business community takes a good long look at this, and heeds the warning.
China, no matter what the opportunity, is not a viable scenario for business.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767516</id>
	<title>Re:But...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263495780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That... or they'll just blame it on their status as a "developing nation" and that they shouldn't be held to the same standards as everyone else.</p></div><p>No, you see that works for things like terrible environmental practices, hostile work environments, and building up military strength. All those things help development, no matter how harsh they are.</p><p>Hacking Google does not help China develop its industries.</p><p>It'd be like saying "Sorry I read your email, Its because I'm a starving college student".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That... or they 'll just blame it on their status as a " developing nation " and that they should n't be held to the same standards as everyone else.No , you see that works for things like terrible environmental practices , hostile work environments , and building up military strength .
All those things help development , no matter how harsh they are.Hacking Google does not help China develop its industries.It 'd be like saying " Sorry I read your email , Its because I 'm a starving college student " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That... or they'll just blame it on their status as a "developing nation" and that they shouldn't be held to the same standards as everyone else.No, you see that works for things like terrible environmental practices, hostile work environments, and building up military strength.
All those things help development, no matter how harsh they are.Hacking Google does not help China develop its industries.It'd be like saying "Sorry I read your email, Its because I'm a starving college student".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30769060</id>
	<title>Say Hello</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263500640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Say Hello to the New China, Same as the Old China.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Say Hello to the New China , Same as the Old China .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Say Hello to the New China, Same as the Old China.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768120</id>
	<title>Re:Why would China do this?</title>
	<author>Scrameustache</author>
	<datestamp>1263497640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The premise is that China hacked Google to access the accounts of these Chinese Human rights activists.  Given that Google already complies with Chinese law, why did China not openly contact Google over this?</p></div><p>Because the attack's targets go beyond the authority of their laws: <i>a coordinated effort to target specific human rights advocates <a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/01/furious-google-throws-down-gauntlet-to-china-over-censorship.ars" title="arstechnica.com">not just in China but around the world</a> [arstechnica.com] </i>.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The premise is that China hacked Google to access the accounts of these Chinese Human rights activists .
Given that Google already complies with Chinese law , why did China not openly contact Google over this ? Because the attack 's targets go beyond the authority of their laws : a coordinated effort to target specific human rights advocates not just in China but around the world [ arstechnica.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The premise is that China hacked Google to access the accounts of these Chinese Human rights activists.
Given that Google already complies with Chinese law, why did China not openly contact Google over this?Because the attack's targets go beyond the authority of their laws: a coordinated effort to target specific human rights advocates not just in China but around the world [arstechnica.com] .
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30769706</id>
	<title>A frame job? Not likely</title>
	<author>kripkenstein</author>
	<datestamp>1263459660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I am the last person to defend the Chinese government - but I read the article and it is not too clear on how they determined that the source is actually the Chinese government?  Is it all based on the fact that the traffic is coming from certain IP addresses or is there (hopefully) more than just that to support the conclusion.  Not advocating anyone trying to hack google, but if they did - pwning some unpatched pirated copy of Windows in China to use as a launching point wouldn't exactly be the worst approach to keep the heat from finding whoever was doing it.</p></div><p>
Actually it would be a horrible approach, to fake an attack from the Chinese government's servers.
<br> <br>
If you are inside China doing that, then you aren't risking a fine or club fed. You're risking being put to death.
<br> <br>
If you are outside China doing that... then you are also risking your life. This isn't framing the government of Luxembourg. It's framing a non-democratic nuclear power that strongly believes in the death penalty and has a very poor human rights record. You don't frame a China or a Russia unless you don't mind getting radioactive elements in your water - or worse.
<br> <br>
If this was a frame job, the framers should be running for their lives right about now, and probably getting their heads examined if they live long enough to worry about why they were so stupid to frame China.
<br> <br>
So, it's possible it was a frame job - the public will probably never know. But I'd bet on the other option.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am the last person to defend the Chinese government - but I read the article and it is not too clear on how they determined that the source is actually the Chinese government ?
Is it all based on the fact that the traffic is coming from certain IP addresses or is there ( hopefully ) more than just that to support the conclusion .
Not advocating anyone trying to hack google , but if they did - pwning some unpatched pirated copy of Windows in China to use as a launching point would n't exactly be the worst approach to keep the heat from finding whoever was doing it .
Actually it would be a horrible approach , to fake an attack from the Chinese government 's servers .
If you are inside China doing that , then you are n't risking a fine or club fed .
You 're risking being put to death .
If you are outside China doing that... then you are also risking your life .
This is n't framing the government of Luxembourg .
It 's framing a non-democratic nuclear power that strongly believes in the death penalty and has a very poor human rights record .
You do n't frame a China or a Russia unless you do n't mind getting radioactive elements in your water - or worse .
If this was a frame job , the framers should be running for their lives right about now , and probably getting their heads examined if they live long enough to worry about why they were so stupid to frame China .
So , it 's possible it was a frame job - the public will probably never know .
But I 'd bet on the other option .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am the last person to defend the Chinese government - but I read the article and it is not too clear on how they determined that the source is actually the Chinese government?
Is it all based on the fact that the traffic is coming from certain IP addresses or is there (hopefully) more than just that to support the conclusion.
Not advocating anyone trying to hack google, but if they did - pwning some unpatched pirated copy of Windows in China to use as a launching point wouldn't exactly be the worst approach to keep the heat from finding whoever was doing it.
Actually it would be a horrible approach, to fake an attack from the Chinese government's servers.
If you are inside China doing that, then you aren't risking a fine or club fed.
You're risking being put to death.
If you are outside China doing that... then you are also risking your life.
This isn't framing the government of Luxembourg.
It's framing a non-democratic nuclear power that strongly believes in the death penalty and has a very poor human rights record.
You don't frame a China or a Russia unless you don't mind getting radioactive elements in your water - or worse.
If this was a frame job, the framers should be running for their lives right about now, and probably getting their heads examined if they live long enough to worry about why they were so stupid to frame China.
So, it's possible it was a frame job - the public will probably never know.
But I'd bet on the other option.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768190</id>
	<title>Re:It gonna go great...</title>
	<author>jgtg32a</author>
	<datestamp>1263497760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think you understand Chinese culture.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think you understand Chinese culture .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think you understand Chinese culture.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768304</id>
	<title>Re:Our response is?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263498120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, we <b>could</b> stop building so many plants in China, and instead rebuild them here in the US.</p><p>Just sayin'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , we could stop building so many plants in China , and instead rebuild them here in the US.Just sayin' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, we could stop building so many plants in China, and instead rebuild them here in the US.Just sayin'.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768702</id>
	<title>Non-issue</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263499380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Give me those e-mails. Not that big of a deal.</p><p>~ Hu</p><p>Sent from my Chinese-Knock-Off iPhone</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Give me those e-mails .
Not that big of a deal. ~ HuSent from my Chinese-Knock-Off iPhone</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Give me those e-mails.
Not that big of a deal.~ HuSent from my Chinese-Knock-Off iPhone</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768994</id>
	<title>Why don't they identify spammers?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263500460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why don't these researchers put their noggins to work and identify the origin of spammers, malware distributers, and their ilk?  Why don't the FBI and CIA coordinate their efforts, to, you know, catch criminals?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do n't these researchers put their noggins to work and identify the origin of spammers , malware distributers , and their ilk ?
Why do n't the FBI and CIA coordinate their efforts , to , you know , catch criminals ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why don't these researchers put their noggins to work and identify the origin of spammers, malware distributers, and their ilk?
Why don't the FBI and CIA coordinate their efforts, to, you know, catch criminals?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30794200</id>
	<title>Re:can't say i'm surprised</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263644100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>" Bates Gill, a China expert at the Brookings Institution think tank in Washington, predicted that the surveillance effort, if true, "would not have any lasting effect," especially because the bugs seem to have been discovered before Jiang used the plane. "</p><p>Bates Gill eh?  Sure sounds like an anagram of Bill Gates to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Bates Gill , a China expert at the Brookings Institution think tank in Washington , predicted that the surveillance effort , if true , " would not have any lasting effect , " especially because the bugs seem to have been discovered before Jiang used the plane .
" Bates Gill eh ?
Sure sounds like an anagram of Bill Gates to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>" Bates Gill, a China expert at the Brookings Institution think tank in Washington, predicted that the surveillance effort, if true, "would not have any lasting effect," especially because the bugs seem to have been discovered before Jiang used the plane.
"Bates Gill eh?
Sure sounds like an anagram of Bill Gates to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30776342</id>
	<title>Gill Bates =)</title>
	<author>jokkebk</author>
	<datestamp>1263547500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I find it funny that a China expert in the article is Gill Bates - it somehow fits the overall theme of this discussion.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it funny that a China expert in the article is Gill Bates - it somehow fits the overall theme of this discussion .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it funny that a China expert in the article is Gill Bates - it somehow fits the overall theme of this discussion.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768558</id>
	<title>Re:can't say i'm surprised</title>
	<author>ArundelCastle</author>
	<datestamp>1263498900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The most intriguing thing about that article is the Brookings expert they interviewed, "Bates Gill".  ISYN.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The most intriguing thing about that article is the Brookings expert they interviewed , " Bates Gill " .
ISYN .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The most intriguing thing about that article is the Brookings expert they interviewed, "Bates Gill".
ISYN.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767718</id>
	<title>Of course they are "proxies of the government"!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263496380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Due to the "Great firewall of China", don't all outgoing connections from China have to go through a government-owned proxy server?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Due to the " Great firewall of China " , do n't all outgoing connections from China have to go through a government-owned proxy server ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Due to the "Great firewall of China", don't all outgoing connections from China have to go through a government-owned proxy server?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767338</id>
	<title>This is probably why</title>
	<author>C\_Kode</author>
	<datestamp>1263495300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is probably why Google has threaten to leave China in the first place.  Just using the filtering issue as the public excuse.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is probably why Google has threaten to leave China in the first place .
Just using the filtering issue as the public excuse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is probably why Google has threaten to leave China in the first place.
Just using the filtering issue as the public excuse.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30773192</id>
	<title>Re:But...</title>
	<author>trancemission</author>
	<datestamp>1263474420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That... or they'll just blame it on their status as a "developing nation" and that they shouldn't be held to the same standards as everyone else.</p></div><p>Their still in beta</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That... or they 'll just blame it on their status as a " developing nation " and that they should n't be held to the same standards as everyone else.Their still in beta</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That... or they'll just blame it on their status as a "developing nation" and that they shouldn't be held to the same standards as everyone else.Their still in beta
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768392</id>
	<title>No Big Surprise</title>
	<author>jrbirdman</author>
	<datestamp>1263498360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Web server log entries from the past 8-9 years show 95\% of the attempted break-ins originating from China.  They've been checking the locks on the doors and windows for along time.

But, when I suggest that we simply block all IPs from that part of the world (I usually added a course explicative that conveyed that they could make sex with themselves), management says no.

I'm a full-blooded capitalist and believe in the power of a free market and society, but this is ethics, pure and simple.

If I were Google, I'd be spinning off large team of people to start working on hacking into anything in the PRC they can find. If the "Law of the Land" condones computer breaking-and-entering then, by God, full steam ahead!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Web server log entries from the past 8-9 years show 95 \ % of the attempted break-ins originating from China .
They 've been checking the locks on the doors and windows for along time .
But , when I suggest that we simply block all IPs from that part of the world ( I usually added a course explicative that conveyed that they could make sex with themselves ) , management says no .
I 'm a full-blooded capitalist and believe in the power of a free market and society , but this is ethics , pure and simple .
If I were Google , I 'd be spinning off large team of people to start working on hacking into anything in the PRC they can find .
If the " Law of the Land " condones computer breaking-and-entering then , by God , full steam ahead !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Web server log entries from the past 8-9 years show 95\% of the attempted break-ins originating from China.
They've been checking the locks on the doors and windows for along time.
But, when I suggest that we simply block all IPs from that part of the world (I usually added a course explicative that conveyed that they could make sex with themselves), management says no.
I'm a full-blooded capitalist and believe in the power of a free market and society, but this is ethics, pure and simple.
If I were Google, I'd be spinning off large team of people to start working on hacking into anything in the PRC they can find.
If the "Law of the Land" condones computer breaking-and-entering then, by God, full steam ahead!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767704</id>
	<title>Re:What if *google* was was being used for espiona</title>
	<author>Lomegor</author>
	<datestamp>1263496380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, of course that can be.
But if you or someone else (maybe the Chinese government) really think that that is the case, they have to prove it before making accusations.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , of course that can be .
But if you or someone else ( maybe the Chinese government ) really think that that is the case , they have to prove it before making accusations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, of course that can be.
But if you or someone else (maybe the Chinese government) really think that that is the case, they have to prove it before making accusations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30776238</id>
	<title>Re:Our response is?</title>
	<author>Suhas</author>
	<datestamp>1263546060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Nothing of note. If they pull out publicly, they will continue to work with the Chinese through third parties. Shareholders don't give a damn about human rights or free speech. They just want their money.</p></div><p>
Well, then it's great that a majority of google stock out there is non-voting stock and the holders have no voting privileges.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nothing of note .
If they pull out publicly , they will continue to work with the Chinese through third parties .
Shareholders do n't give a damn about human rights or free speech .
They just want their money .
Well , then it 's great that a majority of google stock out there is non-voting stock and the holders have no voting privileges .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nothing of note.
If they pull out publicly, they will continue to work with the Chinese through third parties.
Shareholders don't give a damn about human rights or free speech.
They just want their money.
Well, then it's great that a majority of google stock out there is non-voting stock and the holders have no voting privileges.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767682</id>
	<title>Obligatory...</title>
	<author>s\_p\_oneil</author>
	<datestamp>1263496260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well duh...</p><p>(I am honestly surprised that I haven't seen someone post that comment yet.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well duh... ( I am honestly surprised that I have n't seen someone post that comment yet .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well duh...(I am honestly surprised that I haven't seen someone post that comment yet.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30772908</id>
	<title>Re:Unleash the hounds</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263473040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Been there, done that. Only problem is that they don't have anything worth stealing. every peice of data they have was stolen from us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Been there , done that .
Only problem is that they do n't have anything worth stealing .
every peice of data they have was stolen from us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Been there, done that.
Only problem is that they don't have anything worth stealing.
every peice of data they have was stolen from us.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768230</id>
	<title>Re:Our response is?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263497880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i) Go shopping<br>ii) Otherwise the terrorists win.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i ) Go shoppingii ) Otherwise the terrorists win .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i) Go shoppingii) Otherwise the terrorists win.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768334</id>
	<title>Identified by a US asset.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263498120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Identified by a US asset.</p><p>don't forget that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Identified by a US asset.do n't forget that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Identified by a US asset.don't forget that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30776130</id>
	<title>Re:everyone knew it all along</title>
	<author>JBaustian</author>
	<datestamp>1263587580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No one except China and Google know how badly China will be hurt by Google pulling out of China.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No one except China and Google know how badly China will be hurt by Google pulling out of China .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No one except China and Google know how badly China will be hurt by Google pulling out of China.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767898</id>
	<title>Re:Our response is?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263497040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>We construct the "Great Firewall of China".<br> <br>

Except that, instead of them keeping the world out, we block their ranges from getting to us.<br> <br>

Anybody have a list of IP Blocks we can ban forever?  (no, I'm serious, I'm tired of my machines getting probed by them)</htmltext>
<tokenext>We construct the " Great Firewall of China " .
Except that , instead of them keeping the world out , we block their ranges from getting to us .
Anybody have a list of IP Blocks we can ban forever ?
( no , I 'm serious , I 'm tired of my machines getting probed by them )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We construct the "Great Firewall of China".
Except that, instead of them keeping the world out, we block their ranges from getting to us.
Anybody have a list of IP Blocks we can ban forever?
(no, I'm serious, I'm tired of my machines getting probed by them)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768756</id>
	<title>Re:can't say i'm surprised</title>
	<author>N8F8</author>
	<datestamp>1263499620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unless you count that incident as a response to the Chinese forcing our EP-3 to land on<br>Chinese territory then reverse engineering all our equipment.</p><p><a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1769642.stm" title="bbc.co.uk">http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1769642.stm</a> [bbc.co.uk]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless you count that incident as a response to the Chinese forcing our EP-3 to land onChinese territory then reverse engineering all our equipment.http : //news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1769642.stm [ bbc.co.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless you count that incident as a response to the Chinese forcing our EP-3 to land onChinese territory then reverse engineering all our equipment.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1769642.stm [bbc.co.uk]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30770684</id>
	<title>Business is war...war is business</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263463380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Business is war, most wars of the past were fought about the same things business strives for, money and taking what you can ffrom the other guy for less.</p><p>Given the Chinese are fairly corrupt when compared to most western nations its no surprise they will you whatever tactics they can to eliminate or remove the competition in some way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Business is war , most wars of the past were fought about the same things business strives for , money and taking what you can ffrom the other guy for less.Given the Chinese are fairly corrupt when compared to most western nations its no surprise they will you whatever tactics they can to eliminate or remove the competition in some way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Business is war, most wars of the past were fought about the same things business strives for, money and taking what you can ffrom the other guy for less.Given the Chinese are fairly corrupt when compared to most western nations its no surprise they will you whatever tactics they can to eliminate or remove the competition in some way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768584</id>
	<title>TFA Anyone?</title>
	<author>FibreOptix</author>
	<datestamp>1263499020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm having some trouble finding the original idefense report on this. Can anyone help a comrade out?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm having some trouble finding the original idefense report on this .
Can anyone help a comrade out ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm having some trouble finding the original idefense report on this.
Can anyone help a comrade out?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767462</id>
	<title>Re:Finally above ground</title>
	<author>Zerth</author>
	<datestamp>1263495660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm just surprised that they used the same provider.  I would think someone conducting espionage would vary their proxies a bit more.</p><p>I guess standards/budgets go down in the intelligence industry as much as any other industry in a bad economy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm just surprised that they used the same provider .
I would think someone conducting espionage would vary their proxies a bit more.I guess standards/budgets go down in the intelligence industry as much as any other industry in a bad economy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm just surprised that they used the same provider.
I would think someone conducting espionage would vary their proxies a bit more.I guess standards/budgets go down in the intelligence industry as much as any other industry in a bad economy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30770362</id>
	<title>Re:But...</title>
	<author>jzhos</author>
	<datestamp>1263462240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Right, that is why Google steals copyright from Chinese writers and publishers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Right , that is why Google steals copyright from Chinese writers and publishers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right, that is why Google steals copyright from Chinese writers and publishers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767438</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768662</id>
	<title>Another Angle</title>
	<author>nemock</author>
	<datestamp>1263499260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google was already thinking to leave in September. From Forbes last month.

<a href="http://www.forbes.com/2009/12/21/google-baidu-internet-intelligent-technology-fannin.html" title="forbes.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/2009/12/21/google-baidu-internet-intelligent-technology-fannin.html</a> [forbes.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google was already thinking to leave in September .
From Forbes last month .
http : //www.forbes.com/2009/12/21/google-baidu-internet-intelligent-technology-fannin.html [ forbes.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google was already thinking to leave in September.
From Forbes last month.
http://www.forbes.com/2009/12/21/google-baidu-internet-intelligent-technology-fannin.html [forbes.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768196</id>
	<title>Re:But...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263497760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>That... or they'll just blame it on their status as a "developing nation" and that they shouldn't be held to the same standards as everyone else.</i></p><p>I'd just like to point out that they have nearly 3 times the population of the US with a comparable land area.</p><p>Ain't nothing develop-ING about that, if you ask me!  If you can grow enough food to make a billion babies have a chance of growing up and having more babies (or to put it another way, the largest self-supporting population on the planet, in the history of mankind, ever), then you're kind of a DEVELOPED nation</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That... or they 'll just blame it on their status as a " developing nation " and that they should n't be held to the same standards as everyone else.I 'd just like to point out that they have nearly 3 times the population of the US with a comparable land area.Ai n't nothing develop-ING about that , if you ask me !
If you can grow enough food to make a billion babies have a chance of growing up and having more babies ( or to put it another way , the largest self-supporting population on the planet , in the history of mankind , ever ) , then you 're kind of a DEVELOPED nation</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That... or they'll just blame it on their status as a "developing nation" and that they shouldn't be held to the same standards as everyone else.I'd just like to point out that they have nearly 3 times the population of the US with a comparable land area.Ain't nothing develop-ING about that, if you ask me!
If you can grow enough food to make a billion babies have a chance of growing up and having more babies (or to put it another way, the largest self-supporting population on the planet, in the history of mankind, ever), then you're kind of a DEVELOPED nation</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768218</id>
	<title>Digital muggers</title>
	<author>TiggertheMad</author>
	<datestamp>1263497820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>It's hardly a secret that governments conduct cyber-espionage - what seems shocking in this instance is that they have been caught and that a major company</i>
<br> <br>
All governments spy. Its just good business to know what is happening next door. However, there is quite a bit of difference between keeping tabs on what other governments are doing, and aggressively stealing everything that isn't nailed down.
<br> <br>
A good analogy for this situation is that spying is eavesdropping. What China is doing is kicking in doors and stealing everything in sight. The former is expected to some degree by governments. The latter isn't.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's hardly a secret that governments conduct cyber-espionage - what seems shocking in this instance is that they have been caught and that a major company All governments spy .
Its just good business to know what is happening next door .
However , there is quite a bit of difference between keeping tabs on what other governments are doing , and aggressively stealing everything that is n't nailed down .
A good analogy for this situation is that spying is eavesdropping .
What China is doing is kicking in doors and stealing everything in sight .
The former is expected to some degree by governments .
The latter is n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's hardly a secret that governments conduct cyber-espionage - what seems shocking in this instance is that they have been caught and that a major company
 
All governments spy.
Its just good business to know what is happening next door.
However, there is quite a bit of difference between keeping tabs on what other governments are doing, and aggressively stealing everything that isn't nailed down.
A good analogy for this situation is that spying is eavesdropping.
What China is doing is kicking in doors and stealing everything in sight.
The former is expected to some degree by governments.
The latter isn't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30770770</id>
	<title>Re:can't say i'm surprised</title>
	<author>smallfries</author>
	<datestamp>1263463560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who was that? Did he attack on the same day as the Underpants Bomber?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who was that ?
Did he attack on the same day as the Underpants Bomber ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who was that?
Did he attack on the same day as the Underpants Bomber?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30771716</id>
	<title>And the fall out?</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1263467280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So a government gets caught damaging a foreign companies resources.</p><p>Isn't that grounds for war? Or at least some sanctions?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So a government gets caught damaging a foreign companies resources.Is n't that grounds for war ?
Or at least some sanctions ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So a government gets caught damaging a foreign companies resources.Isn't that grounds for war?
Or at least some sanctions?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767562</id>
	<title>Re:No, Seriously...</title>
	<author>fridaynightsmoke</author>
	<datestamp>1263495900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If a foreign government had attacked non-digital assets of any US corporation, you would expect some kind of formal reprisal.  Maybe not an airdrop of Marines, but certainly something more than Hilary Clinton threatening to write a stern letter.</p><p>What I have not doped out yet to my own satisfaction is whether the tepid response from Washington is the fault of the current administration, confusion regarding the digital nature of the breach and assets, or a little of both.</p></div><p>I think it has something to do with Chinese savings now being the foundation of much of the western economy, and the fact that China is a major nuclear power.</p><p>What China realised and the USSR didn't, IMO, is that they could forget the cold war and essentially buy the west with the west's own money.<br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>/crazy theory</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If a foreign government had attacked non-digital assets of any US corporation , you would expect some kind of formal reprisal .
Maybe not an airdrop of Marines , but certainly something more than Hilary Clinton threatening to write a stern letter.What I have not doped out yet to my own satisfaction is whether the tepid response from Washington is the fault of the current administration , confusion regarding the digital nature of the breach and assets , or a little of both.I think it has something to do with Chinese savings now being the foundation of much of the western economy , and the fact that China is a major nuclear power.What China realised and the USSR did n't , IMO , is that they could forget the cold war and essentially buy the west with the west 's own money .
/crazy theory</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If a foreign government had attacked non-digital assets of any US corporation, you would expect some kind of formal reprisal.
Maybe not an airdrop of Marines, but certainly something more than Hilary Clinton threatening to write a stern letter.What I have not doped out yet to my own satisfaction is whether the tepid response from Washington is the fault of the current administration, confusion regarding the digital nature of the breach and assets, or a little of both.I think it has something to do with Chinese savings now being the foundation of much of the western economy, and the fact that China is a major nuclear power.What China realised and the USSR didn't, IMO, is that they could forget the cold war and essentially buy the west with the west's own money.
/crazy theory
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767272</id>
	<title>Overloards</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263495120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I for one welcome our new asian overlords!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I for one welcome our new asian overlords ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I for one welcome our new asian overlords!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30769338</id>
	<title>Re:But...</title>
	<author>tokenshi</author>
	<datestamp>1263501540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well put.  They vacillate between "super power" and "developing nation" depending on the argument... If seeking praise or authority, the former obviously.</p><p>I think google's first order of business is to make sure that when skynet goes online, China is taken out first.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well put .
They vacillate between " super power " and " developing nation " depending on the argument... If seeking praise or authority , the former obviously.I think google 's first order of business is to make sure that when skynet goes online , China is taken out first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well put.
They vacillate between "super power" and "developing nation" depending on the argument... If seeking praise or authority, the former obviously.I think google's first order of business is to make sure that when skynet goes online, China is taken out first.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30769846</id>
	<title>Re:Finally above ground</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263460320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe those emails were read from an encrypted SSL stream? That would certainly be a shakeup to learn that *someone* can break SSL.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe those emails were read from an encrypted SSL stream ?
That would certainly be a shakeup to learn that * someone * can break SSL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe those emails were read from an encrypted SSL stream?
That would certainly be a shakeup to learn that *someone* can break SSL.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767362</id>
	<title>Our response is?</title>
	<author>zero\_out</author>
	<datestamp>1263495360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>So what are we going to do about it?  By we, I mean we as:<br>
<br>
1. a body of corporations (those 20 or so affected)<br>
2. a nation<br>
3. a global community of nations (UN)<br>
4. a cybercommunity<br>
<br>
What can we do, and what is most likely to happen?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So what are we going to do about it ?
By we , I mean we as : 1. a body of corporations ( those 20 or so affected ) 2. a nation 3. a global community of nations ( UN ) 4. a cybercommunity What can we do , and what is most likely to happen ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what are we going to do about it?
By we, I mean we as:

1. a body of corporations (those 20 or so affected)
2. a nation
3. a global community of nations (UN)
4. a cybercommunity

What can we do, and what is most likely to happen?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767412</id>
	<title>Really?</title>
	<author>rocket97</author>
	<datestamp>1263495600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does this come as a surprise to anyone?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does this come as a surprise to anyone ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does this come as a surprise to anyone?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30771258</id>
	<title>Stupid Americans</title>
	<author>cekander</author>
	<datestamp>1263465360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why does everyone here seem to be spewing out anti-Chinese propaganda? You do realize that the only reason the freedom of speech exists in this country [USA] was to win the support of liberal founding fathers who helped draft the constitution and rally the troops, right? There were serious capitalist interests in America winning their freedom, but they needed to convince the people it was worth fighting for. Don't get me wrong, in many ways because of the wording of this radical constitution, freedoms for people around the world have benefited... but this is almost in direct reverse-correlation to the effects of what the US government does. The people who gained power soon after the revolution was won, pretty much everyone after Jefferson, hasn't given two shits about civil liberties when not on the stump.

</p><p>And similarly, we need a Chinese history lesson, to learn how the power of people's rebellion, such as the boxers rebellion, shaped the current policies that helped the government reign in the control of their people.

</p><p>Trust me, if the US gov't didn't think their was any other way, then they'd take away our civil liberties too... err wait, that seems to have happened over the last couple hundred years.

</p><p>The fact of the matter is, the Chinese government and the American government aren't all that different (apologies to any chinese who may be reading, but yes, your government fucking sucks too). China has a completely different background, but have dealt with issues in a reactionary way that any wretched gov't in their situation would do. I wonder how long the US is going to get a free-pass because they have a bad-ass constitution (that is treated like the bible - good when it's convenient to conform to).

</p><p>Both gov'ts are FUBARed, and pointing fingers and rehashing tired propaganda only makes matters worse. We need some real solutions, and this requires you to forget about what you think you know about right and wrong (and blow up your nearest starbucks - unoccupied at night of course - in a symbolic gesture against the real powers that fuck up our societies more than we want to admit. yes, the coffee shops).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does everyone here seem to be spewing out anti-Chinese propaganda ?
You do realize that the only reason the freedom of speech exists in this country [ USA ] was to win the support of liberal founding fathers who helped draft the constitution and rally the troops , right ?
There were serious capitalist interests in America winning their freedom , but they needed to convince the people it was worth fighting for .
Do n't get me wrong , in many ways because of the wording of this radical constitution , freedoms for people around the world have benefited... but this is almost in direct reverse-correlation to the effects of what the US government does .
The people who gained power soon after the revolution was won , pretty much everyone after Jefferson , has n't given two shits about civil liberties when not on the stump .
And similarly , we need a Chinese history lesson , to learn how the power of people 's rebellion , such as the boxers rebellion , shaped the current policies that helped the government reign in the control of their people .
Trust me , if the US gov't did n't think their was any other way , then they 'd take away our civil liberties too... err wait , that seems to have happened over the last couple hundred years .
The fact of the matter is , the Chinese government and the American government are n't all that different ( apologies to any chinese who may be reading , but yes , your government fucking sucks too ) .
China has a completely different background , but have dealt with issues in a reactionary way that any wretched gov't in their situation would do .
I wonder how long the US is going to get a free-pass because they have a bad-ass constitution ( that is treated like the bible - good when it 's convenient to conform to ) .
Both gov'ts are FUBARed , and pointing fingers and rehashing tired propaganda only makes matters worse .
We need some real solutions , and this requires you to forget about what you think you know about right and wrong ( and blow up your nearest starbucks - unoccupied at night of course - in a symbolic gesture against the real powers that fuck up our societies more than we want to admit .
yes , the coffee shops ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does everyone here seem to be spewing out anti-Chinese propaganda?
You do realize that the only reason the freedom of speech exists in this country [USA] was to win the support of liberal founding fathers who helped draft the constitution and rally the troops, right?
There were serious capitalist interests in America winning their freedom, but they needed to convince the people it was worth fighting for.
Don't get me wrong, in many ways because of the wording of this radical constitution, freedoms for people around the world have benefited... but this is almost in direct reverse-correlation to the effects of what the US government does.
The people who gained power soon after the revolution was won, pretty much everyone after Jefferson, hasn't given two shits about civil liberties when not on the stump.
And similarly, we need a Chinese history lesson, to learn how the power of people's rebellion, such as the boxers rebellion, shaped the current policies that helped the government reign in the control of their people.
Trust me, if the US gov't didn't think their was any other way, then they'd take away our civil liberties too... err wait, that seems to have happened over the last couple hundred years.
The fact of the matter is, the Chinese government and the American government aren't all that different (apologies to any chinese who may be reading, but yes, your government fucking sucks too).
China has a completely different background, but have dealt with issues in a reactionary way that any wretched gov't in their situation would do.
I wonder how long the US is going to get a free-pass because they have a bad-ass constitution (that is treated like the bible - good when it's convenient to conform to).
Both gov'ts are FUBARed, and pointing fingers and rehashing tired propaganda only makes matters worse.
We need some real solutions, and this requires you to forget about what you think you know about right and wrong (and blow up your nearest starbucks - unoccupied at night of course - in a symbolic gesture against the real powers that fuck up our societies more than we want to admit.
yes, the coffee shops).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30769230</id>
	<title>Re:Been complaining about this for years</title>
	<author>GameboyRMH</author>
	<datestamp>1263501240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>LOL I can just see what happened...the guy was at the end of a long day, just broke in and was trying to make a backdoor into the server.</p><p>Chinese hacker: Finally! Now I install a custom version of sshd that logs me in as root with a special hidden username and password without logging anything! I just move the config file to a safe location, install my custom rpm and restart sshd...</p><p>I should be able to log back in any second now...</p><p>Any time now...</p><p>What's going on?</p><p>OH SHIT, I forgot my installer doesn't make its own config file but it still needs it! Now sshd can't start!!!!!</p><p>FFFFUUUUUUUUUU</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>LOL I can just see what happened...the guy was at the end of a long day , just broke in and was trying to make a backdoor into the server.Chinese hacker : Finally !
Now I install a custom version of sshd that logs me in as root with a special hidden username and password without logging anything !
I just move the config file to a safe location , install my custom rpm and restart sshd...I should be able to log back in any second now...Any time now...What 's going on ? OH SHIT , I forgot my installer does n't make its own config file but it still needs it !
Now sshd ca n't start ! ! ! !
! FFFFUUUUUUUUUU</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LOL I can just see what happened...the guy was at the end of a long day, just broke in and was trying to make a backdoor into the server.Chinese hacker: Finally!
Now I install a custom version of sshd that logs me in as root with a special hidden username and password without logging anything!
I just move the config file to a safe location, install my custom rpm and restart sshd...I should be able to log back in any second now...Any time now...What's going on?OH SHIT, I forgot my installer doesn't make its own config file but it still needs it!
Now sshd can't start!!!!
!FFFFUUUUUUUUUU</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767538</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768110</id>
	<title>Re:Finally above ground</title>
	<author>astar</author>
	<datestamp>1263497640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This might not be exactly it, but the copenhagen conference failure was a really big deal for the oligarchs.  Pooh, even the shriveled up queen of england was out there making demands and assuming leadership.  I hear the leadership countries of the opposition are all under attack.  I personally have noted that Sudan is all the sudden being set up for dismembering by the usual suspects.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This might not be exactly it , but the copenhagen conference failure was a really big deal for the oligarchs .
Pooh , even the shriveled up queen of england was out there making demands and assuming leadership .
I hear the leadership countries of the opposition are all under attack .
I personally have noted that Sudan is all the sudden being set up for dismembering by the usual suspects .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This might not be exactly it, but the copenhagen conference failure was a really big deal for the oligarchs.
Pooh, even the shriveled up queen of england was out there making demands and assuming leadership.
I hear the leadership countries of the opposition are all under attack.
I personally have noted that Sudan is all the sudden being set up for dismembering by the usual suspects.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767916</id>
	<title>Spying on their own citizens? For shame...</title>
	<author>Orga</author>
	<datestamp>1263497100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd rather have my information stolen by someone having the break in the backdoor (China) to get it then have them drive up to the drive-thru window and order it (US).

At least the chinese have some concept of a battle.  Here in the US we elect the people to bend us over.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd rather have my information stolen by someone having the break in the backdoor ( China ) to get it then have them drive up to the drive-thru window and order it ( US ) .
At least the chinese have some concept of a battle .
Here in the US we elect the people to bend us over .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd rather have my information stolen by someone having the break in the backdoor (China) to get it then have them drive up to the drive-thru window and order it (US).
At least the chinese have some concept of a battle.
Here in the US we elect the people to bend us over.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768398</id>
	<title>The solution is simple.</title>
	<author>gimmebeer</author>
	<datestamp>1263498420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>All major defense contractors and military networks should host social networking sites geared toward anti-chinese discussions.  That way, China's great firewall will block access to them, thereby preventing any further attacks from the Chinese.</htmltext>
<tokenext>All major defense contractors and military networks should host social networking sites geared toward anti-chinese discussions .
That way , China 's great firewall will block access to them , thereby preventing any further attacks from the Chinese .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All major defense contractors and military networks should host social networking sites geared toward anti-chinese discussions.
That way, China's great firewall will block access to them, thereby preventing any further attacks from the Chinese.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767436</id>
	<title>Re:But...</title>
	<author>a-zarkon!</author>
	<datestamp>1263495600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am the last person to defend the Chinese government - but I read the article and it is not too clear on how they determined that the source is actually the Chinese government?  Is it all based on the fact that the traffic is coming from certain IP addresses or is there (hopefully) more than just that to support the conclusion.  Not advocating anyone trying to hack google, but if they did - pwning some unpatched pirated copy of Windows in China to use as a launching point wouldn't exactly be the worst approach to keep the heat from finding whoever was doing it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am the last person to defend the Chinese government - but I read the article and it is not too clear on how they determined that the source is actually the Chinese government ?
Is it all based on the fact that the traffic is coming from certain IP addresses or is there ( hopefully ) more than just that to support the conclusion .
Not advocating anyone trying to hack google , but if they did - pwning some unpatched pirated copy of Windows in China to use as a launching point would n't exactly be the worst approach to keep the heat from finding whoever was doing it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am the last person to defend the Chinese government - but I read the article and it is not too clear on how they determined that the source is actually the Chinese government?
Is it all based on the fact that the traffic is coming from certain IP addresses or is there (hopefully) more than just that to support the conclusion.
Not advocating anyone trying to hack google, but if they did - pwning some unpatched pirated copy of Windows in China to use as a launching point wouldn't exactly be the worst approach to keep the heat from finding whoever was doing it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767596</id>
	<title>Re:can't say i'm surprised</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1263496020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>now that its clear that the attackers were government agents the question is what will the US state department do.</p></div></blockquote><p>The State Department will talk&mdash;that's what the State Department exists to do.</p><p>For anything beyond that, there are other agencies.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>now that its clear that the attackers were government agents the question is what will the US state department do.The State Department will talk    that 's what the State Department exists to do.For anything beyond that , there are other agencies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>now that its clear that the attackers were government agents the question is what will the US state department do.The State Department will talk—that's what the State Department exists to do.For anything beyond that, there are other agencies.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30770152</id>
	<title>Suprised?</title>
	<author>Wardish</author>
	<datestamp>1263461340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And this surprises who?</p><p>And if you are surprised, calmly put down the lenova and step away.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And this surprises who ? And if you are surprised , calmly put down the lenova and step away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And this surprises who?And if you are surprised, calmly put down the lenova and step away.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30770234</id>
	<title>Re:Of course they are "proxies of the government"!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263461700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was in Beijing on business in August and I was able to VPN to both work and home without any problems.</p><p>I didn't do a ton of browsing or anything without going through the tunnel but I did do some testing.   They fail to resolve IP addresses for social websites was the biggest thing I noticed.   Facebook, twitter, that sort of thing just failed to resolve from DNS.    Being as how it's a totalitarian state and the government has a history of making people just vanish and nobody knows where they are or if they are any more I didn't want to push the limits but if you could identify the IP addresses of those sites,  you could get some data from them.  I have no idea about porn.</p><p>As it was describe to me,  they fear people organizing and using disinformation against them more than anything else so Facebook, twitter and blogs tend to be blocked.    Also on CNN, anti-Chinese stories would just go black,  they made no effort to hide the fact that they were censoring the content.   The way CNN does news and stuff, they could just loop another story or something to fill the black space but they just turn it black.</p><p>I thought the internet would be more censored but you have to be practical,  what kind of proxy can proxy all of China?  It's barely plausible to make a firewall do it,  that's why they do DNS tricks.  It also occurred to me that if you could find a good base of customers (maybe US universities?)  you could spin up a close to zero cost cloud business and just build up virtual servers to terminate VPN connections from China and then put a fancy client on OpenVPN or something.  The thing is, the average income is like $5000 a year in China,  $5 or $10 a month for browsing is kind of a lot for those people,  not to mention the lion's share don't have internet at home.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was in Beijing on business in August and I was able to VPN to both work and home without any problems.I did n't do a ton of browsing or anything without going through the tunnel but I did do some testing .
They fail to resolve IP addresses for social websites was the biggest thing I noticed .
Facebook , twitter , that sort of thing just failed to resolve from DNS .
Being as how it 's a totalitarian state and the government has a history of making people just vanish and nobody knows where they are or if they are any more I did n't want to push the limits but if you could identify the IP addresses of those sites , you could get some data from them .
I have no idea about porn.As it was describe to me , they fear people organizing and using disinformation against them more than anything else so Facebook , twitter and blogs tend to be blocked .
Also on CNN , anti-Chinese stories would just go black , they made no effort to hide the fact that they were censoring the content .
The way CNN does news and stuff , they could just loop another story or something to fill the black space but they just turn it black.I thought the internet would be more censored but you have to be practical , what kind of proxy can proxy all of China ?
It 's barely plausible to make a firewall do it , that 's why they do DNS tricks .
It also occurred to me that if you could find a good base of customers ( maybe US universities ?
) you could spin up a close to zero cost cloud business and just build up virtual servers to terminate VPN connections from China and then put a fancy client on OpenVPN or something .
The thing is , the average income is like $ 5000 a year in China , $ 5 or $ 10 a month for browsing is kind of a lot for those people , not to mention the lion 's share do n't have internet at home .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was in Beijing on business in August and I was able to VPN to both work and home without any problems.I didn't do a ton of browsing or anything without going through the tunnel but I did do some testing.
They fail to resolve IP addresses for social websites was the biggest thing I noticed.
Facebook, twitter, that sort of thing just failed to resolve from DNS.
Being as how it's a totalitarian state and the government has a history of making people just vanish and nobody knows where they are or if they are any more I didn't want to push the limits but if you could identify the IP addresses of those sites,  you could get some data from them.
I have no idea about porn.As it was describe to me,  they fear people organizing and using disinformation against them more than anything else so Facebook, twitter and blogs tend to be blocked.
Also on CNN, anti-Chinese stories would just go black,  they made no effort to hide the fact that they were censoring the content.
The way CNN does news and stuff, they could just loop another story or something to fill the black space but they just turn it black.I thought the internet would be more censored but you have to be practical,  what kind of proxy can proxy all of China?
It's barely plausible to make a firewall do it,  that's why they do DNS tricks.
It also occurred to me that if you could find a good base of customers (maybe US universities?
)  you could spin up a close to zero cost cloud business and just build up virtual servers to terminate VPN connections from China and then put a fancy client on OpenVPN or something.
The thing is, the average income is like $5000 a year in China,  $5 or $10 a month for browsing is kind of a lot for those people,  not to mention the lion's share don't have internet at home.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767526</id>
	<title>Re:Finally above ground</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263495840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Those of us who manage network security for large and/or interesting companies have been dealing with Chinese originating probes for many years - they have been the majority for a long time.  The only difference here is a major company went public, instead of telling us security guys to keep it to ourselves...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Those of us who manage network security for large and/or interesting companies have been dealing with Chinese originating probes for many years - they have been the majority for a long time .
The only difference here is a major company went public , instead of telling us security guys to keep it to ourselves.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those of us who manage network security for large and/or interesting companies have been dealing with Chinese originating probes for many years - they have been the majority for a long time.
The only difference here is a major company went public, instead of telling us security guys to keep it to ourselves...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768782</id>
	<title>Ehm, proof?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263499680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ehm, where is the proof that the Chinese Government was behind this? If I read TFA correctly, "The servers used in both attacks employ the HomeLinux DynamicDNS provider, and both are currently pointing to IP addresses owned by Linode, a US-based company that offers Virtual Private Server hosting". Nowhere in the article, it's even mentioned anything about the attack originating from Chinese IP addresses.</p><p>And even IF the source are from within China, how is it proven that those IP-addresses are controlled by the government? And even IF the sources really are from China, how can it be proven that those machines wasn't in fact broken and hacked themselves?</p><p>I do not for a second believe that the Chinese Government would even hesitate to do this, and wouldn't defend them even if didn't do it, but let's also remember that if I were a Chinese dissident, hacking some very world-public company, getting caught and making it look like the governments work, would be a pretty good way to steer global opinion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ehm , where is the proof that the Chinese Government was behind this ?
If I read TFA correctly , " The servers used in both attacks employ the HomeLinux DynamicDNS provider , and both are currently pointing to IP addresses owned by Linode , a US-based company that offers Virtual Private Server hosting " .
Nowhere in the article , it 's even mentioned anything about the attack originating from Chinese IP addresses.And even IF the source are from within China , how is it proven that those IP-addresses are controlled by the government ?
And even IF the sources really are from China , how can it be proven that those machines was n't in fact broken and hacked themselves ? I do not for a second believe that the Chinese Government would even hesitate to do this , and would n't defend them even if did n't do it , but let 's also remember that if I were a Chinese dissident , hacking some very world-public company , getting caught and making it look like the governments work , would be a pretty good way to steer global opinion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ehm, where is the proof that the Chinese Government was behind this?
If I read TFA correctly, "The servers used in both attacks employ the HomeLinux DynamicDNS provider, and both are currently pointing to IP addresses owned by Linode, a US-based company that offers Virtual Private Server hosting".
Nowhere in the article, it's even mentioned anything about the attack originating from Chinese IP addresses.And even IF the source are from within China, how is it proven that those IP-addresses are controlled by the government?
And even IF the sources really are from China, how can it be proven that those machines wasn't in fact broken and hacked themselves?I do not for a second believe that the Chinese Government would even hesitate to do this, and wouldn't defend them even if didn't do it, but let's also remember that if I were a Chinese dissident, hacking some very world-public company, getting caught and making it look like the governments work, would be a pretty good way to steer global opinion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767538</id>
	<title>Been complaining about this for years</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263495840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Working for a Defense contractor, one of our systems was compromised.  Fortunately, the idiot who gained access screwed up SSH which alerted us to what was going on, and prevented them from erasing their tracks.  All SSH connections were from computers in China.  They've been doing this for years, and no one has really called them on it until now.  It takes Google to make a big enough splash before anyone really pays attention to it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Working for a Defense contractor , one of our systems was compromised .
Fortunately , the idiot who gained access screwed up SSH which alerted us to what was going on , and prevented them from erasing their tracks .
All SSH connections were from computers in China .
They 've been doing this for years , and no one has really called them on it until now .
It takes Google to make a big enough splash before anyone really pays attention to it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Working for a Defense contractor, one of our systems was compromised.
Fortunately, the idiot who gained access screwed up SSH which alerted us to what was going on, and prevented them from erasing their tracks.
All SSH connections were from computers in China.
They've been doing this for years, and no one has really called them on it until now.
It takes Google to make a big enough splash before anyone really pays attention to it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768712</id>
	<title>Re:No, Seriously...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263499380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know it is annoying to be this guy, but: Loose = opposite of Tight, Lose = opposite of Win</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know it is annoying to be this guy , but : Loose = opposite of Tight , Lose = opposite of Win</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know it is annoying to be this guy, but: Loose = opposite of Tight, Lose = opposite of Win</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767220</id>
	<title>But...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263494880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It couldn't be them. China would never do anything wrong.</p><p>That... or they'll just blame it on their status as a "developing nation" and that they shouldn't be held to the same standards as everyone else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It could n't be them .
China would never do anything wrong.That... or they 'll just blame it on their status as a " developing nation " and that they should n't be held to the same standards as everyone else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It couldn't be them.
China would never do anything wrong.That... or they'll just blame it on their status as a "developing nation" and that they shouldn't be held to the same standards as everyone else.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768008</id>
	<title>Re:Our response is?</title>
	<author>Remus Shepherd</author>
	<datestamp>1263497340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1.  Corporations will leave China, and forgo any possible profit there, or they won't.  Up to them.  Google seems to have made their choice.</p><p>2.  The nation has some soul-searching to do.  I expect that the US government will do exactly nothing for a long time, while pleading that other crises are taking up all their attention.  (Which, actually is a pretty good excuse right now.)</p><p>3.  The UN will do nothing.  Cyberwarfare is not something the UN is chartered to police, and not something they care about, and even if it were they already know what China is and they're not going to risk making them tantrum.</p><p>4.  The cybercommunity?  Well, if the non-chinese cybercitizens want to start a war over this, the chinese cyberwarriors will gladly take part.  But this might not be much different than the status quo.</p><p>Revealing China as corporate espionage hackers surprises exactly no one.  So nothing will change.  Everyone already lives with the truth of chinese malfeasance.  All that will change will be one or two companies deciding that they've had enough and they're pulling out of that broken country.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Corporations will leave China , and forgo any possible profit there , or they wo n't .
Up to them .
Google seems to have made their choice.2 .
The nation has some soul-searching to do .
I expect that the US government will do exactly nothing for a long time , while pleading that other crises are taking up all their attention .
( Which , actually is a pretty good excuse right now. ) 3 .
The UN will do nothing .
Cyberwarfare is not something the UN is chartered to police , and not something they care about , and even if it were they already know what China is and they 're not going to risk making them tantrum.4 .
The cybercommunity ?
Well , if the non-chinese cybercitizens want to start a war over this , the chinese cyberwarriors will gladly take part .
But this might not be much different than the status quo.Revealing China as corporate espionage hackers surprises exactly no one .
So nothing will change .
Everyone already lives with the truth of chinese malfeasance .
All that will change will be one or two companies deciding that they 've had enough and they 're pulling out of that broken country .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Corporations will leave China, and forgo any possible profit there, or they won't.
Up to them.
Google seems to have made their choice.2.
The nation has some soul-searching to do.
I expect that the US government will do exactly nothing for a long time, while pleading that other crises are taking up all their attention.
(Which, actually is a pretty good excuse right now.)3.
The UN will do nothing.
Cyberwarfare is not something the UN is chartered to police, and not something they care about, and even if it were they already know what China is and they're not going to risk making them tantrum.4.
The cybercommunity?
Well, if the non-chinese cybercitizens want to start a war over this, the chinese cyberwarriors will gladly take part.
But this might not be much different than the status quo.Revealing China as corporate espionage hackers surprises exactly no one.
So nothing will change.
Everyone already lives with the truth of chinese malfeasance.
All that will change will be one or two companies deciding that they've had enough and they're pulling out of that broken country.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30769048</id>
	<title>Re:No, Seriously...</title>
	<author>Registered Coward v2</author>
	<datestamp>1263500640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think it has something to do with Chinese savings now being the foundation of much of the western economy, and the fact that China is a major nuclear power.</p><p>What China realised and the USSR didn't, IMO, is that they could forget the cold war and essentially buy the west with the west's own money.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/crazy theory</p></div><p>Actually, it's a double edged sword.  While countries are reliant on Chinese investment; China's economic health becomes more tied to Western countries as well.  They are more vulnerable to economic problems and exchange rates by virtue of their significant investments; as well as inflation and devaluation of foreign currency.  As the saying goes, I lend yo $100 and you can't pay and you have a problem, I lend you $100 billion and you can't pay and I have a problem.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it has something to do with Chinese savings now being the foundation of much of the western economy , and the fact that China is a major nuclear power.What China realised and the USSR did n't , IMO , is that they could forget the cold war and essentially buy the west with the west 's own money .
/crazy theoryActually , it 's a double edged sword .
While countries are reliant on Chinese investment ; China 's economic health becomes more tied to Western countries as well .
They are more vulnerable to economic problems and exchange rates by virtue of their significant investments ; as well as inflation and devaluation of foreign currency .
As the saying goes , I lend yo $ 100 and you ca n't pay and you have a problem , I lend you $ 100 billion and you ca n't pay and I have a problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it has something to do with Chinese savings now being the foundation of much of the western economy, and the fact that China is a major nuclear power.What China realised and the USSR didn't, IMO, is that they could forget the cold war and essentially buy the west with the west's own money.
/crazy theoryActually, it's a double edged sword.
While countries are reliant on Chinese investment; China's economic health becomes more tied to Western countries as well.
They are more vulnerable to economic problems and exchange rates by virtue of their significant investments; as well as inflation and devaluation of foreign currency.
As the saying goes, I lend yo $100 and you can't pay and you have a problem, I lend you $100 billion and you can't pay and I have a problem.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768748</id>
	<title>Re:can't say i'm surprised</title>
	<author>maxwell demon</author>
	<datestamp>1263499560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What did China do when they found all the bugs the US government put in the plane we sold them?</p></div><p>They debugged it?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What did China do when they found all the bugs the US government put in the plane we sold them ? They debugged it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What did China do when they found all the bugs the US government put in the plane we sold them?They debugged it?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767636</id>
	<title>Re:What if *google* was was being used for espiona</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263496140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Take it easy, cowboy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Take it easy , cowboy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Take it easy, cowboy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767728</id>
	<title>What happens when China seizes assets?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263496440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the even that China gets pissed off, and simply seizes all of Google's assets in China while they're live, how much information do you think will be compromised?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the even that China gets pissed off , and simply seizes all of Google 's assets in China while they 're live , how much information do you think will be compromised ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the even that China gets pissed off, and simply seizes all of Google's assets in China while they're live, how much information do you think will be compromised?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30769554</id>
	<title>In other news...</title>
	<author>thestudio\_bob</author>
	<datestamp>1263502260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>China has quickly updated their standard tagline, &quot;The U.S. needs to quit interfering with China's internal affairs <strong>and servers</strong>&quot;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>China has quickly updated their standard tagline , " The U.S. needs to quit interfering with China 's internal affairs and servers "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>China has quickly updated their standard tagline, "The U.S. needs to quit interfering with China's internal affairs and servers"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30772804</id>
	<title>It's LOSE, you fucking LOSER</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263472560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The word is "LOSE" with one O.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The word is " LOSE " with one O .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The word is "LOSE" with one O.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767714</id>
	<title>Fight China -- the capitalist way!</title>
	<author>spiffmastercow</author>
	<datestamp>1263496380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is the answer, and we all know it..  If we move all our industries out of China, it becomes nothing but an empty husk.  Google doesn't really have a lot to lose by exiting China, but it certainly makes for big headlines when they decide to do so.  Maybe other corporations will follow.  The only way Western countries stand a chance in the next 20 years is if we disentangle ourselves from China.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the answer , and we all know it.. If we move all our industries out of China , it becomes nothing but an empty husk .
Google does n't really have a lot to lose by exiting China , but it certainly makes for big headlines when they decide to do so .
Maybe other corporations will follow .
The only way Western countries stand a chance in the next 20 years is if we disentangle ourselves from China .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the answer, and we all know it..  If we move all our industries out of China, it becomes nothing but an empty husk.
Google doesn't really have a lot to lose by exiting China, but it certainly makes for big headlines when they decide to do so.
Maybe other corporations will follow.
The only way Western countries stand a chance in the next 20 years is if we disentangle ourselves from China.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30770128</id>
	<title>Re:Been complaining about this for years</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263461280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not just defence contractors. Our servers are continually being probed and attacked by Chinese hackers, and we are just some small fry software company.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not just defence contractors .
Our servers are continually being probed and attacked by Chinese hackers , and we are just some small fry software company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not just defence contractors.
Our servers are continually being probed and attacked by Chinese hackers, and we are just some small fry software company.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767538</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30773650</id>
	<title>Re:But...</title>
	<author>LarrySDonald</author>
	<datestamp>1263476940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The same standard as everyone else sucks, including for everyone else. Figure out a standard that works. Fair price for innovation, fair price for production. Right now, neither is - the US isn't using Vaseline (TM) on how things are produced, but happy to complain about what IP get made. Equally, China, as much of the area, isn't that interested in paying obscene patent fees. And while anything is underground you might as well shove it underground all the way - products made at gunpoint and zero worry about what is legal. Go to your room. Both of you. No, really, STFU. I won't hear a word more until you both can behave like adults.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The same standard as everyone else sucks , including for everyone else .
Figure out a standard that works .
Fair price for innovation , fair price for production .
Right now , neither is - the US is n't using Vaseline ( TM ) on how things are produced , but happy to complain about what IP get made .
Equally , China , as much of the area , is n't that interested in paying obscene patent fees .
And while anything is underground you might as well shove it underground all the way - products made at gunpoint and zero worry about what is legal .
Go to your room .
Both of you .
No , really , STFU .
I wo n't hear a word more until you both can behave like adults .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The same standard as everyone else sucks, including for everyone else.
Figure out a standard that works.
Fair price for innovation, fair price for production.
Right now, neither is - the US isn't using Vaseline (TM) on how things are produced, but happy to complain about what IP get made.
Equally, China, as much of the area, isn't that interested in paying obscene patent fees.
And while anything is underground you might as well shove it underground all the way - products made at gunpoint and zero worry about what is legal.
Go to your room.
Both of you.
No, really, STFU.
I won't hear a word more until you both can behave like adults.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768930</id>
	<title>Re:can't say i'm surprised</title>
	<author>It'sVersusItsGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1263500220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Now that its clear" is what?? You're confounding me with your meaningless poetic phrases! But perhaps you made a typo. You see the word "its" is the possessive of "it." You obviously intended to use the word "it's," which is a contraction of the words "it is." The only question now is what the Grammar Police will do to you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Now that its clear " is what ? ?
You 're confounding me with your meaningless poetic phrases !
But perhaps you made a typo .
You see the word " its " is the possessive of " it .
" You obviously intended to use the word " it 's , " which is a contraction of the words " it is .
" The only question now is what the Grammar Police will do to you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Now that its clear" is what??
You're confounding me with your meaningless poetic phrases!
But perhaps you made a typo.
You see the word "its" is the possessive of "it.
" You obviously intended to use the word "it's," which is a contraction of the words "it is.
" The only question now is what the Grammar Police will do to you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30769404</id>
	<title>Is it just me?</title>
	<author>C0L0PH0N</author>
	<datestamp>1263501780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't understand why, if Google cares about its intellectual property, they don't have it secured against foreign attack.  I even more will not understand, once they've been attacked, if they get attacked successfully again.  Is it just me that is confused about why Google, and the US government secrets for that matter, aren't secured?   I mean, it's been a couple of dozen years now that we've had the Internet, and we all know the bad guys are out there.  How hard is it to SECURE data??

Maybe it's just me, being naive, and it really is impossible to secure data.  But I know there are a lot of people in the world smarter than me, that must be working on this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand why , if Google cares about its intellectual property , they do n't have it secured against foreign attack .
I even more will not understand , once they 've been attacked , if they get attacked successfully again .
Is it just me that is confused about why Google , and the US government secrets for that matter , are n't secured ?
I mean , it 's been a couple of dozen years now that we 've had the Internet , and we all know the bad guys are out there .
How hard is it to SECURE data ? ?
Maybe it 's just me , being naive , and it really is impossible to secure data .
But I know there are a lot of people in the world smarter than me , that must be working on this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't understand why, if Google cares about its intellectual property, they don't have it secured against foreign attack.
I even more will not understand, once they've been attacked, if they get attacked successfully again.
Is it just me that is confused about why Google, and the US government secrets for that matter, aren't secured?
I mean, it's been a couple of dozen years now that we've had the Internet, and we all know the bad guys are out there.
How hard is it to SECURE data??
Maybe it's just me, being naive, and it really is impossible to secure data.
But I know there are a lot of people in the world smarter than me, that must be working on this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30774476</id>
	<title>In Soviet China...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263483000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The government hacks you!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The government hacks you !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The government hacks you!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767940</id>
	<title>Remeber Estonia</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263497100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The perpetrators turned out to be russian nationalist bolshevik youth. Same thing could easily happen in China, there's plenty of nationalists there. Probably just a few rouge ones wanting to help out papa state.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The perpetrators turned out to be russian nationalist bolshevik youth .
Same thing could easily happen in China , there 's plenty of nationalists there .
Probably just a few rouge ones wanting to help out papa state .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The perpetrators turned out to be russian nationalist bolshevik youth.
Same thing could easily happen in China, there's plenty of nationalists there.
Probably just a few rouge ones wanting to help out papa state.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767418</id>
	<title>Consequences?</title>
	<author>psherma1</author>
	<datestamp>1263495600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>If the EU can fine a US company for what amounted to unfair business practices,
what should the US do to China?

Debt?
What debt?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the EU can fine a US company for what amounted to unfair business practices , what should the US do to China ?
Debt ? What debt ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the EU can fine a US company for what amounted to unfair business practices,
what should the US do to China?
Debt?
What debt?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768862</id>
	<title>Re:can't say i'm surprised</title>
	<author>iammani</author>
	<datestamp>1263500040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Note the date of this article, 2002. It would be different scenario if it had happened today.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Note the date of this article , 2002 .
It would be different scenario if it had happened today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Note the date of this article, 2002.
It would be different scenario if it had happened today.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767404</id>
	<title>next up...</title>
	<author>StripedCow</author>
	<datestamp>1263495540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>google builds self-destructing data-centers that explode and erase all data when the chinese seize them...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>google builds self-destructing data-centers that explode and erase all data when the chinese seize them.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>google builds self-destructing data-centers that explode and erase all data when the chinese seize them...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30770670</id>
	<title>Re:No, Seriously...</title>
	<author>cekander</author>
	<datestamp>1263463320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We're looking at two fascist entities with similar fascist interests. As long as they both exist, they will always stand together in their fascist goals, above and beyond the needs of their people. There will be no war with China. Eventually the US government may convince the Chinese government to do as we do, make good and give the people the illusion of freedom of speech. And then when you're so powerful and can control the media, then you can keep those pesky conspiracy theories at bay about how you assassinate and suppress people who exercise their new found freedoms to your dis-taste *coughMLKcough*</htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're looking at two fascist entities with similar fascist interests .
As long as they both exist , they will always stand together in their fascist goals , above and beyond the needs of their people .
There will be no war with China .
Eventually the US government may convince the Chinese government to do as we do , make good and give the people the illusion of freedom of speech .
And then when you 're so powerful and can control the media , then you can keep those pesky conspiracy theories at bay about how you assassinate and suppress people who exercise their new found freedoms to your dis-taste * coughMLKcough *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're looking at two fascist entities with similar fascist interests.
As long as they both exist, they will always stand together in their fascist goals, above and beyond the needs of their people.
There will be no war with China.
Eventually the US government may convince the Chinese government to do as we do, make good and give the people the illusion of freedom of speech.
And then when you're so powerful and can control the media, then you can keep those pesky conspiracy theories at bay about how you assassinate and suppress people who exercise their new found freedoms to your dis-taste *coughMLKcough*</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30773176</id>
	<title>Re:Unleash the hounds</title>
	<author>vvaduva</author>
	<datestamp>1263474300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I couldn't have said it better dude...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I could n't have said it better dude.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I couldn't have said it better dude...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30775462</id>
	<title>Most naive nation on the planet?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263492300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are Americans the most naive nation on the planet or are there some other groups more gullible than the US and its companies?  Unlikely - many Americans - and here I include the business leaders - assume that all countries just want to be like America so they will do what America assumes is correct.  Sadly the US is wrong, but by the time they figure that out and realize that other nations, particularly China, are playing for real the US companies will be destroyed, most Americans will be out of work, the standard of living of the US will have plummeted and countries like China will be laughing at the gullibility of a once great nation. (And no, I am not American).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are Americans the most naive nation on the planet or are there some other groups more gullible than the US and its companies ?
Unlikely - many Americans - and here I include the business leaders - assume that all countries just want to be like America so they will do what America assumes is correct .
Sadly the US is wrong , but by the time they figure that out and realize that other nations , particularly China , are playing for real the US companies will be destroyed , most Americans will be out of work , the standard of living of the US will have plummeted and countries like China will be laughing at the gullibility of a once great nation .
( And no , I am not American ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are Americans the most naive nation on the planet or are there some other groups more gullible than the US and its companies?
Unlikely - many Americans - and here I include the business leaders - assume that all countries just want to be like America so they will do what America assumes is correct.
Sadly the US is wrong, but by the time they figure that out and realize that other nations, particularly China, are playing for real the US companies will be destroyed, most Americans will be out of work, the standard of living of the US will have plummeted and countries like China will be laughing at the gullibility of a once great nation.
(And no, I am not American).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768104</id>
	<title>Re:Our response is?</title>
	<author>BJ\_Covert\_Action</author>
	<datestamp>1263497580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Could we organize a slashdot effect run on Baidu?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....</htmltext>
<tokenext>Could we organize a slashdot effect run on Baidu ?
... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could we organize a slashdot effect run on Baidu?
....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767340</id>
	<title>It gonna go great...</title>
	<author>spribyl</author>
	<datestamp>1263495300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Until the "independent" hackers turn into criminal gangs and/or rebels and turn on them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Until the " independent " hackers turn into criminal gangs and/or rebels and turn on them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Until the "independent" hackers turn into criminal gangs and/or rebels and turn on them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767848</id>
	<title>Why would China do this?</title>
	<author>MobyDisk</author>
	<datestamp>1263496920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The premise is that China hacked Google to access the accounts of these Chinese Human rights activists.  Given that Google already complies with Chinese law, why did China not openly contact Google over this?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The premise is that China hacked Google to access the accounts of these Chinese Human rights activists .
Given that Google already complies with Chinese law , why did China not openly contact Google over this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The premise is that China hacked Google to access the accounts of these Chinese Human rights activists.
Given that Google already complies with Chinese law, why did China not openly contact Google over this?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768594</id>
	<title>the chinese have left us no choice</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263499020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>unleash<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/b/ and may god have mercy on our souls</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>unleash /b/ and may god have mercy on our souls</tokentext>
<sentencetext>unleash /b/ and may god have mercy on our souls</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768364</id>
	<title>google fault for plain text gmail?</title>
	<author>peter303</author>
	<datestamp>1263498240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The greedy company wants to put ads into your email.
So they keep the mail stored in plain text.
<br> <br>
I generally presume the NSA or google is reading any plain text anyways and dont dicuss anything I wouldnt want them to see.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The greedy company wants to put ads into your email .
So they keep the mail stored in plain text .
I generally presume the NSA or google is reading any plain text anyways and dont dicuss anything I wouldnt want them to see .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The greedy company wants to put ads into your email.
So they keep the mail stored in plain text.
I generally presume the NSA or google is reading any plain text anyways and dont dicuss anything I wouldnt want them to see.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30769076</id>
	<title>at least it wasn't a lead attack</title>
	<author>greymond</author>
	<datestamp>1263500700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can handle the interweb attacks, at least we're not still being fed lead toys...oh wait...we still are...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can handle the interweb attacks , at least we 're not still being fed lead toys...oh wait...we still are.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can handle the interweb attacks, at least we're not still being fed lead toys...oh wait...we still are...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767820</id>
	<title>Unleash the hounds</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263496800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Wall Street Journal had a great article about some of the details behind the scenes of this particular incident, and also another article that did a good job of summarizing what has been discussed here over the last couple of years.  The main stream media is openly stating that the People's Liberation Army is actively encouraging "citizen cyber militias" to conduct "cyber attacks" (good Lord how I hate that term) against foreign (read, United States) corporations.  Although they haven't gone so far as to state that those militias have active backing of the government, they have said that the government is turning a blind eye to their activities.  Furthermore, the WSJ goes on to state that there are United States agencies involved in similar espionage activities.</p><p>Given that background, it seems like hacking Chinese companies should be fair game for up and coming "security researchers" here in the United States.  In the 1990s the United States government made it quite clear that they were going to come down hard on people who mess with government and Fortune 500 systems.  Given the option between really securing the systems and punishing those who exploit the lack of security, they went with the latter.  A lot of people, myself included, decided that once we turned 18 and faced the threat of real Federal prosecution, the wise move was to turn off the war dialers, stop snarfing ESN/MIN pairs out of the air, and stop trying to run exploit code against computers that we don't control.</p><p>We can't hone our craft in the United States anymore.  Although there is a whole market for securing IT resources against attack, there isn't a playground to pick up skills in.  My suggestion is that China is that playground.  My suggestion is that Chinese corporations in the United States are the targets.  I mean lets face it, there are hundreds of thousands of compromised computers in the United States.  The United States government can't be held accountable for malicious activity directed toward Chinese corporations.  It would be unfortunate for those entities to be DDoS'd.  It would be unfortunate for their internal workstations to be the target of vulnerability research.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Wall Street Journal had a great article about some of the details behind the scenes of this particular incident , and also another article that did a good job of summarizing what has been discussed here over the last couple of years .
The main stream media is openly stating that the People 's Liberation Army is actively encouraging " citizen cyber militias " to conduct " cyber attacks " ( good Lord how I hate that term ) against foreign ( read , United States ) corporations .
Although they have n't gone so far as to state that those militias have active backing of the government , they have said that the government is turning a blind eye to their activities .
Furthermore , the WSJ goes on to state that there are United States agencies involved in similar espionage activities.Given that background , it seems like hacking Chinese companies should be fair game for up and coming " security researchers " here in the United States .
In the 1990s the United States government made it quite clear that they were going to come down hard on people who mess with government and Fortune 500 systems .
Given the option between really securing the systems and punishing those who exploit the lack of security , they went with the latter .
A lot of people , myself included , decided that once we turned 18 and faced the threat of real Federal prosecution , the wise move was to turn off the war dialers , stop snarfing ESN/MIN pairs out of the air , and stop trying to run exploit code against computers that we do n't control.We ca n't hone our craft in the United States anymore .
Although there is a whole market for securing IT resources against attack , there is n't a playground to pick up skills in .
My suggestion is that China is that playground .
My suggestion is that Chinese corporations in the United States are the targets .
I mean lets face it , there are hundreds of thousands of compromised computers in the United States .
The United States government ca n't be held accountable for malicious activity directed toward Chinese corporations .
It would be unfortunate for those entities to be DDoS 'd .
It would be unfortunate for their internal workstations to be the target of vulnerability research .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Wall Street Journal had a great article about some of the details behind the scenes of this particular incident, and also another article that did a good job of summarizing what has been discussed here over the last couple of years.
The main stream media is openly stating that the People's Liberation Army is actively encouraging "citizen cyber militias" to conduct "cyber attacks" (good Lord how I hate that term) against foreign (read, United States) corporations.
Although they haven't gone so far as to state that those militias have active backing of the government, they have said that the government is turning a blind eye to their activities.
Furthermore, the WSJ goes on to state that there are United States agencies involved in similar espionage activities.Given that background, it seems like hacking Chinese companies should be fair game for up and coming "security researchers" here in the United States.
In the 1990s the United States government made it quite clear that they were going to come down hard on people who mess with government and Fortune 500 systems.
Given the option between really securing the systems and punishing those who exploit the lack of security, they went with the latter.
A lot of people, myself included, decided that once we turned 18 and faced the threat of real Federal prosecution, the wise move was to turn off the war dialers, stop snarfing ESN/MIN pairs out of the air, and stop trying to run exploit code against computers that we don't control.We can't hone our craft in the United States anymore.
Although there is a whole market for securing IT resources against attack, there isn't a playground to pick up skills in.
My suggestion is that China is that playground.
My suggestion is that Chinese corporations in the United States are the targets.
I mean lets face it, there are hundreds of thousands of compromised computers in the United States.
The United States government can't be held accountable for malicious activity directed toward Chinese corporations.
It would be unfortunate for those entities to be DDoS'd.
It would be unfortunate for their internal workstations to be the target of vulnerability research.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30778030</id>
	<title>Re:Our response is?</title>
	<author>qmaqdk</author>
	<datestamp>1263566040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Nothing of note. If they pull out publicly, they will continue to work with the Chinese through third parties. Shareholders don't give a damn about human rights or free speech. They just want their money.</p></div><p>Seems to me this is what needs to change. So far they've used arguments such as "it's just business", and "free market", but shareholders are (or should be) moral and ethical human beings. At the end of the day greed will get us all into trouble.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nothing of note .
If they pull out publicly , they will continue to work with the Chinese through third parties .
Shareholders do n't give a damn about human rights or free speech .
They just want their money.Seems to me this is what needs to change .
So far they 've used arguments such as " it 's just business " , and " free market " , but shareholders are ( or should be ) moral and ethical human beings .
At the end of the day greed will get us all into trouble .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nothing of note.
If they pull out publicly, they will continue to work with the Chinese through third parties.
Shareholders don't give a damn about human rights or free speech.
They just want their money.Seems to me this is what needs to change.
So far they've used arguments such as "it's just business", and "free market", but shareholders are (or should be) moral and ethical human beings.
At the end of the day greed will get us all into trouble.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30774070</id>
	<title>Re:No, Seriously...</title>
	<author>anaesthetica</author>
	<datestamp>1263480000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>China is not, nor has ever been, a major nuclear power.  It has a nuclear arsenal about the same size as France and Britain &ndash; not even close to the same league as the U.S. and Russia.  China practices "minimum deterrence" against the U.S., which means they target about two dozen or less strategic nuclear warheads at the U.S.  The essence of deterrence is having a survivable second strike force.  Since the Chinese are targeting so few, and they are land-based nuclear warheads (which are fairly easy to track compared to submarine-launched warheads), they are essentially <em>not</em> practicing deterrence against the United States.  The U.S. is for all practical purposes capable of a disarming first strike against China.</p><p>For further reading, check out the article "<a href="http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/61508/keir-a-lieber-and-daryl-g-press/the-rise-of-us-nuclear-primacy" title="foreignaffairs.com">The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy</a> [foreignaffairs.com]" by Lieber and Press in <i>Foreign Affairs</i> 2006.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>China is not , nor has ever been , a major nuclear power .
It has a nuclear arsenal about the same size as France and Britain    not even close to the same league as the U.S. and Russia .
China practices " minimum deterrence " against the U.S. , which means they target about two dozen or less strategic nuclear warheads at the U.S. The essence of deterrence is having a survivable second strike force .
Since the Chinese are targeting so few , and they are land-based nuclear warheads ( which are fairly easy to track compared to submarine-launched warheads ) , they are essentially not practicing deterrence against the United States .
The U.S. is for all practical purposes capable of a disarming first strike against China.For further reading , check out the article " The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy [ foreignaffairs.com ] " by Lieber and Press in Foreign Affairs 2006 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>China is not, nor has ever been, a major nuclear power.
It has a nuclear arsenal about the same size as France and Britain – not even close to the same league as the U.S. and Russia.
China practices "minimum deterrence" against the U.S., which means they target about two dozen or less strategic nuclear warheads at the U.S.  The essence of deterrence is having a survivable second strike force.
Since the Chinese are targeting so few, and they are land-based nuclear warheads (which are fairly easy to track compared to submarine-launched warheads), they are essentially not practicing deterrence against the United States.
The U.S. is for all practical purposes capable of a disarming first strike against China.For further reading, check out the article "The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy [foreignaffairs.com]" by Lieber and Press in Foreign Affairs 2006.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768228</id>
	<title>Re:Write Google</title>
	<author>Daniel\_Staal</author>
	<datestamp>1263497880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In a way, I think they did <em>better</em> this way than if they'd just never agreed to filtering in the first place.  They now have a presence in China, which they can remove, and it will affect China.</p><p>When they were first asked to filter, they had no presence, and saying no would have meant very little to China: They'd just go on as they were, and do their own thing.  Google pulling out now is a disruption.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In a way , I think they did better this way than if they 'd just never agreed to filtering in the first place .
They now have a presence in China , which they can remove , and it will affect China.When they were first asked to filter , they had no presence , and saying no would have meant very little to China : They 'd just go on as they were , and do their own thing .
Google pulling out now is a disruption .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In a way, I think they did better this way than if they'd just never agreed to filtering in the first place.
They now have a presence in China, which they can remove, and it will affect China.When they were first asked to filter, they had no presence, and saying no would have meant very little to China: They'd just go on as they were, and do their own thing.
Google pulling out now is a disruption.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30771390</id>
	<title>Re:But...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263465900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"That... or they'll just blame it on their status as a "developing nation" and that they shouldn't be held to the same standards as everyone else."</p><p>If you're referring to the Kyoto Protocol, the arrangement was for an obvious reason: the already-fully-industrialized countries didn't have any relevant standards for over 100 years before deciding that something might have to be done about CO2 emissions.  At which point it would kind of suck to be in the middle of the process of industrialization (China, India, others), only to be told "You can't do the same thing we already did for the last century or so."  The idea was for the already-industrialized countries to change their long-established behavior and demonstrate to the "developing nations" that it could be done, and <i>then</i> those "developing nations" would be obligated to follow suit -- i.e. to be held to the same standard as everyone else.</p><p>Instead, we didn't do much of anything, so they can go full steam ahead, just like <i>we already did in the past</i>.  If it's any consolation, that would mean we're being held to the same standards now.  The same ineffective and potentially dangerous standard if anthropogenic global warming is the concern some people think it is.</p><p>None of this negates the observation that foreign businesses in China are treated unfairly, and aren't able to do business on an even playing field, contrary to the bogus claims of the Chinese government.  The corruption is real.  However, it means the comparison you were making wasn't a good one.  If China has it's own laws, but selectively enforces them on foreign versus domestic countries or the government breaks them itself to gain an advantage for domestic companies, it's a rather different story from international agreements where a different treatment of countries was <i>intended</i>.</p><p>The situation is simple.   IF the Chinese government or its agents are behind this, it is a flagrant violation of domestic and international law.  Why should Google have to put up with that or stay quiet about it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" That... or they 'll just blame it on their status as a " developing nation " and that they should n't be held to the same standards as everyone else .
" If you 're referring to the Kyoto Protocol , the arrangement was for an obvious reason : the already-fully-industrialized countries did n't have any relevant standards for over 100 years before deciding that something might have to be done about CO2 emissions .
At which point it would kind of suck to be in the middle of the process of industrialization ( China , India , others ) , only to be told " You ca n't do the same thing we already did for the last century or so .
" The idea was for the already-industrialized countries to change their long-established behavior and demonstrate to the " developing nations " that it could be done , and then those " developing nations " would be obligated to follow suit -- i.e .
to be held to the same standard as everyone else.Instead , we did n't do much of anything , so they can go full steam ahead , just like we already did in the past .
If it 's any consolation , that would mean we 're being held to the same standards now .
The same ineffective and potentially dangerous standard if anthropogenic global warming is the concern some people think it is.None of this negates the observation that foreign businesses in China are treated unfairly , and are n't able to do business on an even playing field , contrary to the bogus claims of the Chinese government .
The corruption is real .
However , it means the comparison you were making was n't a good one .
If China has it 's own laws , but selectively enforces them on foreign versus domestic countries or the government breaks them itself to gain an advantage for domestic companies , it 's a rather different story from international agreements where a different treatment of countries was intended.The situation is simple .
IF the Chinese government or its agents are behind this , it is a flagrant violation of domestic and international law .
Why should Google have to put up with that or stay quiet about it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"That... or they'll just blame it on their status as a "developing nation" and that they shouldn't be held to the same standards as everyone else.
"If you're referring to the Kyoto Protocol, the arrangement was for an obvious reason: the already-fully-industrialized countries didn't have any relevant standards for over 100 years before deciding that something might have to be done about CO2 emissions.
At which point it would kind of suck to be in the middle of the process of industrialization (China, India, others), only to be told "You can't do the same thing we already did for the last century or so.
"  The idea was for the already-industrialized countries to change their long-established behavior and demonstrate to the "developing nations" that it could be done, and then those "developing nations" would be obligated to follow suit -- i.e.
to be held to the same standard as everyone else.Instead, we didn't do much of anything, so they can go full steam ahead, just like we already did in the past.
If it's any consolation, that would mean we're being held to the same standards now.
The same ineffective and potentially dangerous standard if anthropogenic global warming is the concern some people think it is.None of this negates the observation that foreign businesses in China are treated unfairly, and aren't able to do business on an even playing field, contrary to the bogus claims of the Chinese government.
The corruption is real.
However, it means the comparison you were making wasn't a good one.
If China has it's own laws, but selectively enforces them on foreign versus domestic countries or the government breaks them itself to gain an advantage for domestic companies, it's a rather different story from international agreements where a different treatment of countries was intended.The situation is simple.
IF the Chinese government or its agents are behind this, it is a flagrant violation of domestic and international law.
Why should Google have to put up with that or stay quiet about it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768704</id>
	<title>Re:No, Seriously...</title>
	<author>gtall</author>
	<datestamp>1263499380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Foreign policy has nothing or very little to do with U.S. debt. The total Defense budget was around $600 Billion while the total budget was about $3 Trillion. About $100 Billion of defense was spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan.</p><p>The biggest drivers of U.S. debt are....the American People. They created the current recession by buying and selling real estate in a game of musical chairs they thought they would not lose at. They were aided by the Congress-critters and blood-suckers on Wall Street. This exposed the hollowing out of U.S. manufacturing by those other blood-suckers, Business School Product who were last spotted attempting to outsource their grandmothers to Asia.</p><p>There are other problems that space and blood pressure prevent me from expressing to an audience with such delicate sensibilities.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Foreign policy has nothing or very little to do with U.S. debt. The total Defense budget was around $ 600 Billion while the total budget was about $ 3 Trillion .
About $ 100 Billion of defense was spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan.The biggest drivers of U.S. debt are....the American People .
They created the current recession by buying and selling real estate in a game of musical chairs they thought they would not lose at .
They were aided by the Congress-critters and blood-suckers on Wall Street .
This exposed the hollowing out of U.S. manufacturing by those other blood-suckers , Business School Product who were last spotted attempting to outsource their grandmothers to Asia.There are other problems that space and blood pressure prevent me from expressing to an audience with such delicate sensibilities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Foreign policy has nothing or very little to do with U.S. debt. The total Defense budget was around $600 Billion while the total budget was about $3 Trillion.
About $100 Billion of defense was spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan.The biggest drivers of U.S. debt are....the American People.
They created the current recession by buying and selling real estate in a game of musical chairs they thought they would not lose at.
They were aided by the Congress-critters and blood-suckers on Wall Street.
This exposed the hollowing out of U.S. manufacturing by those other blood-suckers, Business School Product who were last spotted attempting to outsource their grandmothers to Asia.There are other problems that space and blood pressure prevent me from expressing to an audience with such delicate sensibilities.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30773636</id>
	<title>Re:Finally above ground</title>
	<author>JordanL</author>
	<datestamp>1263476880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It really is incredible. One company decided to take a hit on their stock price in order to do what they knew was better in the long run. Maybe not for them, but for the industry and the world in general.<br> <br>

And as a matter of posture, they knew that being loud and public would force the two governments to directly confront each other over the issue.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It really is incredible .
One company decided to take a hit on their stock price in order to do what they knew was better in the long run .
Maybe not for them , but for the industry and the world in general .
And as a matter of posture , they knew that being loud and public would force the two governments to directly confront each other over the issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It really is incredible.
One company decided to take a hit on their stock price in order to do what they knew was better in the long run.
Maybe not for them, but for the industry and the world in general.
And as a matter of posture, they knew that being loud and public would force the two governments to directly confront each other over the issue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768150</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768468</id>
	<title>Re:What if *google* was was being used for espiona</title>
	<author>hey!</author>
	<datestamp>1263498660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your conspiracy theory is inside-out.</p><p>The ways this is supposed to work is that you explain something hard to understand at the cost of assuming something that is hard to swallow.  It's all about faultless logic proceeding from readily manufactured premises.</p><p>Although there is no evidence  that the NSA is monkeying with Chinese search engine traffic, if we look at it as a hypothetical scenario, it doesn't contradict anything we know about the world.  That makes this a weak conspiracy theory premise.  You're supposed to start from a premise that is implausible ("organized labor is conspiring with the bankers").  What's the point of a conspiracy theory that is based on plausible premises? One might as well form a plain old theory.</p><p>On the other hand, your theory fails to explain China's actions.  Why would they need to break into the email accounts of their political critics *in order to address the problem of NSA spying*?  It doesn't follow. What we're supposed to get by believing your theory's crazy premise is a slam-dunk conclusion to some mystery. Not only is the thing we want explained no mystery, if we buy into your theory we don't get any explanation at all. It's a dead end, because there's no logical connection.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your conspiracy theory is inside-out.The ways this is supposed to work is that you explain something hard to understand at the cost of assuming something that is hard to swallow .
It 's all about faultless logic proceeding from readily manufactured premises.Although there is no evidence that the NSA is monkeying with Chinese search engine traffic , if we look at it as a hypothetical scenario , it does n't contradict anything we know about the world .
That makes this a weak conspiracy theory premise .
You 're supposed to start from a premise that is implausible ( " organized labor is conspiring with the bankers " ) .
What 's the point of a conspiracy theory that is based on plausible premises ?
One might as well form a plain old theory.On the other hand , your theory fails to explain China 's actions .
Why would they need to break into the email accounts of their political critics * in order to address the problem of NSA spying * ?
It does n't follow .
What we 're supposed to get by believing your theory 's crazy premise is a slam-dunk conclusion to some mystery .
Not only is the thing we want explained no mystery , if we buy into your theory we do n't get any explanation at all .
It 's a dead end , because there 's no logical connection .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your conspiracy theory is inside-out.The ways this is supposed to work is that you explain something hard to understand at the cost of assuming something that is hard to swallow.
It's all about faultless logic proceeding from readily manufactured premises.Although there is no evidence  that the NSA is monkeying with Chinese search engine traffic, if we look at it as a hypothetical scenario, it doesn't contradict anything we know about the world.
That makes this a weak conspiracy theory premise.
You're supposed to start from a premise that is implausible ("organized labor is conspiring with the bankers").
What's the point of a conspiracy theory that is based on plausible premises?
One might as well form a plain old theory.On the other hand, your theory fails to explain China's actions.
Why would they need to break into the email accounts of their political critics *in order to address the problem of NSA spying*?
It doesn't follow.
What we're supposed to get by believing your theory's crazy premise is a slam-dunk conclusion to some mystery.
Not only is the thing we want explained no mystery, if we buy into your theory we don't get any explanation at all.
It's a dead end, because there's no logical connection.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30770088</id>
	<title>How about this...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263461100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sticking with just the Google and China issues... is it possible the attack was simply China anticipating Google's current action based on the long talks regarding the search censorship? If that were the case then the hack is simply, as many have put in other terms, an attempt to gather better code to boost the efficiency and or performance of the major search engine that is supported by the Chinese government. Maybe the gmail accounts that were targeted were simply a deterrent of the real hack and done as an F-U reminder of how things are going to go down. Google hasn't really explained the full details of their intellectual property loss and they problem won't because of PR issues which is understandable. I think the server that was hacked and the data extracted is the real source.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sticking with just the Google and China issues... is it possible the attack was simply China anticipating Google 's current action based on the long talks regarding the search censorship ?
If that were the case then the hack is simply , as many have put in other terms , an attempt to gather better code to boost the efficiency and or performance of the major search engine that is supported by the Chinese government .
Maybe the gmail accounts that were targeted were simply a deterrent of the real hack and done as an F-U reminder of how things are going to go down .
Google has n't really explained the full details of their intellectual property loss and they problem wo n't because of PR issues which is understandable .
I think the server that was hacked and the data extracted is the real source .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sticking with just the Google and China issues... is it possible the attack was simply China anticipating Google's current action based on the long talks regarding the search censorship?
If that were the case then the hack is simply, as many have put in other terms, an attempt to gather better code to boost the efficiency and or performance of the major search engine that is supported by the Chinese government.
Maybe the gmail accounts that were targeted were simply a deterrent of the real hack and done as an F-U reminder of how things are going to go down.
Google hasn't really explained the full details of their intellectual property loss and they problem won't because of PR issues which is understandable.
I think the server that was hacked and the data extracted is the real source.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30770336</id>
	<title>Re:But...</title>
	<author>jzhos</author>
	<datestamp>1263462120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because China is evil, so we just know they are the one behind all the internet hacking to US company/government/military sites</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because China is evil , so we just know they are the one behind all the internet hacking to US company/government/military sites</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because China is evil, so we just know they are the one behind all the internet hacking to US company/government/military sites</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30774218</id>
	<title>Re:Our response is?</title>
	<author>stephanruby</author>
	<datestamp>1263480960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Nothing of note. If they pull out publicly, they will continue to work with the Chinese through third parties. Shareholders don't give a damn about human rights or free speech. They just want their money.</p></div><p>
Yes and no. Yes, Corporations and shareholders do not care about human rights. But no, Corporations will be leery to do business in a country that tries to steal their intellectual property (and yes, that's also what happened in this case, Google claims the Chinese government stole intellectual property as well). This is the reason Corporations will pull out of China. It will be completely about their self-interest (and will have little to do with human rights). </p><p>Now don't get me wrong, they'll still do business in China. After all, American corporations still do business in Africa. It's just that when you don't trust a local government, you open up a mine there, or you open up a fast food joint, or a supermarket, but you keep everything else that's really valuable well outside of their reach.</p><p>And not too many Corporations even need to do this, it's just like when you live in a bad neighborhood, just a few people need to move away for their own personal self-interest, then convergence happens, everybody that can afford to -- will move away as well, and that neighborhood is only left with the most vulnerable people and the poorest people. This is what's likely to happen to China as well, most of the high-value business functions and/or refinement processes will be taken out of there, with only the least valuable business functions/units staying back.  </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nothing of note .
If they pull out publicly , they will continue to work with the Chinese through third parties .
Shareholders do n't give a damn about human rights or free speech .
They just want their money .
Yes and no .
Yes , Corporations and shareholders do not care about human rights .
But no , Corporations will be leery to do business in a country that tries to steal their intellectual property ( and yes , that 's also what happened in this case , Google claims the Chinese government stole intellectual property as well ) .
This is the reason Corporations will pull out of China .
It will be completely about their self-interest ( and will have little to do with human rights ) .
Now do n't get me wrong , they 'll still do business in China .
After all , American corporations still do business in Africa .
It 's just that when you do n't trust a local government , you open up a mine there , or you open up a fast food joint , or a supermarket , but you keep everything else that 's really valuable well outside of their reach.And not too many Corporations even need to do this , it 's just like when you live in a bad neighborhood , just a few people need to move away for their own personal self-interest , then convergence happens , everybody that can afford to -- will move away as well , and that neighborhood is only left with the most vulnerable people and the poorest people .
This is what 's likely to happen to China as well , most of the high-value business functions and/or refinement processes will be taken out of there , with only the least valuable business functions/units staying back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nothing of note.
If they pull out publicly, they will continue to work with the Chinese through third parties.
Shareholders don't give a damn about human rights or free speech.
They just want their money.
Yes and no.
Yes, Corporations and shareholders do not care about human rights.
But no, Corporations will be leery to do business in a country that tries to steal their intellectual property (and yes, that's also what happened in this case, Google claims the Chinese government stole intellectual property as well).
This is the reason Corporations will pull out of China.
It will be completely about their self-interest (and will have little to do with human rights).
Now don't get me wrong, they'll still do business in China.
After all, American corporations still do business in Africa.
It's just that when you don't trust a local government, you open up a mine there, or you open up a fast food joint, or a supermarket, but you keep everything else that's really valuable well outside of their reach.And not too many Corporations even need to do this, it's just like when you live in a bad neighborhood, just a few people need to move away for their own personal self-interest, then convergence happens, everybody that can afford to -- will move away as well, and that neighborhood is only left with the most vulnerable people and the poorest people.
This is what's likely to happen to China as well, most of the high-value business functions and/or refinement processes will be taken out of there, with only the least valuable business functions/units staying back.  
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30773110</id>
	<title>Re:No, Seriously...</title>
	<author>Rich0</author>
	<datestamp>1263473940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Sure in the future they might try to call the debt</i></p><p>This seems to be a common misunderstanding.  Holders of treasury bonds cannot "call the debt."</p><p>When China buys US debt, they buy treasury bonds (or one of the half-dozen other names the same basic instrument sells under).  A treasury bond is a promise to pay a stated sum of money on a given date.</p><p>So, today I might buy a $100 treasury bond with a maturity of 2040.  In 2040 I can turn in that bond for $100 in US dollars (cash or whatever) from the US government.  In 2039 it can't be turned in for a dime.  Now, in 2039 you could almost certainly sell it to somebody else for very close to $100.  The way China makes money is that the $100 bond might have only cost them $20-30 or whatever to buy today.  Bonds may also pay interest as well.</p><p>The only thing China can do is stop buying new bonds and cash in their existing ones as they mature.  The US never promised to give them money before the maturity date, so they are under no obligation to do so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure in the future they might try to call the debtThis seems to be a common misunderstanding .
Holders of treasury bonds can not " call the debt .
" When China buys US debt , they buy treasury bonds ( or one of the half-dozen other names the same basic instrument sells under ) .
A treasury bond is a promise to pay a stated sum of money on a given date.So , today I might buy a $ 100 treasury bond with a maturity of 2040 .
In 2040 I can turn in that bond for $ 100 in US dollars ( cash or whatever ) from the US government .
In 2039 it ca n't be turned in for a dime .
Now , in 2039 you could almost certainly sell it to somebody else for very close to $ 100 .
The way China makes money is that the $ 100 bond might have only cost them $ 20-30 or whatever to buy today .
Bonds may also pay interest as well.The only thing China can do is stop buying new bonds and cash in their existing ones as they mature .
The US never promised to give them money before the maturity date , so they are under no obligation to do so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure in the future they might try to call the debtThis seems to be a common misunderstanding.
Holders of treasury bonds cannot "call the debt.
"When China buys US debt, they buy treasury bonds (or one of the half-dozen other names the same basic instrument sells under).
A treasury bond is a promise to pay a stated sum of money on a given date.So, today I might buy a $100 treasury bond with a maturity of 2040.
In 2040 I can turn in that bond for $100 in US dollars (cash or whatever) from the US government.
In 2039 it can't be turned in for a dime.
Now, in 2039 you could almost certainly sell it to somebody else for very close to $100.
The way China makes money is that the $100 bond might have only cost them $20-30 or whatever to buy today.
Bonds may also pay interest as well.The only thing China can do is stop buying new bonds and cash in their existing ones as they mature.
The US never promised to give them money before the maturity date, so they are under no obligation to do so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30769422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30769784</id>
	<title>Re:But...</title>
	<author>calmofthestorm</author>
	<datestamp>1263460020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or explain that we ignorant Westerners "don't understand the Chinese culture" and are trying to foist our beliefs on them by objecting to their breaking into American servers.</p><p>This is a major international incident. I hope the State department chooses to treat it as such.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or explain that we ignorant Westerners " do n't understand the Chinese culture " and are trying to foist our beliefs on them by objecting to their breaking into American servers.This is a major international incident .
I hope the State department chooses to treat it as such .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or explain that we ignorant Westerners "don't understand the Chinese culture" and are trying to foist our beliefs on them by objecting to their breaking into American servers.This is a major international incident.
I hope the State department chooses to treat it as such.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767592</id>
	<title>I for one...</title>
	<author>Orleron</author>
	<datestamp>1263496020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>...welcome our Chinese Government Hacker Overlords.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...welcome our Chinese Government Hacker Overlords .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...welcome our Chinese Government Hacker Overlords.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768248</id>
	<title>Re:Fight China -- the capitalist way!</title>
	<author>jgtg32a</author>
	<datestamp>1263497940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They don't have to pull out, but removing "Most Favored Nation" trade status might help.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They do n't have to pull out , but removing " Most Favored Nation " trade status might help .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They don't have to pull out, but removing "Most Favored Nation" trade status might help.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767684</id>
	<title>Re:But...</title>
	<author>Narpak</author>
	<datestamp>1263496320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>..and that they shouldn't be held to the same standards as everyone else.</p></div><p>Somehow I think that MI6, CIA, FSB, or other major security organizations, are committing countless similar attacks; they are just slightly better at hiding it. And such companies, or organizations, that they do attack wouldn't be investigated or reported by groups such as VeriSign.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>..and that they should n't be held to the same standards as everyone else.Somehow I think that MI6 , CIA , FSB , or other major security organizations , are committing countless similar attacks ; they are just slightly better at hiding it .
And such companies , or organizations , that they do attack would n't be investigated or reported by groups such as VeriSign .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ..and that they shouldn't be held to the same standards as everyone else.Somehow I think that MI6, CIA, FSB, or other major security organizations, are committing countless similar attacks; they are just slightly better at hiding it.
And such companies, or organizations, that they do attack wouldn't be investigated or reported by groups such as VeriSign.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768814</id>
	<title>Re:But...</title>
	<author>It'sVersusItsGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1263499860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Haha, of course what you really ought to say is "I'm a stupid person who doesn't pay attention." As you probably know, the word "its" is the possessive of "it." You obviously intended to use the word "it's," which is a contraction of the words "it is." Hacking the language does not help Slashdot develop its readers, so please be more careful from now on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Haha , of course what you really ought to say is " I 'm a stupid person who does n't pay attention .
" As you probably know , the word " its " is the possessive of " it .
" You obviously intended to use the word " it 's , " which is a contraction of the words " it is .
" Hacking the language does not help Slashdot develop its readers , so please be more careful from now on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Haha, of course what you really ought to say is "I'm a stupid person who doesn't pay attention.
" As you probably know, the word "its" is the possessive of "it.
" You obviously intended to use the word "it's," which is a contraction of the words "it is.
" Hacking the language does not help Slashdot develop its readers, so please be more careful from now on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768312</id>
	<title>Re:But...</title>
	<author>krou</author>
	<datestamp>1263498120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm also curious what their evidence is. The Ars Technica article just has the quote used above: "The source IPs and drop server of the attack correspond to a single foreign entity consisting either of agents of the Chinese state or proxies thereof." These accusations are being made by a company that possibly has a lot to gain by over-hyping the threat, so perhaps some healthy<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. scepticism on this is necessary. Does anyone have access to the actual report to clarify what the evidence is? I had a look on the iDefense website, and couldn't see it anywhere.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm also curious what their evidence is .
The Ars Technica article just has the quote used above : " The source IPs and drop server of the attack correspond to a single foreign entity consisting either of agents of the Chinese state or proxies thereof .
" These accusations are being made by a company that possibly has a lot to gain by over-hyping the threat , so perhaps some healthy / .
scepticism on this is necessary .
Does anyone have access to the actual report to clarify what the evidence is ?
I had a look on the iDefense website , and could n't see it anywhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm also curious what their evidence is.
The Ars Technica article just has the quote used above: "The source IPs and drop server of the attack correspond to a single foreign entity consisting either of agents of the Chinese state or proxies thereof.
" These accusations are being made by a company that possibly has a lot to gain by over-hyping the threat, so perhaps some healthy /.
scepticism on this is necessary.
Does anyone have access to the actual report to clarify what the evidence is?
I had a look on the iDefense website, and couldn't see it anywhere.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768064</id>
	<title>Re:But...</title>
	<author>number17</author>
	<datestamp>1263497460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Meanwhile the Russians are laughing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Meanwhile the Russians are laughing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Meanwhile the Russians are laughing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767522</id>
	<title>What if *google* was was being used for espionage</title>
	<author>gaspar ilom</author>
	<datestamp>1263495780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What if the Chinese government feared that Google was being used to engage in espionage against its interests?   (either by US intelligence authorities, or other actors, like Taiwan?)  Hasn't Slashdot reported for years about hardware and software backdoors being mandated by government?  Is it so hard to believe that the NSA might pressure Google (or, surreptitiously alter google.cn) to engage in espionage for the United States?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What if the Chinese government feared that Google was being used to engage in espionage against its interests ?
( either by US intelligence authorities , or other actors , like Taiwan ?
) Has n't Slashdot reported for years about hardware and software backdoors being mandated by government ?
Is it so hard to believe that the NSA might pressure Google ( or , surreptitiously alter google.cn ) to engage in espionage for the United States ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if the Chinese government feared that Google was being used to engage in espionage against its interests?
(either by US intelligence authorities, or other actors, like Taiwan?
)  Hasn't Slashdot reported for years about hardware and software backdoors being mandated by government?
Is it so hard to believe that the NSA might pressure Google (or, surreptitiously alter google.cn) to engage in espionage for the United States?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30771986</id>
	<title>Re:can't say i'm surprised</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263468720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wrong. They hacked you back. All your base are belong to them.</p><p>Where did all those schematics for the F-35 go to? Oh, thats right....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wrong .
They hacked you back .
All your base are belong to them.Where did all those schematics for the F-35 go to ?
Oh , thats right... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wrong.
They hacked you back.
All your base are belong to them.Where did all those schematics for the F-35 go to?
Oh, thats right....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30771916</id>
	<title>Re:No, Seriously...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263468360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What China realised and the USSR didn't, IMO, is that they could forget the cold war and essentially buy the west with the west's own money.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/crazy theory</p></div><p>Maybe they realized it and already succeeded.  I would argue they bought or influenced every major media company, pushed a socialist agenda, and now we have a socialist president.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What China realised and the USSR did n't , IMO , is that they could forget the cold war and essentially buy the west with the west 's own money .
/crazy theoryMaybe they realized it and already succeeded .
I would argue they bought or influenced every major media company , pushed a socialist agenda , and now we have a socialist president .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What China realised and the USSR didn't, IMO, is that they could forget the cold war and essentially buy the west with the west's own money.
/crazy theoryMaybe they realized it and already succeeded.
I would argue they bought or influenced every major media company, pushed a socialist agenda, and now we have a socialist president.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767862</id>
	<title>Re:But...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263496920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...we have evidence to suggest that a primary goal of the attackers was accessing the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists.</p></div><p>cui bono?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...we have evidence to suggest that a primary goal of the attackers was accessing the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists.cui bono ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...we have evidence to suggest that a primary goal of the attackers was accessing the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists.cui bono?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30769136</id>
	<title>Re:Unleash the hounds</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263500880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lets get forks and torches. Burn'em I say!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lets get forks and torches .
Burn'em I say !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lets get forks and torches.
Burn'em I say!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30772012</id>
	<title>Re:Our response is?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263468840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While this straw may not break the camel's back, it still adds to the weight. Eventually it will snap. Soon, perhaps?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>and the American populace is too apathetic to sacrifice any amount of convenience</p></div><p>And so are you by blinding yourself with convenient sarcasm and blow-offery.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>While this straw may not break the camel 's back , it still adds to the weight .
Eventually it will snap .
Soon , perhaps ? and the American populace is too apathetic to sacrifice any amount of convenienceAnd so are you by blinding yourself with convenient sarcasm and blow-offery .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While this straw may not break the camel's back, it still adds to the weight.
Eventually it will snap.
Soon, perhaps?and the American populace is too apathetic to sacrifice any amount of convenienceAnd so are you by blinding yourself with convenient sarcasm and blow-offery.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30769020</id>
	<title>Re:No, Seriously...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263500520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If one side wins both sides win, if one sides loose both sides loose.</p></div></blockquote><p>

That's not entirely true.  Certainly the US loses if China quits financing American consumption, but the notion that they need someone to consume their goods in order to feed themselves is preposterous.  They would certainly face a period of instability while they adjust to the idea of consuming their own products, but in the end, they have the manufacturing base now.  They could, with a little effort (and a hit to their dollar-denominated assets, but that can be overcome), play both the role of producer and consumer, as America did for some time, but that would probably result in too much individual prosperity and the currently ignorant masses learning about individual liberty and questioning the authoritarian regime.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If one side wins both sides win , if one sides loose both sides loose .
That 's not entirely true .
Certainly the US loses if China quits financing American consumption , but the notion that they need someone to consume their goods in order to feed themselves is preposterous .
They would certainly face a period of instability while they adjust to the idea of consuming their own products , but in the end , they have the manufacturing base now .
They could , with a little effort ( and a hit to their dollar-denominated assets , but that can be overcome ) , play both the role of producer and consumer , as America did for some time , but that would probably result in too much individual prosperity and the currently ignorant masses learning about individual liberty and questioning the authoritarian regime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If one side wins both sides win, if one sides loose both sides loose.
That's not entirely true.
Certainly the US loses if China quits financing American consumption, but the notion that they need someone to consume their goods in order to feed themselves is preposterous.
They would certainly face a period of instability while they adjust to the idea of consuming their own products, but in the end, they have the manufacturing base now.
They could, with a little effort (and a hit to their dollar-denominated assets, but that can be overcome), play both the role of producer and consumer, as America did for some time, but that would probably result in too much individual prosperity and the currently ignorant masses learning about individual liberty and questioning the authoritarian regime.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767466</id>
	<title>News from our correspondant: Cartman</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263495660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google:  Stop Probing me!<br>Chinese:  Respect My Authorita!<br>Google:  Follow your own **** law. Screw you guys! I'm going home!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google : Stop Probing me ! Chinese : Respect My Authorita ! Google : Follow your own * * * * law .
Screw you guys !
I 'm going home !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google:  Stop Probing me!Chinese:  Respect My Authorita!Google:  Follow your own **** law.
Screw you guys!
I'm going home!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767816</id>
	<title>Re:But...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263496800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, like they shouldn't be held accountable for policing their manufacturning facilities and keeping <a href="http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1506464" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">lead and cadmium</a> [slashdot.org] out of childrens toys .  Seems like WWIII has started a little early, no one bothered to inform us.  China is actively attacking American corporations, as well as poisoning our children.  I don't believe in war, per se, but I do believe in cutting trade ties.  I spent a day going to the most expensive toy shops in the city, and all I could find was a really expensive doll made in China.  The toy dealer said they could order a doll from Germany, for over $600.  Who knows why we couldn't produce one for $40-$100 . . .</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , like they should n't be held accountable for policing their manufacturning facilities and keeping lead and cadmium [ slashdot.org ] out of childrens toys .
Seems like WWIII has started a little early , no one bothered to inform us .
China is actively attacking American corporations , as well as poisoning our children .
I do n't believe in war , per se , but I do believe in cutting trade ties .
I spent a day going to the most expensive toy shops in the city , and all I could find was a really expensive doll made in China .
The toy dealer said they could order a doll from Germany , for over $ 600 .
Who knows why we could n't produce one for $ 40- $ 100 .
. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, like they shouldn't be held accountable for policing their manufacturning facilities and keeping lead and cadmium [slashdot.org] out of childrens toys .
Seems like WWIII has started a little early, no one bothered to inform us.
China is actively attacking American corporations, as well as poisoning our children.
I don't believe in war, per se, but I do believe in cutting trade ties.
I spent a day going to the most expensive toy shops in the city, and all I could find was a really expensive doll made in China.
The toy dealer said they could order a doll from Germany, for over $600.
Who knows why we couldn't produce one for $40-$100 .
. .</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768150</id>
	<title>Re:Finally above ground</title>
	<author>Daniel\_Staal</author>
	<datestamp>1263497700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think part of the reason is Google's reaction: It was clear, big, and public.  Google is apparently fully willing to walk out of China, and it's entire market.  If not directly over this, at least because it is the last straw.</p><p>If the company involved were to just hush it up and sweep it under the rug, then there is apparently no problem and nothing for the governments to react to.  Google made them react.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think part of the reason is Google 's reaction : It was clear , big , and public .
Google is apparently fully willing to walk out of China , and it 's entire market .
If not directly over this , at least because it is the last straw.If the company involved were to just hush it up and sweep it under the rug , then there is apparently no problem and nothing for the governments to react to .
Google made them react .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think part of the reason is Google's reaction: It was clear, big, and public.
Google is apparently fully willing to walk out of China, and it's entire market.
If not directly over this, at least because it is the last straw.If the company involved were to just hush it up and sweep it under the rug, then there is apparently no problem and nothing for the governments to react to.
Google made them react.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767454</id>
	<title>Never trust the Chinese!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263495660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I've said it once, I've said it 1000 times. DO NOT TRUST THE CHINESE!!!</p><p>We need to deport every last one of these motherfuckers.  Naturalized or not they will never be Americans.  Their allegiance is to China PERIOD. DEPORT THEM NOW!</p><p>Cue all the liberal cunt multiculturalists who think the world is one big love-in.  Joke is on you whiteboy!  You're a subhuman barbarian in their eyes, even your Chinese "friends" in University.  Have fun kissing their asses fools!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I 've said it once , I 've said it 1000 times .
DO NOT TRUST THE CHINESE ! !
! We need to deport every last one of these motherfuckers .
Naturalized or not they will never be Americans .
Their allegiance is to China PERIOD .
DEPORT THEM NOW ! Cue all the liberal cunt multiculturalists who think the world is one big love-in .
Joke is on you whiteboy !
You 're a subhuman barbarian in their eyes , even your Chinese " friends " in University .
Have fun kissing their asses fools !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I've said it once, I've said it 1000 times.
DO NOT TRUST THE CHINESE!!
!We need to deport every last one of these motherfuckers.
Naturalized or not they will never be Americans.
Their allegiance is to China PERIOD.
DEPORT THEM NOW!Cue all the liberal cunt multiculturalists who think the world is one big love-in.
Joke is on you whiteboy!
You're a subhuman barbarian in their eyes, even your Chinese "friends" in University.
Have fun kissing their asses fools!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30769540</id>
	<title>Re:Our response is?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263502200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hack the planet! Hack the planet!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hack the planet !
Hack the planet !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hack the planet!
Hack the planet!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30769058</id>
	<title>Re:No, Seriously...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263500640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The problem with this theory of winning the new cold war simply by buying the opponent is that it doesn't, and can't, lead to any kind of victory.</p><p>By investing in US debt China has bound themselves in an unholy blood pact to the U.S. economy. We on some level need them to continue pouring money into the economy to pay for poorly thought out foreign policy, they on the other hand need us to continue to prosper or all of their investments become worthless. If one side wins both sides win, if one sides loose both sides loose. The Chinese have already shown their realization of this in their effort to keep interest rates low to prevent inflation from devaluing their assets.</p></div><p>The U.S. can win by refusing to pay their debt and leaving China holding the bag. Sure it would cause chaos and put some serious damage on the reputation of the country, but there's no reason why the U.S. could not do this. So technically the U.S. can win and completely destroy China and the rest of the world economically becoming a tiny bubble above a rising tide of debt</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with this theory of winning the new cold war simply by buying the opponent is that it does n't , and ca n't , lead to any kind of victory.By investing in US debt China has bound themselves in an unholy blood pact to the U.S. economy. We on some level need them to continue pouring money into the economy to pay for poorly thought out foreign policy , they on the other hand need us to continue to prosper or all of their investments become worthless .
If one side wins both sides win , if one sides loose both sides loose .
The Chinese have already shown their realization of this in their effort to keep interest rates low to prevent inflation from devaluing their assets.The U.S. can win by refusing to pay their debt and leaving China holding the bag .
Sure it would cause chaos and put some serious damage on the reputation of the country , but there 's no reason why the U.S. could not do this .
So technically the U.S. can win and completely destroy China and the rest of the world economically becoming a tiny bubble above a rising tide of debt</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with this theory of winning the new cold war simply by buying the opponent is that it doesn't, and can't, lead to any kind of victory.By investing in US debt China has bound themselves in an unholy blood pact to the U.S. economy. We on some level need them to continue pouring money into the economy to pay for poorly thought out foreign policy, they on the other hand need us to continue to prosper or all of their investments become worthless.
If one side wins both sides win, if one sides loose both sides loose.
The Chinese have already shown their realization of this in their effort to keep interest rates low to prevent inflation from devaluing their assets.The U.S. can win by refusing to pay their debt and leaving China holding the bag.
Sure it would cause chaos and put some serious damage on the reputation of the country, but there's no reason why the U.S. could not do this.
So technically the U.S. can win and completely destroy China and the rest of the world economically becoming a tiny bubble above a rising tide of debt
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30771202</id>
	<title>Re:Consequences?</title>
	<author>Simetrical</author>
	<datestamp>1263465180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If the EU can fine a US company for what amounted to unfair business practices,
what should the US do to China?

Debt?
What debt?</p></div><p>And then never have a foreign nation lend to us again?  Have to pay higher interest rates to American lenders too, uncertain at our lack of scruples?  Not a good plan.  Besides, this kind of thing leads to retaliation, and everyone loses.  We trade an awful lot with China, and it would hurt us noticeably if all that trade went to Europe instead.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the EU can fine a US company for what amounted to unfair business practices , what should the US do to China ?
Debt ? What debt ? And then never have a foreign nation lend to us again ?
Have to pay higher interest rates to American lenders too , uncertain at our lack of scruples ?
Not a good plan .
Besides , this kind of thing leads to retaliation , and everyone loses .
We trade an awful lot with China , and it would hurt us noticeably if all that trade went to Europe instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the EU can fine a US company for what amounted to unfair business practices,
what should the US do to China?
Debt?
What debt?And then never have a foreign nation lend to us again?
Have to pay higher interest rates to American lenders too, uncertain at our lack of scruples?
Not a good plan.
Besides, this kind of thing leads to retaliation, and everyone loses.
We trade an awful lot with China, and it would hurt us noticeably if all that trade went to Europe instead.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767418</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767860</id>
	<title>Re:Our response is?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263496920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. Except for (maybe) Google - nothing.<br>2. nothing<br>3. nothing<br>4. bitch and moan about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Except for ( maybe ) Google - nothing.2 .
nothing3. nothing4 .
bitch and moan about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Except for (maybe) Google - nothing.2.
nothing3. nothing4.
bitch and moan about it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768266</id>
	<title>Re:Fight China -- the capitalist way!</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1263498000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The "capitalistic" way on which US fought China is selling them debt in big numbers. So now each US citizen owes China thousands of dollars.That kind of attack is like hitting their fists with your face till their bleed. In the "free market" approach they already are the winners, and for a wide margin.

Of course, US can declare that they won't pay that debt, because in China don't respect human rights, opening the door to every country that had any trouble with what was done in Guantanamo, or that don't have death sentences, to deny any debt thay could have with US companies/government aducing that in US they don't respect human rights neither.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The " capitalistic " way on which US fought China is selling them debt in big numbers .
So now each US citizen owes China thousands of dollars.That kind of attack is like hitting their fists with your face till their bleed .
In the " free market " approach they already are the winners , and for a wide margin .
Of course , US can declare that they wo n't pay that debt , because in China do n't respect human rights , opening the door to every country that had any trouble with what was done in Guantanamo , or that do n't have death sentences , to deny any debt thay could have with US companies/government aducing that in US they do n't respect human rights neither .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The "capitalistic" way on which US fought China is selling them debt in big numbers.
So now each US citizen owes China thousands of dollars.That kind of attack is like hitting their fists with your face till their bleed.
In the "free market" approach they already are the winners, and for a wide margin.
Of course, US can declare that they won't pay that debt, because in China don't respect human rights, opening the door to every country that had any trouble with what was done in Guantanamo, or that don't have death sentences, to deny any debt thay could have with US companies/government aducing that in US they don't respect human rights neither.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767826</id>
	<title>Re:What if *google* was was being used for espiona</title>
	<author>Jeng</author>
	<datestamp>1263496860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gmail, the aspect of Google that was being hacked is not available in China.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gmail , the aspect of Google that was being hacked is not available in China .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gmail, the aspect of Google that was being hacked is not available in China.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30769238</id>
	<title>Not</title>
	<author>Bardwick</author>
	<datestamp>1263501240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You assume the US and China have an economic goal.  China could easily turn it into a VERY expensive weapon.<br>Never got any money back for a cruise missle either.  Don't assume that money means financial.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You assume the US and China have an economic goal .
China could easily turn it into a VERY expensive weapon.Never got any money back for a cruise missle either .
Do n't assume that money means financial .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You assume the US and China have an economic goal.
China could easily turn it into a VERY expensive weapon.Never got any money back for a cruise missle either.
Don't assume that money means financial.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30771226</id>
	<title>Re:No, Seriously...</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1263465300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If one side wins both sides win, if one sides loose both sides loose.</p></div></blockquote><p>But don't forget that because China is a totalitarian state, they don't care as much about what happens to their citizens. If they "win" by a method that makes their citizens suffer heavily, they just may do it. Vietnam etc. has shown that one can win against the US by out-suffering us. It's easier to get your underlings to suffer for a cause in a totalitarian system than in a democracy.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If one side wins both sides win , if one sides loose both sides loose.But do n't forget that because China is a totalitarian state , they do n't care as much about what happens to their citizens .
If they " win " by a method that makes their citizens suffer heavily , they just may do it .
Vietnam etc .
has shown that one can win against the US by out-suffering us .
It 's easier to get your underlings to suffer for a cause in a totalitarian system than in a democracy .
     </tokentext>
<sentencetext>If one side wins both sides win, if one sides loose both sides loose.But don't forget that because China is a totalitarian state, they don't care as much about what happens to their citizens.
If they "win" by a method that makes their citizens suffer heavily, they just may do it.
Vietnam etc.
has shown that one can win against the US by out-suffering us.
It's easier to get your underlings to suffer for a cause in a totalitarian system than in a democracy.
     
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767710</id>
	<title>Re:But...</title>
	<author>FlyingBishop</author>
	<datestamp>1263496380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They traced it to Chinese government IPs. Unless China comes out and says they were hacked, and are working with Google to find the nature of the attack, that's pretty ironclad.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They traced it to Chinese government IPs .
Unless China comes out and says they were hacked , and are working with Google to find the nature of the attack , that 's pretty ironclad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They traced it to Chinese government IPs.
Unless China comes out and says they were hacked, and are working with Google to find the nature of the attack, that's pretty ironclad.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768276</id>
	<title>Re:No, Seriously...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263498000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p> and the fact that China is a major nuclear power.</p></div><p>China has only 25 non-MIRVed ICBMs with the range to hit us. Amazingly all are liquid fueled (meaning they take up to 30 minutes to load with fuel) and are not mobile.</p><p>So it would be pretty easy to wipe them out with a first strike assuming our intelligence services know where their missile sites are.  If we used our SLBMs they definitely wouldn't have time to react.  You could say they'd fire first, but the only thing stupider than starting a nuclear war is starting one when your opponent has thousands more than you.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>and the fact that China is a major nuclear power.China has only 25 non-MIRVed ICBMs with the range to hit us .
Amazingly all are liquid fueled ( meaning they take up to 30 minutes to load with fuel ) and are not mobile.So it would be pretty easy to wipe them out with a first strike assuming our intelligence services know where their missile sites are .
If we used our SLBMs they definitely would n't have time to react .
You could say they 'd fire first , but the only thing stupider than starting a nuclear war is starting one when your opponent has thousands more than you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> and the fact that China is a major nuclear power.China has only 25 non-MIRVed ICBMs with the range to hit us.
Amazingly all are liquid fueled (meaning they take up to 30 minutes to load with fuel) and are not mobile.So it would be pretty easy to wipe them out with a first strike assuming our intelligence services know where their missile sites are.
If we used our SLBMs they definitely wouldn't have time to react.
You could say they'd fire first, but the only thing stupider than starting a nuclear war is starting one when your opponent has thousands more than you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767264</id>
	<title>can't say i'm surprised</title>
	<author>jacktherobot</author>
	<datestamp>1263495060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>now that its clear that the attackers were government agents the question is what will the US state department do.</htmltext>
<tokenext>now that its clear that the attackers were government agents the question is what will the US state department do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>now that its clear that the attackers were government agents the question is what will the US state department do.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30769608</id>
	<title>Re:Write Google</title>
	<author>dj\_tla</author>
	<datestamp>1263502440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just wrote that to a random contact on my Gmail Chat list. I'm sure they'll get it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just wrote that to a random contact on my Gmail Chat list .
I 'm sure they 'll get it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just wrote that to a random contact on my Gmail Chat list.
I'm sure they'll get it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768436</id>
	<title>Re:But...</title>
	<author>kestasjk</author>
	<datestamp>1263498540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Weird how far you have to scroll down to see this message, after all the conspiracy theories etc. The real question is how do they know this is the Chinese government and not a bunch of hacktivists or whatever they call themselves.<br> <br>

The McDonalds website was defaced a few years ago removing Taiwan being listed as a separate country from China, but does that mean Hu himself authorized the vandalism or was it some nationalist?<br>
I think we really need more evidence than "it came from China, so it must be the Chinese government".</htmltext>
<tokenext>Weird how far you have to scroll down to see this message , after all the conspiracy theories etc .
The real question is how do they know this is the Chinese government and not a bunch of hacktivists or whatever they call themselves .
The McDonalds website was defaced a few years ago removing Taiwan being listed as a separate country from China , but does that mean Hu himself authorized the vandalism or was it some nationalist ?
I think we really need more evidence than " it came from China , so it must be the Chinese government " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Weird how far you have to scroll down to see this message, after all the conspiracy theories etc.
The real question is how do they know this is the Chinese government and not a bunch of hacktivists or whatever they call themselves.
The McDonalds website was defaced a few years ago removing Taiwan being listed as a separate country from China, but does that mean Hu himself authorized the vandalism or was it some nationalist?
I think we really need more evidence than "it came from China, so it must be the Chinese government".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767564</id>
	<title>Re:can't say i'm surprised</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263495960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What did China do when they found all the bugs the US government put in the plane we sold them?</p><p>Nothing.<br><a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2002/jan/20/news/mn-23796" title="latimes.com">http://articles.latimes.com/2002/jan/20/news/mn-23796</a> [latimes.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What did China do when they found all the bugs the US government put in the plane we sold them ? Nothing.http : //articles.latimes.com/2002/jan/20/news/mn-23796 [ latimes.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What did China do when they found all the bugs the US government put in the plane we sold them?Nothing.http://articles.latimes.com/2002/jan/20/news/mn-23796 [latimes.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767260</id>
	<title>To quote Iago . . .</title>
	<author>Tanman</author>
	<datestamp>1263495060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh there's a big surprise! That's an incredible - I think I'm going to have a heart attack and die of not surprise!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh there 's a big surprise !
That 's an incredible - I think I 'm going to have a heart attack and die of not surprise !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh there's a big surprise!
That's an incredible - I think I'm going to have a heart attack and die of not surprise!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767908</id>
	<title>wait a sec...</title>
	<author>TakeoffZebra</author>
	<datestamp>1263497040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Doesn't the NSA already monitor and filter through Chinese internet traffic?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't the NSA already monitor and filter through Chinese internet traffic ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't the NSA already monitor and filter through Chinese internet traffic?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768842</id>
	<title>Re:Finally above ground</title>
	<author>maxwell demon</author>
	<datestamp>1263499980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The US has been playing along with China in the belief that given a long enough time they will succumb to a free market capitalism.</p></div></blockquote><p>They have. Don't confuse a free market with free people. On a free market, you are free to sell whatever you want, at whatever price you want. You are not necessarily free to <em>say</em> whatever you want.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The US has been playing along with China in the belief that given a long enough time they will succumb to a free market capitalism.They have .
Do n't confuse a free market with free people .
On a free market , you are free to sell whatever you want , at whatever price you want .
You are not necessarily free to say whatever you want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US has been playing along with China in the belief that given a long enough time they will succumb to a free market capitalism.They have.
Don't confuse a free market with free people.
On a free market, you are free to sell whatever you want, at whatever price you want.
You are not necessarily free to say whatever you want.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767974</id>
	<title>Re:SHOCKING</title>
	<author>T Murphy</author>
	<datestamp>1263497220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't expect there's much surprise that the Chinese government was behind the attacks, but usually we can't do anything about it because we can't <i>prove</i> they did it. Google is saying they can, which suddenly brings this from muttering about China to companies and governments being forced to confront the issue in fear of explicitly giving in to China's every whim, as opposed to the implicit submission we've seen so far.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't expect there 's much surprise that the Chinese government was behind the attacks , but usually we ca n't do anything about it because we ca n't prove they did it .
Google is saying they can , which suddenly brings this from muttering about China to companies and governments being forced to confront the issue in fear of explicitly giving in to China 's every whim , as opposed to the implicit submission we 've seen so far .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't expect there's much surprise that the Chinese government was behind the attacks, but usually we can't do anything about it because we can't prove they did it.
Google is saying they can, which suddenly brings this from muttering about China to companies and governments being forced to confront the issue in fear of explicitly giving in to China's every whim, as opposed to the implicit submission we've seen so far.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767298</id>
	<title>Honestly</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263495180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If that does not generate a stern response of some western politicians it will be a very bad sign</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If that does not generate a stern response of some western politicians it will be a very bad sign</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If that does not generate a stern response of some western politicians it will be a very bad sign</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30769008</id>
	<title>Re:Our response is?</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1263500460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The same thing we do every night, Pinky.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The same thing we do every night , Pinky .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The same thing we do every night, Pinky.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767400</id>
	<title>everyone knew it all along</title>
	<author>kai\_hiwatari</author>
	<datestamp>1263495540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Doesn't surprise me. Doesn't everyone know that it was them all along?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't surprise me .
Does n't everyone know that it was them all along ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't surprise me.
Doesn't everyone know that it was them all along?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30776596</id>
	<title>fat bloated tick</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263550500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the chin*se government and its corrupt police and military thugs are  a fat bloated tick sucking the life out of the chin*se population.<br>anyone thinking of doing business with such a corrupt regime needs psychiatric help</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the chin * se government and its corrupt police and military thugs are a fat bloated tick sucking the life out of the chin * se population.anyone thinking of doing business with such a corrupt regime needs psychiatric help</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the chin*se government and its corrupt police and military thugs are  a fat bloated tick sucking the life out of the chin*se population.anyone thinking of doing business with such a corrupt regime needs psychiatric help</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767438</id>
	<title>Re:But...</title>
	<author>eldavojohn</author>
	<datestamp>1263495660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It couldn't be them. China would never do anything wrong.</p><p>That... or they'll just blame it on their status as a "developing nation" and that they shouldn't be held to the same standards as everyone else.</p></div><p>The original official notification of this <a href="http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-approach-to-china.html" title="blogspot.com">from Google's Chief Legal Officer</a> [blogspot.com] where he mentioned human rights advocates and human rights issues causes this to seem above the average security breach:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Second, we have evidence to suggest that a primary goal of the attackers was accessing the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists.</p></div><p>I can understand how "We can't enforce copyright on software and music when we're busy lifting hundreds of millions of citizens out of poverty as a developing nation" works but I can't understand how "We need to arrest and persecute human rights activists because we're a developing nation" works.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It could n't be them .
China would never do anything wrong.That... or they 'll just blame it on their status as a " developing nation " and that they should n't be held to the same standards as everyone else.The original official notification of this from Google 's Chief Legal Officer [ blogspot.com ] where he mentioned human rights advocates and human rights issues causes this to seem above the average security breach : Second , we have evidence to suggest that a primary goal of the attackers was accessing the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists.I can understand how " We ca n't enforce copyright on software and music when we 're busy lifting hundreds of millions of citizens out of poverty as a developing nation " works but I ca n't understand how " We need to arrest and persecute human rights activists because we 're a developing nation " works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It couldn't be them.
China would never do anything wrong.That... or they'll just blame it on their status as a "developing nation" and that they shouldn't be held to the same standards as everyone else.The original official notification of this from Google's Chief Legal Officer [blogspot.com] where he mentioned human rights advocates and human rights issues causes this to seem above the average security breach:Second, we have evidence to suggest that a primary goal of the attackers was accessing the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists.I can understand how "We can't enforce copyright on software and music when we're busy lifting hundreds of millions of citizens out of poverty as a developing nation" works but I can't understand how "We need to arrest and persecute human rights activists because we're a developing nation" works.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767504</id>
	<title>Confirmed: China is a "Developing Nation"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263495720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>China really must be a "developing nation" if the might of their government either:</p><p>1) Can't even manage to get a machine on the internet that's 'anonymous' or 'obtained by proxy' that people can't trace back to the government<br>or:<br>2) Can't keep track of their stuff sufficiently well that someone else can't use their stuff to mount an attack on Google</p><p>We in the West often take for granted just how advanced our societies and governments are. I'm fairly sure even we Brits could manage to make it appear like the attack came from a primary school, or maybe a Tailor's shop. Our American cousins are a little better funded and advanced, so I'm sure, easily capable of making it look like the attack came from the Moon, or failing that a local Starbucks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>China really must be a " developing nation " if the might of their government either : 1 ) Ca n't even manage to get a machine on the internet that 's 'anonymous ' or 'obtained by proxy ' that people ca n't trace back to the governmentor : 2 ) Ca n't keep track of their stuff sufficiently well that someone else ca n't use their stuff to mount an attack on GoogleWe in the West often take for granted just how advanced our societies and governments are .
I 'm fairly sure even we Brits could manage to make it appear like the attack came from a primary school , or maybe a Tailor 's shop .
Our American cousins are a little better funded and advanced , so I 'm sure , easily capable of making it look like the attack came from the Moon , or failing that a local Starbucks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>China really must be a "developing nation" if the might of their government either:1) Can't even manage to get a machine on the internet that's 'anonymous' or 'obtained by proxy' that people can't trace back to the governmentor:2) Can't keep track of their stuff sufficiently well that someone else can't use their stuff to mount an attack on GoogleWe in the West often take for granted just how advanced our societies and governments are.
I'm fairly sure even we Brits could manage to make it appear like the attack came from a primary school, or maybe a Tailor's shop.
Our American cousins are a little better funded and advanced, so I'm sure, easily capable of making it look like the attack came from the Moon, or failing that a local Starbucks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30769422</id>
	<title>Re:No, Seriously...</title>
	<author>imunfair</author>
	<datestamp>1263501840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not sure I agree with several of your premises.  They're the popular views, but I'm not sure if they're actually true.</p><p>The first supposition is that China owns a large portion of our debt - this one I can factually dispute based on numbers from: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United\_States\_public\_debt" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United\_States\_public\_debt</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>Foreign and international own approximately 28\% of our debt, and China owns 24\% of the international debt.  This means China only holds about 7\% of our total debt.</p><p>Second, and this is just my own supposition, I don't think China cares if they get repaid.  As long as their economy flourishes they are happy to allow us to pay cents on the dollar for their items by undervaluing their currency and buying our debt.  Think of it as China's "stimulus package" for their economy.  Sure in the future they might try to call the debt as a strategic move to affect our economy, but monetarily I don't think it's an issue for them.</p><p>If the second item is true then all they need to do is keep us stimulating their economy while ours declines.  At the point where they are selling to enough other countries that the loss of our business isn't fatal to their economy they can choose to make any move they wish that harms our economy.  If you're playing the long game you only need your enemy to support you until you're strong enough to kill them without doing too much damage to yourself.</p><p>I wouldn't be surprised if China is the United States of the next century, in the same way that superpowers like England and Spain were overshadowed by the US.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure I agree with several of your premises .
They 're the popular views , but I 'm not sure if they 're actually true.The first supposition is that China owns a large portion of our debt - this one I can factually dispute based on numbers from : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United \ _States \ _public \ _debt [ wikipedia.org ] Foreign and international own approximately 28 \ % of our debt , and China owns 24 \ % of the international debt .
This means China only holds about 7 \ % of our total debt.Second , and this is just my own supposition , I do n't think China cares if they get repaid .
As long as their economy flourishes they are happy to allow us to pay cents on the dollar for their items by undervaluing their currency and buying our debt .
Think of it as China 's " stimulus package " for their economy .
Sure in the future they might try to call the debt as a strategic move to affect our economy , but monetarily I do n't think it 's an issue for them.If the second item is true then all they need to do is keep us stimulating their economy while ours declines .
At the point where they are selling to enough other countries that the loss of our business is n't fatal to their economy they can choose to make any move they wish that harms our economy .
If you 're playing the long game you only need your enemy to support you until you 're strong enough to kill them without doing too much damage to yourself.I would n't be surprised if China is the United States of the next century , in the same way that superpowers like England and Spain were overshadowed by the US .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure I agree with several of your premises.
They're the popular views, but I'm not sure if they're actually true.The first supposition is that China owns a large portion of our debt - this one I can factually dispute based on numbers from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United\_States\_public\_debt [wikipedia.org]Foreign and international own approximately 28\% of our debt, and China owns 24\% of the international debt.
This means China only holds about 7\% of our total debt.Second, and this is just my own supposition, I don't think China cares if they get repaid.
As long as their economy flourishes they are happy to allow us to pay cents on the dollar for their items by undervaluing their currency and buying our debt.
Think of it as China's "stimulus package" for their economy.
Sure in the future they might try to call the debt as a strategic move to affect our economy, but monetarily I don't think it's an issue for them.If the second item is true then all they need to do is keep us stimulating their economy while ours declines.
At the point where they are selling to enough other countries that the loss of our business isn't fatal to their economy they can choose to make any move they wish that harms our economy.
If you're playing the long game you only need your enemy to support you until you're strong enough to kill them without doing too much damage to yourself.I wouldn't be surprised if China is the United States of the next century, in the same way that superpowers like England and Spain were overshadowed by the US.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30772396</id>
	<title>The big tip-off</title>
	<author>Tetsujin</author>
	<datestamp>1263470640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Security officials investigating the problem said that the attackers gained entry to the system first by establishing dummy accounts.  They realized that these attackers were Chinese when they discovered all the personal information fields were filled in with "CHING CHANG CHING CHONG CHONG" - and the accounts all had suspicious-sounding names like "Warner Oland", "Sidney Toler", "Roland Winters", "Kristin Kreuk", and "John Bennett" - obviously failed attempts to concoct unsuspicious names...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Security officials investigating the problem said that the attackers gained entry to the system first by establishing dummy accounts .
They realized that these attackers were Chinese when they discovered all the personal information fields were filled in with " CHING CHANG CHING CHONG CHONG " - and the accounts all had suspicious-sounding names like " Warner Oland " , " Sidney Toler " , " Roland Winters " , " Kristin Kreuk " , and " John Bennett " - obviously failed attempts to concoct unsuspicious names.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Security officials investigating the problem said that the attackers gained entry to the system first by establishing dummy accounts.
They realized that these attackers were Chinese when they discovered all the personal information fields were filled in with "CHING CHANG CHING CHONG CHONG" - and the accounts all had suspicious-sounding names like "Warner Oland", "Sidney Toler", "Roland Winters", "Kristin Kreuk", and "John Bennett" - obviously failed attempts to concoct unsuspicious names...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767370</id>
	<title>No, Seriously...</title>
	<author>RobotRunAmok</author>
	<datestamp>1263495420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If a foreign government had attacked non-digital assets of any US corporation, you would expect some kind of formal reprisal.  Maybe not an airdrop of Marines, but certainly something more than Hilary Clinton threatening to write a stern letter.</p><p>What I have not doped out yet to my own satisfaction is whether the tepid response from Washington is the fault of the current administration, confusion regarding the digital nature of the breach and assets, or a little of both.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If a foreign government had attacked non-digital assets of any US corporation , you would expect some kind of formal reprisal .
Maybe not an airdrop of Marines , but certainly something more than Hilary Clinton threatening to write a stern letter.What I have not doped out yet to my own satisfaction is whether the tepid response from Washington is the fault of the current administration , confusion regarding the digital nature of the breach and assets , or a little of both .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If a foreign government had attacked non-digital assets of any US corporation, you would expect some kind of formal reprisal.
Maybe not an airdrop of Marines, but certainly something more than Hilary Clinton threatening to write a stern letter.What I have not doped out yet to my own satisfaction is whether the tepid response from Washington is the fault of the current administration, confusion regarding the digital nature of the breach and assets, or a little of both.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30771690</id>
	<title>don't buy chinese</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263467160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>China seems to have no regards for good citizenship in the society of nations. Why do we do business with a country like that?  Is paying a little less for inexpensive toxic junk really worth it? Next holiday season, our entire family is considering a "china-free" gift-gifting holiday.  Can't wait.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>China seems to have no regards for good citizenship in the society of nations .
Why do we do business with a country like that ?
Is paying a little less for inexpensive toxic junk really worth it ?
Next holiday season , our entire family is considering a " china-free " gift-gifting holiday .
Ca n't wait .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>China seems to have no regards for good citizenship in the society of nations.
Why do we do business with a country like that?
Is paying a little less for inexpensive toxic junk really worth it?
Next holiday season, our entire family is considering a "china-free" gift-gifting holiday.
Can't wait.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768682</id>
	<title>Assets attacked</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263499320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the list of areas attacked, this looks like it could be the beginning(?) of an effort to steal the kind of knowledge that would allow Chinese companies to leapfrog competition and compete with the best of the Western companies... in addition to providing knowledge of those that are working against the Chinese Government.  Two pronged attack on the financial threats (companies that might be able to provide services the growing Chinese market wants) and those that want to change the way the Chinese government operates.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From the list of areas attacked , this looks like it could be the beginning ( ?
) of an effort to steal the kind of knowledge that would allow Chinese companies to leapfrog competition and compete with the best of the Western companies... in addition to providing knowledge of those that are working against the Chinese Government .
Two pronged attack on the financial threats ( companies that might be able to provide services the growing Chinese market wants ) and those that want to change the way the Chinese government operates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the list of areas attacked, this looks like it could be the beginning(?
) of an effort to steal the kind of knowledge that would allow Chinese companies to leapfrog competition and compete with the best of the Western companies... in addition to providing knowledge of those that are working against the Chinese Government.
Two pronged attack on the financial threats (companies that might be able to provide services the growing Chinese market wants) and those that want to change the way the Chinese government operates.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30776594</id>
	<title>Guy made up the title - useless report</title>
	<author>bitcalc</author>
	<datestamp>1263550380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>CmdrTaco didn't understand the original report and made up the title to attract eye balls. The original report says:

"The source IPs and drop server of the attack correspond to a single foreign entity consisting either of agents of the Chinese state or proxies thereof,"

What CmdrTaco and the report writer understand, "attacks" from your own computers, has now long been in history. Modern attacks use zombies as a commonsense. I would rather doubt the administrative ability of those IPs instead of believing their owners are the attackers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>CmdrTaco did n't understand the original report and made up the title to attract eye balls .
The original report says : " The source IPs and drop server of the attack correspond to a single foreign entity consisting either of agents of the Chinese state or proxies thereof , " What CmdrTaco and the report writer understand , " attacks " from your own computers , has now long been in history .
Modern attacks use zombies as a commonsense .
I would rather doubt the administrative ability of those IPs instead of believing their owners are the attackers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CmdrTaco didn't understand the original report and made up the title to attract eye balls.
The original report says:

"The source IPs and drop server of the attack correspond to a single foreign entity consisting either of agents of the Chinese state or proxies thereof,"

What CmdrTaco and the report writer understand, "attacks" from your own computers, has now long been in history.
Modern attacks use zombies as a commonsense.
I would rather doubt the administrative ability of those IPs instead of believing their owners are the attackers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768132</id>
	<title>Re:Not, Seriously...</title>
	<author>tempest69</author>
	<datestamp>1263497640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If we took the (trade deficit to china) minus (value of the copyright infrined media) I might be able to pay that with the money between my couch cushions.<p>
Storm</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If we took the ( trade deficit to china ) minus ( value of the copyright infrined media ) I might be able to pay that with the money between my couch cushions .
Storm</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If we took the (trade deficit to china) minus (value of the copyright infrined media) I might be able to pay that with the money between my couch cushions.
Storm</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30771440</id>
	<title>Re:can't say i'm surprised</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263466080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...<b>Bates Gill</b>, a China expert at the Brookings Institution think tank in Washington...</p><p>Really? Is this an Onion or an LA times article?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...Bates Gill , a China expert at the Brookings Institution think tank in Washington...Really ?
Is this an Onion or an LA times article ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...Bates Gill, a China expert at the Brookings Institution think tank in Washington...Really?
Is this an Onion or an LA times article?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30769026</id>
	<title>Re:No, Seriously...</title>
	<author>d34dluk3</author>
	<datestamp>1263500520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>if one sides loose both sides loose.</p></div><p>Also known as "the zookeeper's dilemma."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>if one sides loose both sides loose.Also known as " the zookeeper 's dilemma .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if one sides loose both sides loose.Also known as "the zookeeper's dilemma.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768146</id>
	<title>Re:Our response is?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263497700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Start pulling your company out of China?  The problem is the corporations see the low cost of production as a quarterly bonus.  Companies want cheap labor and assembly and then use the taxpayers funds to enforce the IP violations that comes from using that same substandard labor.  Think Cisco, save millions of dollars a year by getting blades made in China.  They cry for the FBI's help under the cover of "national security" FUD when the China factory makes some overruns and those overruns enter the US marketplace.  OMG!  counterfiet chinese Cisco hardware, we are at risk!  Sorry Cisco, we were at the same risk when you decided to give up some control and oversight and move the plane to a country that is far less regulated then the US is.  If Cisco and the US government were truly concerned about national security and not the bottom dollar, why does the government buy sensitive network hardware from Cisco made in China in the first place?  It is a complete scam and the US taxpayers are footing the bill for Ciscos business decision.</p><p>Look at the tainted food stuffs and kids toys from China that made the headlines in the last few years!  HELLO!</p><p>Okay, so the US companies benefit from globalisation at my expense, where is my payback?  How about I should be able to use global market and buy legit copies of MS Office for $2 or a new DVD movie release for $2 in China and have no restrictions on importing it back into the US to use it as I see fit?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Start pulling your company out of China ?
The problem is the corporations see the low cost of production as a quarterly bonus .
Companies want cheap labor and assembly and then use the taxpayers funds to enforce the IP violations that comes from using that same substandard labor .
Think Cisco , save millions of dollars a year by getting blades made in China .
They cry for the FBI 's help under the cover of " national security " FUD when the China factory makes some overruns and those overruns enter the US marketplace .
OMG ! counterfiet chinese Cisco hardware , we are at risk !
Sorry Cisco , we were at the same risk when you decided to give up some control and oversight and move the plane to a country that is far less regulated then the US is .
If Cisco and the US government were truly concerned about national security and not the bottom dollar , why does the government buy sensitive network hardware from Cisco made in China in the first place ?
It is a complete scam and the US taxpayers are footing the bill for Ciscos business decision.Look at the tainted food stuffs and kids toys from China that made the headlines in the last few years !
HELLO ! Okay , so the US companies benefit from globalisation at my expense , where is my payback ?
How about I should be able to use global market and buy legit copies of MS Office for $ 2 or a new DVD movie release for $ 2 in China and have no restrictions on importing it back into the US to use it as I see fit ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Start pulling your company out of China?
The problem is the corporations see the low cost of production as a quarterly bonus.
Companies want cheap labor and assembly and then use the taxpayers funds to enforce the IP violations that comes from using that same substandard labor.
Think Cisco, save millions of dollars a year by getting blades made in China.
They cry for the FBI's help under the cover of "national security" FUD when the China factory makes some overruns and those overruns enter the US marketplace.
OMG!  counterfiet chinese Cisco hardware, we are at risk!
Sorry Cisco, we were at the same risk when you decided to give up some control and oversight and move the plane to a country that is far less regulated then the US is.
If Cisco and the US government were truly concerned about national security and not the bottom dollar, why does the government buy sensitive network hardware from Cisco made in China in the first place?
It is a complete scam and the US taxpayers are footing the bill for Ciscos business decision.Look at the tainted food stuffs and kids toys from China that made the headlines in the last few years!
HELLO!Okay, so the US companies benefit from globalisation at my expense, where is my payback?
How about I should be able to use global market and buy legit copies of MS Office for $2 or a new DVD movie release for $2 in China and have no restrictions on importing it back into the US to use it as I see fit?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30769468</id>
	<title>Re:Unleash the hounds</title>
	<author>Plastic Pencil</author>
	<datestamp>1263501960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree.  Something needs to be done, and now.

Why can I see the U.S. Gov't rounding up U.S. citizens who mounted attacks on Chinese, but not vice versa?

As a U.S. citizen who just had their computer raped by a nasty virus last month that crushed my antivirus and sent keylogs to a Chinese web address, I have no freaking recourse, and I want blood.

I propose a new cyber 'A-Team'.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree .
Something needs to be done , and now .
Why can I see the U.S. Gov't rounding up U.S. citizens who mounted attacks on Chinese , but not vice versa ?
As a U.S. citizen who just had their computer raped by a nasty virus last month that crushed my antivirus and sent keylogs to a Chinese web address , I have no freaking recourse , and I want blood .
I propose a new cyber 'A-Team' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.
Something needs to be done, and now.
Why can I see the U.S. Gov't rounding up U.S. citizens who mounted attacks on Chinese, but not vice versa?
As a U.S. citizen who just had their computer raped by a nasty virus last month that crushed my antivirus and sent keylogs to a Chinese web address, I have no freaking recourse, and I want blood.
I propose a new cyber 'A-Team'.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30769714</id>
	<title>Re:Finally above ground</title>
	<author>Thaelon</author>
	<datestamp>1263459660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>This seems like a pretty dramatic shift, and you have to wonder what China's really done to provoke such a reaction after everyone's spent the last decade quietly appeasing them to try and get a foothold in their markets.</p></div></blockquote><p>Well for one, they almost singlehandedly turned the Copenhagen climate summit into a wash.</p><p>But if you ask me, the real reason the US Gov is starting to care is that China is fast becoming <em>the</em> player in the global economy.  And that is a direct threat to the MoneyedInterests(TM) here in the US, which are who the government really works for.</p><p>Always follow the money, the threat to money, and the promise of money if you want to know the motives behind any entity larger than an individual.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This seems like a pretty dramatic shift , and you have to wonder what China 's really done to provoke such a reaction after everyone 's spent the last decade quietly appeasing them to try and get a foothold in their markets.Well for one , they almost singlehandedly turned the Copenhagen climate summit into a wash.But if you ask me , the real reason the US Gov is starting to care is that China is fast becoming the player in the global economy .
And that is a direct threat to the MoneyedInterests ( TM ) here in the US , which are who the government really works for.Always follow the money , the threat to money , and the promise of money if you want to know the motives behind any entity larger than an individual .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This seems like a pretty dramatic shift, and you have to wonder what China's really done to provoke such a reaction after everyone's spent the last decade quietly appeasing them to try and get a foothold in their markets.Well for one, they almost singlehandedly turned the Copenhagen climate summit into a wash.But if you ask me, the real reason the US Gov is starting to care is that China is fast becoming the player in the global economy.
And that is a direct threat to the MoneyedInterests(TM) here in the US, which are who the government really works for.Always follow the money, the threat to money, and the promise of money if you want to know the motives behind any entity larger than an individual.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30772348</id>
	<title>Re:But...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263470460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Okay, you're right, there's no proof.  It might not have been the Chinese government.  I'm sure there are dozens of other organisations with government-scale resources and a high level of interest in accessing the personal communications of people whose only common factor is that they oppose the Chinese government.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , you 're right , there 's no proof .
It might not have been the Chinese government .
I 'm sure there are dozens of other organisations with government-scale resources and a high level of interest in accessing the personal communications of people whose only common factor is that they oppose the Chinese government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay, you're right, there's no proof.
It might not have been the Chinese government.
I'm sure there are dozens of other organisations with government-scale resources and a high level of interest in accessing the personal communications of people whose only common factor is that they oppose the Chinese government.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30867276</id>
	<title>In Communist China</title>
	<author>cander0000</author>
	<datestamp>1264184940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In communist China, search engine indexes YOU!</htmltext>
<tokenext>In communist China , search engine indexes YOU !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In communist China, search engine indexes YOU!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30769876</id>
	<title>Re:Our response is?</title>
	<author>Reilaos</author>
	<datestamp>1263460440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am somewhat worried by your consistently vague use of the word "they."</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am somewhat worried by your consistently vague use of the word " they .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am somewhat worried by your consistently vague use of the word "they.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767336</id>
	<title>Finally above ground</title>
	<author>mejogid</author>
	<datestamp>1263495300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's hardly a secret that governments conduct cyber-espionage - what seems shocking in this instance is that they have been caught and that a major company, a telecoms giant and the US government have all gone on the offensive.  This seems like a pretty dramatic shift, and you have to wonder what China's really done to provoke such a reaction after everyone's spent the last decade quietly appeasing them to try and get a foothold in their markets.  It sounds like reading the subject lines of a few Chinese activists' emails is only the tip of the ice berg in this case, it'll be interesting to see what else has yet to be revealed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's hardly a secret that governments conduct cyber-espionage - what seems shocking in this instance is that they have been caught and that a major company , a telecoms giant and the US government have all gone on the offensive .
This seems like a pretty dramatic shift , and you have to wonder what China 's really done to provoke such a reaction after everyone 's spent the last decade quietly appeasing them to try and get a foothold in their markets .
It sounds like reading the subject lines of a few Chinese activists ' emails is only the tip of the ice berg in this case , it 'll be interesting to see what else has yet to be revealed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's hardly a secret that governments conduct cyber-espionage - what seems shocking in this instance is that they have been caught and that a major company, a telecoms giant and the US government have all gone on the offensive.
This seems like a pretty dramatic shift, and you have to wonder what China's really done to provoke such a reaction after everyone's spent the last decade quietly appeasing them to try and get a foothold in their markets.
It sounds like reading the subject lines of a few Chinese activists' emails is only the tip of the ice berg in this case, it'll be interesting to see what else has yet to be revealed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768404</id>
	<title>Re:Finally above ground</title>
	<author>Slur</author>
	<datestamp>1263498420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously, if all the corporations become as scrupulous as Google is suddenly seeming, it might end up giving Fascism a good name.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , if all the corporations become as scrupulous as Google is suddenly seeming , it might end up giving Fascism a good name .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, if all the corporations become as scrupulous as Google is suddenly seeming, it might end up giving Fascism a good name.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768232</id>
	<title>Re:Fight China -- the capitalist way!</title>
	<author>syntaxeater</author>
	<datestamp>1263497880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And if China responds to our (at least for America) new iron curtain style of business by leveraging their hold on us (<a href="http://ustreas.gov/tic/mfh.txt/" title="ustreas.gov" rel="nofollow">http://ustreas.gov/tic/mfh.txt/</a> [ustreas.gov]); potentially kicking the legs out from under an already fragile economic recovery...  What is more empty than a husk?</htmltext>
<tokenext>And if China responds to our ( at least for America ) new iron curtain style of business by leveraging their hold on us ( http : //ustreas.gov/tic/mfh.txt/ [ ustreas.gov ] ) ; potentially kicking the legs out from under an already fragile economic recovery... What is more empty than a husk ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And if China responds to our (at least for America) new iron curtain style of business by leveraging their hold on us (http://ustreas.gov/tic/mfh.txt/ [ustreas.gov]); potentially kicking the legs out from under an already fragile economic recovery...  What is more empty than a husk?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768074</id>
	<title>Re:Finally above ground</title>
	<author>mjwalshe</author>
	<datestamp>1263497460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Isuspect that theres agentlemans agreement not to be to blatent about it - I bit like when bulgaria went ott and started wacking people with poisend umberella's</htmltext>
<tokenext>Isuspect that theres agentlemans agreement not to be to blatent about it - I bit like when bulgaria went ott and started wacking people with poisend umberella 's</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isuspect that theres agentlemans agreement not to be to blatent about it - I bit like when bulgaria went ott and started wacking people with poisend umberella's</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30770596</id>
	<title>Re:No, Seriously...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263463080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As somebody smarter than me said, "if you owe the bank a thousand dollars you have a problem. If you owe the bank a billion dollars the bank has a problem".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As somebody smarter than me said , " if you owe the bank a thousand dollars you have a problem .
If you owe the bank a billion dollars the bank has a problem " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As somebody smarter than me said, "if you owe the bank a thousand dollars you have a problem.
If you owe the bank a billion dollars the bank has a problem".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30780894</id>
	<title>Re:can't say i'm surprised</title>
	<author>Chuffpole</author>
	<datestamp>1263580440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bugs - that's exactly what they would have expected.</p><p>The US should have placed NO bugs in there whatsoever - that would have had the Chinese really worried<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bugs - that 's exactly what they would have expected.The US should have placed NO bugs in there whatsoever - that would have had the Chinese really worried : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bugs - that's exactly what they would have expected.The US should have placed NO bugs in there whatsoever - that would have had the Chinese really worried :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768060</id>
	<title>Re:But...</title>
	<author>heson</author>
	<datestamp>1263497460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>How sure are we this whole article isn't propaganda (from PNAC)?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/Trust no one</htmltext>
<tokenext>How sure are we this whole article is n't propaganda ( from PNAC ) ?
/Trust no one</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How sure are we this whole article isn't propaganda (from PNAC)?
/Trust no one</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767942</id>
	<title>China is so annoying</title>
	<author>footNipple</author>
	<datestamp>1263497100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because they (the government) seem like they have such an enormous small dick complex.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because they ( the government ) seem like they have such an enormous small dick complex .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because they (the government) seem like they have such an enormous small dick complex.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768834</id>
	<title>Re:No, Seriously...</title>
	<author>DakotaSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1263499980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think it has something to do with Chinese savings now being the foundation of much of the western economy, and the fact that China is a major nuclear power.</p><p>What China realised and the USSR didn't, IMO, is that they could forget the cold war and essentially buy the west with the west's own money.</p></div><p>I agree except that the West's money is about to be hyper-inflated beyond all value and the world economy will drop like a rock for a long, long time.</p><p>China only survives because the West buys its products, thereby keeping its billion citizens working <i>just enough</i> to keep revolution in check.  When we can no longer afford even inexpensive Chinese products, their economy is going to drop out from under them, half a billion people are going to start starving, and the Chinese Government will have a revolution on their hands.</p><p>If the US is very, very lucky, defaulting on all the money it owes the Chinese won't trigger World War III.</p><p>Sadly, with the timing, this is only going to antagonize a relationship that's doomed in the first place because of US financial policy.</p><p>I would really have ignored this the way it's been ignored as long as I've been in ITSec.  There's nothing to be gained by antagonizing China at this time except to strain relations shortly before they're broken entirely.  The break itself may trigger a nuclear exchange, after all:  no reason to exacerbate things.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it has something to do with Chinese savings now being the foundation of much of the western economy , and the fact that China is a major nuclear power.What China realised and the USSR did n't , IMO , is that they could forget the cold war and essentially buy the west with the west 's own money.I agree except that the West 's money is about to be hyper-inflated beyond all value and the world economy will drop like a rock for a long , long time.China only survives because the West buys its products , thereby keeping its billion citizens working just enough to keep revolution in check .
When we can no longer afford even inexpensive Chinese products , their economy is going to drop out from under them , half a billion people are going to start starving , and the Chinese Government will have a revolution on their hands.If the US is very , very lucky , defaulting on all the money it owes the Chinese wo n't trigger World War III.Sadly , with the timing , this is only going to antagonize a relationship that 's doomed in the first place because of US financial policy.I would really have ignored this the way it 's been ignored as long as I 've been in ITSec .
There 's nothing to be gained by antagonizing China at this time except to strain relations shortly before they 're broken entirely .
The break itself may trigger a nuclear exchange , after all : no reason to exacerbate things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it has something to do with Chinese savings now being the foundation of much of the western economy, and the fact that China is a major nuclear power.What China realised and the USSR didn't, IMO, is that they could forget the cold war and essentially buy the west with the west's own money.I agree except that the West's money is about to be hyper-inflated beyond all value and the world economy will drop like a rock for a long, long time.China only survives because the West buys its products, thereby keeping its billion citizens working just enough to keep revolution in check.
When we can no longer afford even inexpensive Chinese products, their economy is going to drop out from under them, half a billion people are going to start starving, and the Chinese Government will have a revolution on their hands.If the US is very, very lucky, defaulting on all the money it owes the Chinese won't trigger World War III.Sadly, with the timing, this is only going to antagonize a relationship that's doomed in the first place because of US financial policy.I would really have ignored this the way it's been ignored as long as I've been in ITSec.
There's nothing to be gained by antagonizing China at this time except to strain relations shortly before they're broken entirely.
The break itself may trigger a nuclear exchange, after all:  no reason to exacerbate things.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767952</id>
	<title>Re:Our response is?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263497160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>1. a body of corporations (those 20 or so affected)</p></div><p>Nothing of note. If they pull out publicly, they will continue to work with the Chinese through third parties. Shareholders don't give a damn about human rights or free speech. They just want their money.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>2. a nation</p></div><p>They've already sold us poisoned toys and drywall. They've been using what amounts to slave labor for decades in order to provide cheap products. As long as the aforementioned shareholders are running things, you're not going to hear about the problems, and the American populace is too apathetic to sacrifice any amount of convenience.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>3. a global community of nations (UN)</p></div><p>They'll pass some resolutions denouncing interference in the sovereign affairs of other countries. They'll slide in some language about Palestine or Iraq, and it will be vetoed by the US and Israel and maybe a pacific atoll that happens to have a bathroom.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>4. a cybercommunity</p></div><p>Learn Chinese and troll MSN Spaces?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1. a body of corporations ( those 20 or so affected ) Nothing of note .
If they pull out publicly , they will continue to work with the Chinese through third parties .
Shareholders do n't give a damn about human rights or free speech .
They just want their money.2 .
a nationThey 've already sold us poisoned toys and drywall .
They 've been using what amounts to slave labor for decades in order to provide cheap products .
As long as the aforementioned shareholders are running things , you 're not going to hear about the problems , and the American populace is too apathetic to sacrifice any amount of convenience.3 .
a global community of nations ( UN ) They 'll pass some resolutions denouncing interference in the sovereign affairs of other countries .
They 'll slide in some language about Palestine or Iraq , and it will be vetoed by the US and Israel and maybe a pacific atoll that happens to have a bathroom.4 .
a cybercommunityLearn Chinese and troll MSN Spaces ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1. a body of corporations (those 20 or so affected)Nothing of note.
If they pull out publicly, they will continue to work with the Chinese through third parties.
Shareholders don't give a damn about human rights or free speech.
They just want their money.2.
a nationThey've already sold us poisoned toys and drywall.
They've been using what amounts to slave labor for decades in order to provide cheap products.
As long as the aforementioned shareholders are running things, you're not going to hear about the problems, and the American populace is too apathetic to sacrifice any amount of convenience.3.
a global community of nations (UN)They'll pass some resolutions denouncing interference in the sovereign affairs of other countries.
They'll slide in some language about Palestine or Iraq, and it will be vetoed by the US and Israel and maybe a pacific atoll that happens to have a bathroom.4.
a cybercommunityLearn Chinese and troll MSN Spaces?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768966</id>
	<title>Re:No, Seriously...</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1263500340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While i dont see China doing that, if you can destroy your enemy or expend a lot of money or expend a lot of money AND lives/material/image/whatever, the cheapest way seems to be to just throw away money. Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While i dont see China doing that , if you can destroy your enemy or expend a lot of money or expend a lot of money AND lives/material/image/whatever , the cheapest way seems to be to just throw away money .
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While i dont see China doing that, if you can destroy your enemy or expend a lot of money or expend a lot of money AND lives/material/image/whatever, the cheapest way seems to be to just throw away money.
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768596</id>
	<title>Re:But...</title>
	<author>maxwell demon</author>
	<datestamp>1263499020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can understand how "We can't enforce copyright on software and music when we're busy lifting hundreds of millions of citizens out of poverty as a developing nation" works but I can't understand how "We need to arrest and persecute human rights activists because we're a developing nation" works.</p><p>Human rights might get in conflict with economic growth, for example because without child labour you don't get cheap enough, or because you'd reduce your profits if you'd have to care that people don't get ill because of your poisonous waste<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can understand how " We ca n't enforce copyright on software and music when we 're busy lifting hundreds of millions of citizens out of poverty as a developing nation " works but I ca n't understand how " We need to arrest and persecute human rights activists because we 're a developing nation " works.Human rights might get in conflict with economic growth , for example because without child labour you do n't get cheap enough , or because you 'd reduce your profits if you 'd have to care that people do n't get ill because of your poisonous waste .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can understand how "We can't enforce copyright on software and music when we're busy lifting hundreds of millions of citizens out of poverty as a developing nation" works but I can't understand how "We need to arrest and persecute human rights activists because we're a developing nation" works.Human rights might get in conflict with economic growth, for example because without child labour you don't get cheap enough, or because you'd reduce your profits if you'd have to care that people don't get ill because of your poisonous waste ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767438</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768206</id>
	<title>Re:But...</title>
	<author>InlawBiker</author>
	<datestamp>1263497820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>All the Chinese Govt needs to do is hang an unsecured WiFi access point off their core network.  Then they can blame the neighborhood kids.</htmltext>
<tokenext>All the Chinese Govt needs to do is hang an unsecured WiFi access point off their core network .
Then they can blame the neighborhood kids .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All the Chinese Govt needs to do is hang an unsecured WiFi access point off their core network.
Then they can blame the neighborhood kids.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767894</id>
	<title>Re:Finally above ground</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1263496980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Change", anyone?...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Change " , anyone ? .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Change", anyone?...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767822</id>
	<title>Where is the report?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263496860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't find the link to the actual report in TFA.</p><p>I don't doubt that there's a strong suggestion that the Chinese government was somehow involved in the intrusion attempts mentioned by Google, and generally it isn't Google's habit to lie or deceive in these high profile matters.</p><p>But two days after the Google announcement a report comes out saying "yes it's the Chinese government, yes it's them!"? Without obvious links to the actual report?</p><p>I just sense it's just the "security companies" trying to ride the PR bandwagon. I mean, it's just on everybody's mind, and "somebody had to say it out aloud". So you cobble together related bits and pieces and make a grand pronouncement, making everybody happy. But does it prove anything? Not until we find the evidence. Until then it's all just hearsay.</p><p>Besides, would you really base your conclusions on findings from "<b>VeriSign's</b> iDefense security lab"? From the company who tried to f*ck up NXDOMAIN?</p><p>This is not the end of the story. I suspect more juicy bits will come through.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't find the link to the actual report in TFA.I do n't doubt that there 's a strong suggestion that the Chinese government was somehow involved in the intrusion attempts mentioned by Google , and generally it is n't Google 's habit to lie or deceive in these high profile matters.But two days after the Google announcement a report comes out saying " yes it 's the Chinese government , yes it 's them ! " ?
Without obvious links to the actual report ? I just sense it 's just the " security companies " trying to ride the PR bandwagon .
I mean , it 's just on everybody 's mind , and " somebody had to say it out aloud " .
So you cobble together related bits and pieces and make a grand pronouncement , making everybody happy .
But does it prove anything ?
Not until we find the evidence .
Until then it 's all just hearsay.Besides , would you really base your conclusions on findings from " VeriSign 's iDefense security lab " ?
From the company who tried to f * ck up NXDOMAIN ? This is not the end of the story .
I suspect more juicy bits will come through .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't find the link to the actual report in TFA.I don't doubt that there's a strong suggestion that the Chinese government was somehow involved in the intrusion attempts mentioned by Google, and generally it isn't Google's habit to lie or deceive in these high profile matters.But two days after the Google announcement a report comes out saying "yes it's the Chinese government, yes it's them!"?
Without obvious links to the actual report?I just sense it's just the "security companies" trying to ride the PR bandwagon.
I mean, it's just on everybody's mind, and "somebody had to say it out aloud".
So you cobble together related bits and pieces and make a grand pronouncement, making everybody happy.
But does it prove anything?
Not until we find the evidence.
Until then it's all just hearsay.Besides, would you really base your conclusions on findings from "VeriSign's iDefense security lab"?
From the company who tried to f*ck up NXDOMAIN?This is not the end of the story.
I suspect more juicy bits will come through.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768116</id>
	<title>It says they located the Command and Control box.</title>
	<author>motherjoe</author>
	<datestamp>1263497640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the article it says they located the Command and Control box. I did a little investigation of my own and see what they mean. It's oh so obvious this was perpetrated by the Chinese government. Just look at the facts!</p><p>joe@joe-nix:~$ whois PwnedC&amp;CServer.org<br>NOTICE: Access to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.ORG WHOIS information is provided to assist persons in<br>determining the contents of a domain name registration record in the Public Interest Registry<br>registry database. The data in this record is provided by Public Interest Registry<br>for informational purposes only, and Public Interest Registry does not guarantee its<br>accuracy.  This service is intended only for query-based access.  You agree<br>that you will use this data only for lawful purposes and that, under no<br>circumstances will you use this data to: (a) allow, enable, or otherwise<br>support the transmission by e-mail, telephone, or facsimile of mass<br>unsolicited, commercial advertising or solicitations to entities other than<br>the data recipient's own existing customers; or (b) enable high volume,<br>automated, electronic processes that send queries or data to the systems of<br>Registry Operator or any ICANN-Accredited Registrar, except as reasonably<br>necessary to register domain names or modify existing registrations.  All<br>rights reserved. Public Interest Registry reserves the right to modify these terms at any<br>time. By submitting this query, you agree to abide by this policy.</p><p>Domain ID:D2289308-LROR<br>Domain Name:PwnedC&amp;CServer.org<br>Created On:05-Oct-1997 04:00:00 UTC<br>Last Updated On:11-Dec-2009 20:14:46 UTC<br>Expiration Date:04-Oct-2010 04:00:00 UTC<br>Sponsoring Registrar:Tucows Inc. (R11-LROR)<br>Status:OK<br>Registrant ID:Bob@PRC.gov<br>Registrant Name:Host Master<br>Registrant Organization:People's Republic of China, duh!<br>Registrant Street1:Main Street<br>Registrant Street2:HQ for Cyber Warface against Capitalistic West<br>Registrant Street3:<br>Registrant City:Bejing<br>Registrant State/Province:<br>Registrant Postal Code:<br>Registrant Country:CN<br>Registrant Phone:+1-800-Yur-Pwnd<br>Registrant Phone Ext.:<br>Registrant FAX:<br>Registrant FAX Ext.:<br>Registrant Email:Bob@PRC.gov</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the article it says they located the Command and Control box .
I did a little investigation of my own and see what they mean .
It 's oh so obvious this was perpetrated by the Chinese government .
Just look at the facts ! joe @ joe-nix : ~ $ whois PwnedC&amp;CServer.orgNOTICE : Access to .ORG WHOIS information is provided to assist persons indetermining the contents of a domain name registration record in the Public Interest Registryregistry database .
The data in this record is provided by Public Interest Registryfor informational purposes only , and Public Interest Registry does not guarantee itsaccuracy .
This service is intended only for query-based access .
You agreethat you will use this data only for lawful purposes and that , under nocircumstances will you use this data to : ( a ) allow , enable , or otherwisesupport the transmission by e-mail , telephone , or facsimile of massunsolicited , commercial advertising or solicitations to entities other thanthe data recipient 's own existing customers ; or ( b ) enable high volume,automated , electronic processes that send queries or data to the systems ofRegistry Operator or any ICANN-Accredited Registrar , except as reasonablynecessary to register domain names or modify existing registrations .
Allrights reserved .
Public Interest Registry reserves the right to modify these terms at anytime .
By submitting this query , you agree to abide by this policy.Domain ID : D2289308-LRORDomain Name : PwnedC&amp;CServer.orgCreated On : 05-Oct-1997 04 : 00 : 00 UTCLast Updated On : 11-Dec-2009 20 : 14 : 46 UTCExpiration Date : 04-Oct-2010 04 : 00 : 00 UTCSponsoring Registrar : Tucows Inc. ( R11-LROR ) Status : OKRegistrant ID : Bob @ PRC.govRegistrant Name : Host MasterRegistrant Organization : People 's Republic of China , duh ! Registrant Street1 : Main StreetRegistrant Street2 : HQ for Cyber Warface against Capitalistic WestRegistrant Street3 : Registrant City : BejingRegistrant State/Province : Registrant Postal Code : Registrant Country : CNRegistrant Phone : + 1-800-Yur-PwndRegistrant Phone Ext .
: Registrant FAX : Registrant FAX Ext .
: Registrant Email : Bob @ PRC.gov</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the article it says they located the Command and Control box.
I did a little investigation of my own and see what they mean.
It's oh so obvious this was perpetrated by the Chinese government.
Just look at the facts!joe@joe-nix:~$ whois PwnedC&amp;CServer.orgNOTICE: Access to .ORG WHOIS information is provided to assist persons indetermining the contents of a domain name registration record in the Public Interest Registryregistry database.
The data in this record is provided by Public Interest Registryfor informational purposes only, and Public Interest Registry does not guarantee itsaccuracy.
This service is intended only for query-based access.
You agreethat you will use this data only for lawful purposes and that, under nocircumstances will you use this data to: (a) allow, enable, or otherwisesupport the transmission by e-mail, telephone, or facsimile of massunsolicited, commercial advertising or solicitations to entities other thanthe data recipient's own existing customers; or (b) enable high volume,automated, electronic processes that send queries or data to the systems ofRegistry Operator or any ICANN-Accredited Registrar, except as reasonablynecessary to register domain names or modify existing registrations.
Allrights reserved.
Public Interest Registry reserves the right to modify these terms at anytime.
By submitting this query, you agree to abide by this policy.Domain ID:D2289308-LRORDomain Name:PwnedC&amp;CServer.orgCreated On:05-Oct-1997 04:00:00 UTCLast Updated On:11-Dec-2009 20:14:46 UTCExpiration Date:04-Oct-2010 04:00:00 UTCSponsoring Registrar:Tucows Inc. (R11-LROR)Status:OKRegistrant ID:Bob@PRC.govRegistrant Name:Host MasterRegistrant Organization:People's Republic of China, duh!Registrant Street1:Main StreetRegistrant Street2:HQ for Cyber Warface against Capitalistic WestRegistrant Street3:Registrant City:BejingRegistrant State/Province:Registrant Postal Code:Registrant Country:CNRegistrant Phone:+1-800-Yur-PwndRegistrant Phone Ext.
:Registrant FAX:Registrant FAX Ext.
:Registrant Email:Bob@PRC.gov</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30771446</id>
	<title>Re:But...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263466140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. copyright infringement and theft of IP is not a problem for China as they are a major benefactor of IP theft and industrial espionage.<br>2. human rights activists are a major source of government decent</p><p>It is in best interest of Chinese government to jail all forms of decent. Anything that is prescribed as bad by the government is the moral law. Hence recently they are cracking down on porn and anyone against the crackdown is therefore anti-gov't therefore anti-China. It is not that porn has negative influence, but it is another means to separate the "free thinkers" from the "collective".</p><p>Anyway, all the "anti-human rights" laws in China are simply directed to identify the non-compliant subjects. The ones that are likely to decent and alter the status quo.</p><p>Keep in mind these anti-decent laws exist in western countries too. But decent is much more tolerated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1. copyright infringement and theft of IP is not a problem for China as they are a major benefactor of IP theft and industrial espionage.2 .
human rights activists are a major source of government decentIt is in best interest of Chinese government to jail all forms of decent .
Anything that is prescribed as bad by the government is the moral law .
Hence recently they are cracking down on porn and anyone against the crackdown is therefore anti-gov't therefore anti-China .
It is not that porn has negative influence , but it is another means to separate the " free thinkers " from the " collective " .Anyway , all the " anti-human rights " laws in China are simply directed to identify the non-compliant subjects .
The ones that are likely to decent and alter the status quo.Keep in mind these anti-decent laws exist in western countries too .
But decent is much more tolerated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1. copyright infringement and theft of IP is not a problem for China as they are a major benefactor of IP theft and industrial espionage.2.
human rights activists are a major source of government decentIt is in best interest of Chinese government to jail all forms of decent.
Anything that is prescribed as bad by the government is the moral law.
Hence recently they are cracking down on porn and anyone against the crackdown is therefore anti-gov't therefore anti-China.
It is not that porn has negative influence, but it is another means to separate the "free thinkers" from the "collective".Anyway, all the "anti-human rights" laws in China are simply directed to identify the non-compliant subjects.
The ones that are likely to decent and alter the status quo.Keep in mind these anti-decent laws exist in western countries too.
But decent is much more tolerated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767438</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30771076</id>
	<title>Re:No, Seriously...</title>
	<author>nanoakron</author>
	<datestamp>1263464760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What do they loose? The dogs?</p><p>Personally, I'm more worried about one side or the other <b>losing</b>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What do they loose ?
The dogs ? Personally , I 'm more worried about one side or the other losing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What do they loose?
The dogs?Personally, I'm more worried about one side or the other losing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30770468</id>
	<title>see, had this notification</title>
	<author>nimbius</author>
	<datestamp>1263462600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>arrived from the mouth of an independent hacker, perhaps l0pht or another fun group with a genuine interest in determining where the attacks came from and how they worked as opposed to VeriSign just coming around and telling me, id perhaps lend some credence to the notion it was china.<br> <br>
instead this just looks like another megacorp security firm in the face of market recession trying to bang the drum harder and make money off one company in one isolated event that insists its been hacked by china with no independent third party review or proof.<br> <br>

sure, many will cite politicians clamouring over the threat, the imminent and grave threat, that china poses to the US.  these are the same politicians that marched us into iraq, and the same politicians that are perfectly happy on both sides to agree that war is necessary and the united states is somehow holy and just in waging it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>arrived from the mouth of an independent hacker , perhaps l0pht or another fun group with a genuine interest in determining where the attacks came from and how they worked as opposed to VeriSign just coming around and telling me , id perhaps lend some credence to the notion it was china .
instead this just looks like another megacorp security firm in the face of market recession trying to bang the drum harder and make money off one company in one isolated event that insists its been hacked by china with no independent third party review or proof .
sure , many will cite politicians clamouring over the threat , the imminent and grave threat , that china poses to the US .
these are the same politicians that marched us into iraq , and the same politicians that are perfectly happy on both sides to agree that war is necessary and the united states is somehow holy and just in waging it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>arrived from the mouth of an independent hacker, perhaps l0pht or another fun group with a genuine interest in determining where the attacks came from and how they worked as opposed to VeriSign just coming around and telling me, id perhaps lend some credence to the notion it was china.
instead this just looks like another megacorp security firm in the face of market recession trying to bang the drum harder and make money off one company in one isolated event that insists its been hacked by china with no independent third party review or proof.
sure, many will cite politicians clamouring over the threat, the imminent and grave threat, that china poses to the US.
these are the same politicians that marched us into iraq, and the same politicians that are perfectly happy on both sides to agree that war is necessary and the united states is somehow holy and just in waging it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767678</id>
	<title>still no evidence linking the goverment</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263496260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After RTFA it seems the only thing solid is that command server was located in China,  them belonging to  "agents of the Chinese state or proxies thereof"   remain  pure speculation at this point unless some one come out and  provide evidence  that  links to the government<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,such as registration records or money trail etc.  This could still well be  the works by some local hacker groups, and since the servers being attacked is outside of China they are not even breaking local laws there. Though I wouldn't be surprised  they  have a wink-wink relationship with the local police.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After RTFA it seems the only thing solid is that command server was located in China , them belonging to " agents of the Chinese state or proxies thereof " remain pure speculation at this point unless some one come out and provide evidence that links to the government ,such as registration records or money trail etc .
This could still well be the works by some local hacker groups , and since the servers being attacked is outside of China they are not even breaking local laws there .
Though I would n't be surprised they have a wink-wink relationship with the local police .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After RTFA it seems the only thing solid is that command server was located in China,  them belonging to  "agents of the Chinese state or proxies thereof"   remain  pure speculation at this point unless some one come out and  provide evidence  that  links to the government ,such as registration records or money trail etc.
This could still well be  the works by some local hacker groups, and since the servers being attacked is outside of China they are not even breaking local laws there.
Though I wouldn't be surprised  they  have a wink-wink relationship with the local police.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30769502</id>
	<title>Quadruple Quotes</title>
	<author>AP31R0N</author>
	<datestamp>1263502080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>""WtF?""</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" " WtF ?
" "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>""WtF?
""</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767606</id>
	<title>In the words of Master from Mad Max: Thunderdome</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263496080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>...embargo on!</htmltext>
<tokenext>...embargo on !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...embargo on!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_113</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30769258
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30788760
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30769784
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767710
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30769026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768276
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30770234
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_114</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768132
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30769008
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30769422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30773110
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30771446
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_107</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30769846
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30773650
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30769058
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768834
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30769230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_109</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30774218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_111</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30769048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30769338
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_108</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30774070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30769238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_102</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768762
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30780894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30770336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30776342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30769310
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30772124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30771986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30769136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30772012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30771226
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30773176
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30771276
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30769796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768060
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30773636
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30771390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767636
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30769468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767898
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768146
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_115</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30794200
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30771202
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768930
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30770596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768266
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_106</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30770128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768074
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30771076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768558
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30769608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30769294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30770362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30776238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_112</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30772804
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_105</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30771916
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30776914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_104</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767860
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30773698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30770770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30773192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768008
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30776616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30769020
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_110</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30769244
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768110
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768206
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30769714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768862
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_103</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30771440
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768190
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768120
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767862
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30772908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768232
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30769724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_116</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30770670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30772348
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30776130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30778030
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30769540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30769706
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1637251_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30769876
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1637251.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768364
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1637251.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767714
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768266
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768248
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30773698
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768232
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1637251.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767208
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767370
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767562
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30776616
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767854
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30769026
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30769238
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30769058
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30769020
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768704
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30769422
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30773110
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768712
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30772804
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768966
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30770670
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30771076
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30770596
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30771226
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30774070
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30771916
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768276
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768132
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30769048
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768834
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767294
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1637251.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767404
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1637251.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767362
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767860
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768104
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767952
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30776238
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30769294
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30788760
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30772012
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30774218
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30769876
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30778030
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768304
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768762
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767898
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768146
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768008
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768230
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30769540
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30769008
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1637251.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767400
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30776130
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1637251.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767298
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1637251.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30772472
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1637251.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767412
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767570
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30772124
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768996
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1637251.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767822
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1637251.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767506
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1637251.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767384
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767974
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767878
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1637251.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767390
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30769608
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768228
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767888
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1637251.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767220
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767516
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768814
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30773650
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30769784
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768196
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767438
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30771446
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30770362
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30769796
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768596
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30773192
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30769338
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767436
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30770336
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767710
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30769258
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768004
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30772348
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30769706
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768060
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768312
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767862
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768206
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768064
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768436
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767684
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767816
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30771390
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1637251.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767504
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1637251.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767820
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30772908
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30771276
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30776914
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30769136
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30769468
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30769310
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30773176
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1637251.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767718
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30770234
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1637251.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767606
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30769724
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1637251.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767418
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30771202
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1637251.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767940
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1637251.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767728
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1637251.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767336
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767526
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30769714
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768218
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30769846
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767894
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768110
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768074
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767462
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768404
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767468
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768842
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768150
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30773636
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1637251.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767538
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30770128
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30769230
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1637251.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767272
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1637251.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767848
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768120
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1637251.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767522
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767704
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767636
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768468
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767826
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1637251.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767340
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768190
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1637251.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767264
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767432
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30770770
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768930
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767564
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30794200
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768748
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30780894
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768862
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30776342
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30771440
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768558
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30771986
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768896
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30769244
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30768756
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767596
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1637251.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1637251.30767338
</commentlist>
</conversation>
