<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_23_0338225</id>
	<title>China Slams Clinton's Call For Internet Freedom</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1264239660000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>CWmike writes <i>"China on Friday <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9147298/China\_slams\_Clinton\_s\_call\_for\_Internet\_freedom">slammed remarks made by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton promoting Internet freedom worldwide</a>, saying her words harmed US-China relations. Clinton's speech and China's response both come after Google last week said it planned to reverse its long-standing position in China by ending censorship of its Chinese search engine. Google cited increasingly tough censorship and recent cyberattacks on the Gmail accounts of human rights activists for its decision, which it said <a href="//yro.slashdot.org/story/10/01/12/2329231/Google-Hacked-May-Pull-Out-of-China">might force it to close its offices in China altogether</a>.  On Thursday in Washington, DC, Clinton unveiled US initiatives to help people living under repressive governments access the Internet for purposes such as reporting corruption. The US <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9146898/Clinton\_U.S.\_gov\_t\_will\_push\_harder\_against\_Web\_censorship">will support circumvention tools for dissidents whose Internet connections are blocked</a>, she said. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Ma Zhaoxu called for the US 'to respect the facts and stop using the issue of so-called Internet freedom to unreasonably criticize China.' China's laws forbid hacking attacks and violations of citizens' privacy, the statement said, apparently referring to the issues raised by Google."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>CWmike writes " China on Friday slammed remarks made by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton promoting Internet freedom worldwide , saying her words harmed US-China relations .
Clinton 's speech and China 's response both come after Google last week said it planned to reverse its long-standing position in China by ending censorship of its Chinese search engine .
Google cited increasingly tough censorship and recent cyberattacks on the Gmail accounts of human rights activists for its decision , which it said might force it to close its offices in China altogether .
On Thursday in Washington , DC , Clinton unveiled US initiatives to help people living under repressive governments access the Internet for purposes such as reporting corruption .
The US will support circumvention tools for dissidents whose Internet connections are blocked , she said .
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Ma Zhaoxu called for the US 'to respect the facts and stop using the issue of so-called Internet freedom to unreasonably criticize China .
' China 's laws forbid hacking attacks and violations of citizens ' privacy , the statement said , apparently referring to the issues raised by Google .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CWmike writes "China on Friday slammed remarks made by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton promoting Internet freedom worldwide, saying her words harmed US-China relations.
Clinton's speech and China's response both come after Google last week said it planned to reverse its long-standing position in China by ending censorship of its Chinese search engine.
Google cited increasingly tough censorship and recent cyberattacks on the Gmail accounts of human rights activists for its decision, which it said might force it to close its offices in China altogether.
On Thursday in Washington, DC, Clinton unveiled US initiatives to help people living under repressive governments access the Internet for purposes such as reporting corruption.
The US will support circumvention tools for dissidents whose Internet connections are blocked, she said.
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Ma Zhaoxu called for the US 'to respect the facts and stop using the issue of so-called Internet freedom to unreasonably criticize China.
' China's laws forbid hacking attacks and violations of citizens' privacy, the statement said, apparently referring to the issues raised by Google.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30872278</id>
	<title>Re:Google has BACKED DOWN in China</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264239180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your evidence is weak and your announcement is premature. I don't understand Chinese, so I can't verify your links, but even assuming that your description is accurate, and certain phrases are still being censored in google.cn searches, it doesn't necessarily mean anything. Google never set an explicit time table for withdrawing censorship and/or pulling out of China. That tells me that their decision is preliminary...they want to see how the Chinese government reacts, and are willing to make a compromise agreement if the Chinese are. Re-enabling censorship does not necessarily mean this is over.</p><p>Incidentally, the fact that Chinese media are reporting that google has "backed down" suggests that the Chinese government wants everybody to THINK this is over.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your evidence is weak and your announcement is premature .
I do n't understand Chinese , so I ca n't verify your links , but even assuming that your description is accurate , and certain phrases are still being censored in google.cn searches , it does n't necessarily mean anything .
Google never set an explicit time table for withdrawing censorship and/or pulling out of China .
That tells me that their decision is preliminary...they want to see how the Chinese government reacts , and are willing to make a compromise agreement if the Chinese are .
Re-enabling censorship does not necessarily mean this is over.Incidentally , the fact that Chinese media are reporting that google has " backed down " suggests that the Chinese government wants everybody to THINK this is over .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your evidence is weak and your announcement is premature.
I don't understand Chinese, so I can't verify your links, but even assuming that your description is accurate, and certain phrases are still being censored in google.cn searches, it doesn't necessarily mean anything.
Google never set an explicit time table for withdrawing censorship and/or pulling out of China.
That tells me that their decision is preliminary...they want to see how the Chinese government reacts, and are willing to make a compromise agreement if the Chinese are.
Re-enabling censorship does not necessarily mean this is over.Incidentally, the fact that Chinese media are reporting that google has "backed down" suggests that the Chinese government wants everybody to THINK this is over.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30871512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868910</id>
	<title>china don't act like your feelings are hurt</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264254240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe the rest of the world will follow and leave that communistic country back in the dark ages.<br>Instead of propping up the government maybe the world will start to do actually do something about it..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe the rest of the world will follow and leave that communistic country back in the dark ages.Instead of propping up the government maybe the world will start to do actually do something about it. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe the rest of the world will follow and leave that communistic country back in the dark ages.Instead of propping up the government maybe the world will start to do actually do something about it..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869856</id>
	<title>Re:How about the Black Fleet?</title>
	<author>jmac\_the\_man</author>
	<datestamp>1264264320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Like China is the only part of the world where censorship is in action. In the west we never heard about the US Black Fleet that was about to conquer Taiwan and got blown out of the water by the Chinese. That happened <b>in 2003</b> and never hit the news nor the Internet. At least the part of the Internet over here. In China this is all well known. But over here the embarrassment for the USA would be devastating.</p></div><p>
Hmm... 2003? I seem to remember the US Navy having its hands full with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq\_war" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">something else</a> [wikipedia.org] in 2003.
</p><p>
Seriously, the US military was stretched seriously thin in 2003. I'm not in on high level military strategy meetings, but I somehow doubt that the US had a spare fleet kicking around for anything. (Especially one that they weren't going to replace. Believe me, if the Navy started ordering a new fleet of ships, we'd know about it.)
</p><p>
And finally, what good would conquering Taiwan be to the US? They don't have appreciable natural resources or particularly strategic territory. Their main export is electronic components, which we already get from them extremely cheaply. The reason Taiwan is important to the US to the extent that it is is because of some combination of "They piss of China, and the US government doesn't like the Chinese government" and "The US supports free people everywhere."
</p><p>
Finally, Wikipedia has a page on the US as a state sponsor of terrorism, where a lot of ridiculously tenuous links made by people with actual death squads are listed. Whatever else you may think of Wikipedia, it doesn't have a pro-US bias. Pro-US censorship is not employed on Wikipedia. It also doesn't have an article on this Black Fleet nonsense you're spouting.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Like China is the only part of the world where censorship is in action .
In the west we never heard about the US Black Fleet that was about to conquer Taiwan and got blown out of the water by the Chinese .
That happened in 2003 and never hit the news nor the Internet .
At least the part of the Internet over here .
In China this is all well known .
But over here the embarrassment for the USA would be devastating .
Hmm... 2003 ?
I seem to remember the US Navy having its hands full with something else [ wikipedia.org ] in 2003 .
Seriously , the US military was stretched seriously thin in 2003 .
I 'm not in on high level military strategy meetings , but I somehow doubt that the US had a spare fleet kicking around for anything .
( Especially one that they were n't going to replace .
Believe me , if the Navy started ordering a new fleet of ships , we 'd know about it .
) And finally , what good would conquering Taiwan be to the US ?
They do n't have appreciable natural resources or particularly strategic territory .
Their main export is electronic components , which we already get from them extremely cheaply .
The reason Taiwan is important to the US to the extent that it is is because of some combination of " They piss of China , and the US government does n't like the Chinese government " and " The US supports free people everywhere .
" Finally , Wikipedia has a page on the US as a state sponsor of terrorism , where a lot of ridiculously tenuous links made by people with actual death squads are listed .
Whatever else you may think of Wikipedia , it does n't have a pro-US bias .
Pro-US censorship is not employed on Wikipedia .
It also does n't have an article on this Black Fleet nonsense you 're spouting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like China is the only part of the world where censorship is in action.
In the west we never heard about the US Black Fleet that was about to conquer Taiwan and got blown out of the water by the Chinese.
That happened in 2003 and never hit the news nor the Internet.
At least the part of the Internet over here.
In China this is all well known.
But over here the embarrassment for the USA would be devastating.
Hmm... 2003?
I seem to remember the US Navy having its hands full with something else [wikipedia.org] in 2003.
Seriously, the US military was stretched seriously thin in 2003.
I'm not in on high level military strategy meetings, but I somehow doubt that the US had a spare fleet kicking around for anything.
(Especially one that they weren't going to replace.
Believe me, if the Navy started ordering a new fleet of ships, we'd know about it.
)

And finally, what good would conquering Taiwan be to the US?
They don't have appreciable natural resources or particularly strategic territory.
Their main export is electronic components, which we already get from them extremely cheaply.
The reason Taiwan is important to the US to the extent that it is is because of some combination of "They piss of China, and the US government doesn't like the Chinese government" and "The US supports free people everywhere.
"

Finally, Wikipedia has a page on the US as a state sponsor of terrorism, where a lot of ridiculously tenuous links made by people with actual death squads are listed.
Whatever else you may think of Wikipedia, it doesn't have a pro-US bias.
Pro-US censorship is not employed on Wikipedia.
It also doesn't have an article on this Black Fleet nonsense you're spouting.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868302</id>
	<title>Re:Internet Censorship operates in the U.S.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264245240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But since its america, no one complains because "god bless america". If china had this kind of propaganda there wouldnt be as big of a  problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But since its america , no one complains because " god bless america " .
If china had this kind of propaganda there wouldnt be as big of a problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But since its america, no one complains because "god bless america".
If china had this kind of propaganda there wouldnt be as big of a  problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869832</id>
	<title>QUIT PLAYING AROUND</title>
	<author>WindBourne</author>
	<datestamp>1264264080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just boot China out of the WTO and drop their MFN with America. Look, CHina is NOT going to give freedom's to their citizens. Their move towards capitalism was to prevent their citizens from revolting. There is ZERO intention of ever restoring their freedoms. OTH, China is in a cold war with the rest of the west, and most likely with the world. Their goal is control. Even now, they had LEGAL obligations under MFN AND WTO, to which they have not honored any of it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just boot China out of the WTO and drop their MFN with America .
Look , CHina is NOT going to give freedom 's to their citizens .
Their move towards capitalism was to prevent their citizens from revolting .
There is ZERO intention of ever restoring their freedoms .
OTH , China is in a cold war with the rest of the west , and most likely with the world .
Their goal is control .
Even now , they had LEGAL obligations under MFN AND WTO , to which they have not honored any of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just boot China out of the WTO and drop their MFN with America.
Look, CHina is NOT going to give freedom's to their citizens.
Their move towards capitalism was to prevent their citizens from revolting.
There is ZERO intention of ever restoring their freedoms.
OTH, China is in a cold war with the rest of the west, and most likely with the world.
Their goal is control.
Even now, they had LEGAL obligations under MFN AND WTO, to which they have not honored any of it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30870836</id>
	<title>Re:Hillary Clinton's quotable quote</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264272840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When Obama closes Guantanamo and removes the troops from Iraq then she should start to give lessons.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When Obama closes Guantanamo and removes the troops from Iraq then she should start to give lessons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When Obama closes Guantanamo and removes the troops from Iraq then she should start to give lessons.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30873812</id>
	<title>Re:Google has BACKED DOWN in China</title>
	<author>tomduck</author>
	<datestamp>1264250940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please mod off-topic.</p><p>Look at <a href="http://slashdot.org/~hackingbear/comments" title="slashdot.org">hackingbear's comment history</a> [slashdot.org].
He is <a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1518574&amp;cid=30848302" title="slashdot.org">repeatedly</a> [slashdot.org] <a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1519500&amp;cid=30848256" title="slashdot.org">posting</a> [slashdot.org] <a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1519842&amp;cid=30852416" title="slashdot.org">this</a> [slashdot.org]
<a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1521602&amp;cid=30871512" title="slashdot.org">comment</a> [slashdot.org], often to completely unrelated stories.</p><p>Hackingbear, we get that you are upset by this.  However, this kind of trolling is not helpful, and only serves to undermine discussion of other topics -- topics that also happen to be of interest to the rest of us.  <a href="http://slashdot.org/submission" title="slashdot.org">Try this</a> [slashdot.org] again instead.  But don't be surprised if your story gets rejected with the very first link to a page <a href="http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&amp;id=8789540" title="slashdot.org">written in Chinese</a> [slashdot.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please mod off-topic.Look at hackingbear 's comment history [ slashdot.org ] .
He is repeatedly [ slashdot.org ] posting [ slashdot.org ] this [ slashdot.org ] comment [ slashdot.org ] , often to completely unrelated stories.Hackingbear , we get that you are upset by this .
However , this kind of trolling is not helpful , and only serves to undermine discussion of other topics -- topics that also happen to be of interest to the rest of us .
Try this [ slashdot.org ] again instead .
But do n't be surprised if your story gets rejected with the very first link to a page written in Chinese [ slashdot.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please mod off-topic.Look at hackingbear's comment history [slashdot.org].
He is repeatedly [slashdot.org] posting [slashdot.org] this [slashdot.org]
comment [slashdot.org], often to completely unrelated stories.Hackingbear, we get that you are upset by this.
However, this kind of trolling is not helpful, and only serves to undermine discussion of other topics -- topics that also happen to be of interest to the rest of us.
Try this [slashdot.org] again instead.
But don't be surprised if your story gets rejected with the very first link to a page written in Chinese [slashdot.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30871512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869286</id>
	<title>Re:So when...</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1264258680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was wondering about that.  Will the US now be helping me get around the IWF's censorship attempts?  I've not actually been blocked by them from anything that I want to see, but since (by law) they are not actually allowed to look at the things they are censoring to see if they really are illegal, it's only a matter of time.  With the US government be running state-sponsored TOR nodes with enough bandwidth to push everyone's surfing through?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was wondering about that .
Will the US now be helping me get around the IWF 's censorship attempts ?
I 've not actually been blocked by them from anything that I want to see , but since ( by law ) they are not actually allowed to look at the things they are censoring to see if they really are illegal , it 's only a matter of time .
With the US government be running state-sponsored TOR nodes with enough bandwidth to push everyone 's surfing through ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was wondering about that.
Will the US now be helping me get around the IWF's censorship attempts?
I've not actually been blocked by them from anything that I want to see, but since (by law) they are not actually allowed to look at the things they are censoring to see if they really are illegal, it's only a matter of time.
With the US government be running state-sponsored TOR nodes with enough bandwidth to push everyone's surfing through?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868304</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30871512</id>
	<title>Google has BACKED DOWN in China</title>
	<author>hackingbear</author>
	<datestamp>1264277520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have attempted to post the reports that <a href="http://slashdot.org/submission/1154292/Google-Re-enabled-Chinese-Censorship?art\_pos=1" title="slashdot.org">Google has backed down in China and <i>re-enabled</i> Chinese search result filtering in Google.cn despite of the lack of real actions from the Chinese government</a> [slashdot.org] in the few two days, but<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. editors keep refusing to put this relevant in the front page. This story casts a doubt on Google's stance, motive and commitment. Right, how can we be critical of our new found American hero defending the precious "freedom" and fighting the "evil" China? How can a hero backing down to the evil? Hero can't make fundamental principle error, or you are not allowed to know when it does. How could the evil have not taken any real evil action on this particular matter? It would hurt our national morale, and so we should do self-censoring and forbidding to put it in the front page of any Western media outlet.
</p><p>(Even your WSJ story does not mention that google has re-enabled filtering; while every Western media reported the (now temporary) suspension after Google announcement. It is oversea Chinese media that reported it and I picked up and verified with the exact same <a href="http://www.google.cn/search?hl=zh-CN&amp;source=hp&amp;q=\%E5\%85\%AD\%E5\%9B\%9B" title="google.cn">Chinese query</a> [google.cn] I tried right after their temporary suspension back then.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have attempted to post the reports that Google has backed down in China and re-enabled Chinese search result filtering in Google.cn despite of the lack of real actions from the Chinese government [ slashdot.org ] in the few two days , but / .
editors keep refusing to put this relevant in the front page .
This story casts a doubt on Google 's stance , motive and commitment .
Right , how can we be critical of our new found American hero defending the precious " freedom " and fighting the " evil " China ?
How can a hero backing down to the evil ?
Hero ca n't make fundamental principle error , or you are not allowed to know when it does .
How could the evil have not taken any real evil action on this particular matter ?
It would hurt our national morale , and so we should do self-censoring and forbidding to put it in the front page of any Western media outlet .
( Even your WSJ story does not mention that google has re-enabled filtering ; while every Western media reported the ( now temporary ) suspension after Google announcement .
It is oversea Chinese media that reported it and I picked up and verified with the exact same Chinese query [ google.cn ] I tried right after their temporary suspension back then .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have attempted to post the reports that Google has backed down in China and re-enabled Chinese search result filtering in Google.cn despite of the lack of real actions from the Chinese government [slashdot.org] in the few two days, but /.
editors keep refusing to put this relevant in the front page.
This story casts a doubt on Google's stance, motive and commitment.
Right, how can we be critical of our new found American hero defending the precious "freedom" and fighting the "evil" China?
How can a hero backing down to the evil?
Hero can't make fundamental principle error, or you are not allowed to know when it does.
How could the evil have not taken any real evil action on this particular matter?
It would hurt our national morale, and so we should do self-censoring and forbidding to put it in the front page of any Western media outlet.
(Even your WSJ story does not mention that google has re-enabled filtering; while every Western media reported the (now temporary) suspension after Google announcement.
It is oversea Chinese media that reported it and I picked up and verified with the exact same Chinese query [google.cn] I tried right after their temporary suspension back then.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868202</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869120</id>
	<title>Re:Hillary Clinton's quotable quote</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264256760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... it is about what kind of world we want<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..."</p><p>Here "we" means  the americans.</p><p>We understand the motivation of Clinton, because USA has the largest porn industry on the planet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ... it is about what kind of world we want ... " Here " we " means the americans.We understand the motivation of Clinton , because USA has the largest porn industry on the planet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>" ... it is about what kind of world we want ..."Here "we" means  the americans.We understand the motivation of Clinton, because USA has the largest porn industry on the planet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869052</id>
	<title>Re:Hillary Clinton's quotable quote</title>
	<author>trendzetter</author>
	<datestamp>1264255980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Some people cried tears when they listened to speeches of Hitler too. It's just cheap propaganda, Clinton only favors freedom for corporations, not for people.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Some people cried tears when they listened to speeches of Hitler too .
It 's just cheap propaganda , Clinton only favors freedom for corporations , not for people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some people cried tears when they listened to speeches of Hitler too.
It's just cheap propaganda, Clinton only favors freedom for corporations, not for people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30877610</id>
	<title>Re:A view from inside China</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264340880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wikipedia has always worked fine for me, and still is. Maybe there is certain content that is blocked, but I've never had an issue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wikipedia has always worked fine for me , and still is .
Maybe there is certain content that is blocked , but I 've never had an issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wikipedia has always worked fine for me, and still is.
Maybe there is certain content that is blocked, but I've never had an issue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869458</id>
	<title>Re:Google and business</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264260360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Chinese market is actually small. 150e6 vs. 6e9 US market<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Chinese market is actually small .
150e6 vs. 6e9 US market  </tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Chinese market is actually small.
150e6 vs. 6e9 US market
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869748</id>
	<title>Re:US is banning internet poker</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264263120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are many different viewpoints in any society.  At least in the US we encourage the discussion of these viewpoints, even in an uncivilized maner.  Gambling is an action in which money changes, it's no longer censorship but preventing an action.</p><p>Blocking kiddie porn is actually censorship, I for one would be happy if it were entirely eliminated.  However I understand the "Free speech" side of not heavily prosecuiting anyone but the creators of it, the people that actually performed the illegal activity of degrading the children, but only if their society specifies that it's illegal.  American culture isn't the only culture, and there are certainly cultures in the world that don't bother to hide the same areas of their bodies.  Under current law, I believe that even people with a decent archive of National Geographic magazines could potentially be prosecuted.</p><p>Actions taken by citizens are very different from exchange of information and ideas.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are many different viewpoints in any society .
At least in the US we encourage the discussion of these viewpoints , even in an uncivilized maner .
Gambling is an action in which money changes , it 's no longer censorship but preventing an action.Blocking kiddie porn is actually censorship , I for one would be happy if it were entirely eliminated .
However I understand the " Free speech " side of not heavily prosecuiting anyone but the creators of it , the people that actually performed the illegal activity of degrading the children , but only if their society specifies that it 's illegal .
American culture is n't the only culture , and there are certainly cultures in the world that do n't bother to hide the same areas of their bodies .
Under current law , I believe that even people with a decent archive of National Geographic magazines could potentially be prosecuted.Actions taken by citizens are very different from exchange of information and ideas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are many different viewpoints in any society.
At least in the US we encourage the discussion of these viewpoints, even in an uncivilized maner.
Gambling is an action in which money changes, it's no longer censorship but preventing an action.Blocking kiddie porn is actually censorship, I for one would be happy if it were entirely eliminated.
However I understand the "Free speech" side of not heavily prosecuiting anyone but the creators of it, the people that actually performed the illegal activity of degrading the children, but only if their society specifies that it's illegal.
American culture isn't the only culture, and there are certainly cultures in the world that don't bother to hide the same areas of their bodies.
Under current law, I believe that even people with a decent archive of National Geographic magazines could potentially be prosecuted.Actions taken by citizens are very different from exchange of information and ideas.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869480</id>
	<title>Re:Color me skeptical</title>
	<author>kdemetter</author>
	<datestamp>1264260540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"and stop using the issue of so-called Internet freedom to unreasonably criticize China".</p><p>I think that say enough about China : calling freedom "so-called" , and claiming that there is such a thing as "unreasonable criticism" .<br>As far as i know, criticism is always grounded in reason , otherwise , it would be slander.</p><p>Anyway , i'm glad Google is finally starting to take a position on it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" and stop using the issue of so-called Internet freedom to unreasonably criticize China " .I think that say enough about China : calling freedom " so-called " , and claiming that there is such a thing as " unreasonable criticism " .As far as i know , criticism is always grounded in reason , otherwise , it would be slander.Anyway , i 'm glad Google is finally starting to take a position on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"and stop using the issue of so-called Internet freedom to unreasonably criticize China".I think that say enough about China : calling freedom "so-called" , and claiming that there is such a thing as "unreasonable criticism" .As far as i know, criticism is always grounded in reason , otherwise , it would be slander.Anyway , i'm glad Google is finally starting to take a position on it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868202</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30870538</id>
	<title>Re:Meanwhile, back in the U.S. of A.....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264270200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;The MafiAAs receive carte blanche from the courts to abuse their customers,</p><p>Customers have to buy something.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; The MafiAAs receive carte blanche from the courts to abuse their customers,Customers have to buy something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;The MafiAAs receive carte blanche from the courts to abuse their customers,Customers have to buy something.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30871732</id>
	<title>Re:China DDoS</title>
	<author>kc8apf</author>
	<datestamp>1264278840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Which, along with the inability for a single piece of even specialized networking gear to handle the bandwidth for an entire country, is why it isn't done that way.  Firewalls can easily be sharded, load balanced, and put into failover configurations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which , along with the inability for a single piece of even specialized networking gear to handle the bandwidth for an entire country , is why it is n't done that way .
Firewalls can easily be sharded , load balanced , and put into failover configurations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which, along with the inability for a single piece of even specialized networking gear to handle the bandwidth for an entire country, is why it isn't done that way.
Firewalls can easily be sharded, load balanced, and put into failover configurations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868838</id>
	<title>Re:A view from inside China</title>
	<author>LS</author>
	<datestamp>1264253280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are lying about still being in China.  Wikipedia has been unblocked for a LONG time now.  I'm sitting here in my apartment in Beijing reading about Descartes on Wikipedia.</p><p>Also, the censorship aspect of Youtube and Facebook etc is a ruse.  The main reason for them being blocked in protectionism.  Control of information is a great secondary benefit.  It's no coincidence that Facebook was blocked right around when it started gain traction outside of the US, including China, and several local sites here also began to pick up traction.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are lying about still being in China .
Wikipedia has been unblocked for a LONG time now .
I 'm sitting here in my apartment in Beijing reading about Descartes on Wikipedia.Also , the censorship aspect of Youtube and Facebook etc is a ruse .
The main reason for them being blocked in protectionism .
Control of information is a great secondary benefit .
It 's no coincidence that Facebook was blocked right around when it started gain traction outside of the US , including China , and several local sites here also began to pick up traction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are lying about still being in China.
Wikipedia has been unblocked for a LONG time now.
I'm sitting here in my apartment in Beijing reading about Descartes on Wikipedia.Also, the censorship aspect of Youtube and Facebook etc is a ruse.
The main reason for them being blocked in protectionism.
Control of information is a great secondary benefit.
It's no coincidence that Facebook was blocked right around when it started gain traction outside of the US, including China, and several local sites here also began to pick up traction.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869602</id>
	<title>yea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264261620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Harm US/China relations? We hate China... China hates us. They are stealing our jobs, subverting our government, having into our military instillation and business systems... stealing our intilectual property, subverting our monetary system by artificially manipulating their currency. They're dumping toxins into the air and water, not to mention into the toys and babyfood they sell us. They financially support North Korea, one of the countrys most likely to be involved in whatever event eventually destroys the world. How on earth could we do anything to harm relations with China? And how could access to the internet somehow make their citizens any more aware of what a bunch of asshats their government officials are?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Harm US/China relations ?
We hate China... China hates us .
They are stealing our jobs , subverting our government , having into our military instillation and business systems... stealing our intilectual property , subverting our monetary system by artificially manipulating their currency .
They 're dumping toxins into the air and water , not to mention into the toys and babyfood they sell us .
They financially support North Korea , one of the countrys most likely to be involved in whatever event eventually destroys the world .
How on earth could we do anything to harm relations with China ?
And how could access to the internet somehow make their citizens any more aware of what a bunch of asshats their government officials are ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Harm US/China relations?
We hate China... China hates us.
They are stealing our jobs, subverting our government, having into our military instillation and business systems... stealing our intilectual property, subverting our monetary system by artificially manipulating their currency.
They're dumping toxins into the air and water, not to mention into the toys and babyfood they sell us.
They financially support North Korea, one of the countrys most likely to be involved in whatever event eventually destroys the world.
How on earth could we do anything to harm relations with China?
And how could access to the internet somehow make their citizens any more aware of what a bunch of asshats their government officials are?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869214</id>
	<title>Re:Sick and Tired of Hacking</title>
	<author>Neoprofin</author>
	<datestamp>1264257960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>To be fair a very large portion of that population (<a href="http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats3.htm#asia" title="internetworldstats.com">75\%</a> [internetworldstats.com]) have no internet access. 360M is still a lot of users, but it's a lot less than a billion.</htmltext>
<tokenext>To be fair a very large portion of that population ( 75 \ % [ internetworldstats.com ] ) have no internet access .
360M is still a lot of users , but it 's a lot less than a billion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To be fair a very large portion of that population (75\% [internetworldstats.com]) have no internet access.
360M is still a lot of users, but it's a lot less than a billion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869700</id>
	<title>Re:Internet Censorship operates in the U.S.</title>
	<author>Smallpond</author>
	<datestamp>1264262700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Results 1 - 10 of about 141,000 for tetra modem</p><p>Random checks on first few pages show no issues.</p><p>Troll</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Results 1 - 10 of about 141,000 for tetra modemRandom checks on first few pages show no issues.Troll</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Results 1 - 10 of about 141,000 for tetra modemRandom checks on first few pages show no issues.Troll</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868474</id>
	<title>Clinton backs Google to the hilt</title>
	<author>solferino</author>
	<datestamp>1264247760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Clinton also called on U.S. businesses, particularly media providers, to fight censorship in the countries where they operate.</p></div></blockquote><blockquote><div><p>"Censorship should not be in any way accepted by any company anywhere," she said. "American companies need to make a principled stand. This needs to be part of our national brand."</p></div></blockquote><p>This is very strong language. Google is getting full backing and all other US companies are being actively encouraged to follow their lead.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Clinton also called on U.S. businesses , particularly media providers , to fight censorship in the countries where they operate .
" Censorship should not be in any way accepted by any company anywhere , " she said .
" American companies need to make a principled stand .
This needs to be part of our national brand .
" This is very strong language .
Google is getting full backing and all other US companies are being actively encouraged to follow their lead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clinton also called on U.S. businesses, particularly media providers, to fight censorship in the countries where they operate.
"Censorship should not be in any way accepted by any company anywhere," she said.
"American companies need to make a principled stand.
This needs to be part of our national brand.
"This is very strong language.
Google is getting full backing and all other US companies are being actively encouraged to follow their lead.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869326</id>
	<title>Re:US is banning internet poker</title>
	<author>Neoprofin</author>
	<datestamp>1264259160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Internet poker was cut off for violating gambling laws. You're more than welcome to play poker online all you want if there's no money involved.<br> <br>

Acceptable complaints about free speech in America (on the internet anyway) include:<br>
Child Pornography (unpopular)<br>
Beastiality (unpopular)<br>
Piracy (see above, not actually censorship)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Internet poker was cut off for violating gambling laws .
You 're more than welcome to play poker online all you want if there 's no money involved .
Acceptable complaints about free speech in America ( on the internet anyway ) include : Child Pornography ( unpopular ) Beastiality ( unpopular ) Piracy ( see above , not actually censorship )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Internet poker was cut off for violating gambling laws.
You're more than welcome to play poker online all you want if there's no money involved.
Acceptable complaints about free speech in America (on the internet anyway) include:
Child Pornography (unpopular)
Beastiality (unpopular)
Piracy (see above, not actually censorship)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868450</id>
	<title>Reporting Corruption ...</title>
	<author>foobsr</author>
	<datestamp>1264247400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>TFS: "On Thursday in Washington, DC, Clinton unveiled US initiatives to help people living under repressive governments access the Internet for purposes such as reporting corruption. "
<br> <br>
<a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60I2CF20100119" title="reuters.com">Quote</a> [reuters.com]: "Corruption costs Afghans $2.5 billion a year, a United Nations agency said on Tuesday, with the scale of bribery matching Afghanistan's opium trade."
<br> <br>
Probably my poor logic, since Afghans do not suffer from a repressive government.
<br> <br>
CC.</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>TFS : " On Thursday in Washington , DC , Clinton unveiled US initiatives to help people living under repressive governments access the Internet for purposes such as reporting corruption .
" Quote [ reuters.com ] : " Corruption costs Afghans $ 2.5 billion a year , a United Nations agency said on Tuesday , with the scale of bribery matching Afghanistan 's opium trade .
" Probably my poor logic , since Afghans do not suffer from a repressive government .
CC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TFS: "On Thursday in Washington, DC, Clinton unveiled US initiatives to help people living under repressive governments access the Internet for purposes such as reporting corruption.
"
 
Quote [reuters.com]: "Corruption costs Afghans $2.5 billion a year, a United Nations agency said on Tuesday, with the scale of bribery matching Afghanistan's opium trade.
"
 
Probably my poor logic, since Afghans do not suffer from a repressive government.
CC.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869362</id>
	<title>Re:How about the Black Fleet?</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1264259460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> In the west we never heard about the US Black Fleet that was about to conquer Taiwan and got blown out of the water by the Chinese. That happened in 2003 and never hit the news nor the Internet</p></div><p>Wait, the US was about to invade the Republic of China, but then the People's Republic of China defended them?  The same People's Republic of China that doesn't regard the Republic of China as a legitimate state?  This is about as likely as the USA intervening to protect North Korea from invasion by China, so there's a good reason why it wasn't in the news.</p><p><div class="quote"><p> But over here the embarrassment for the USA would be devastating. Loosing a whole fleet to China, them walking away without a scratch, as if they had performed a show.</p></div><p>A US battleship has a typical crew complement of around 2,000.  A fleet will be at least ten ships, so that's 20,000 members of the navy.  And yet, none of the families of these dead soldiers mentioned anything to the news?  No one noticed a load of naval vessels never returned to port?  Russia's spy satellites, which track all surface fleet movements of both China and the US, didn't notice a US fleet disappearing and didn't mention it to the press to score political points?</p><p><div class="quote"><p> There is lots of stuff happening in the world that would embarrass the USA and the west in general. But none of it hits the news-stands over here</p></div><p>Have you ever read the news?  There's lots of stuff that embarrasses the USA in it every day.  Most recently it was coverage of their meeting with Pakistan.</p><p><div class="quote"><p> And where is that guy that transformed the good old telephone network to a high-speed digital IP-network?</p></div><p>It's now widely deployed.  It's called ADSL.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>  I worked with him at the time</p></div><p>...but you can't remember his name</p><p><div class="quote"><p> till the USA threatened to nuke the Netherlands if he ever got a hand on his money. A nice personal message from then president Clinton.</p></div><p>Right, President Clinton threatened to use nuclear weapons against a country that has a mutual defence treaty with at least two other nuclear powers and they just backed down?  There was no diplomatic outrage?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the west we never heard about the US Black Fleet that was about to conquer Taiwan and got blown out of the water by the Chinese .
That happened in 2003 and never hit the news nor the InternetWait , the US was about to invade the Republic of China , but then the People 's Republic of China defended them ?
The same People 's Republic of China that does n't regard the Republic of China as a legitimate state ?
This is about as likely as the USA intervening to protect North Korea from invasion by China , so there 's a good reason why it was n't in the news .
But over here the embarrassment for the USA would be devastating .
Loosing a whole fleet to China , them walking away without a scratch , as if they had performed a show.A US battleship has a typical crew complement of around 2,000 .
A fleet will be at least ten ships , so that 's 20,000 members of the navy .
And yet , none of the families of these dead soldiers mentioned anything to the news ?
No one noticed a load of naval vessels never returned to port ?
Russia 's spy satellites , which track all surface fleet movements of both China and the US , did n't notice a US fleet disappearing and did n't mention it to the press to score political points ?
There is lots of stuff happening in the world that would embarrass the USA and the west in general .
But none of it hits the news-stands over hereHave you ever read the news ?
There 's lots of stuff that embarrasses the USA in it every day .
Most recently it was coverage of their meeting with Pakistan .
And where is that guy that transformed the good old telephone network to a high-speed digital IP-network ? It 's now widely deployed .
It 's called ADSL .
I worked with him at the time...but you ca n't remember his name till the USA threatened to nuke the Netherlands if he ever got a hand on his money .
A nice personal message from then president Clinton.Right , President Clinton threatened to use nuclear weapons against a country that has a mutual defence treaty with at least two other nuclear powers and they just backed down ?
There was no diplomatic outrage ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> In the west we never heard about the US Black Fleet that was about to conquer Taiwan and got blown out of the water by the Chinese.
That happened in 2003 and never hit the news nor the InternetWait, the US was about to invade the Republic of China, but then the People's Republic of China defended them?
The same People's Republic of China that doesn't regard the Republic of China as a legitimate state?
This is about as likely as the USA intervening to protect North Korea from invasion by China, so there's a good reason why it wasn't in the news.
But over here the embarrassment for the USA would be devastating.
Loosing a whole fleet to China, them walking away without a scratch, as if they had performed a show.A US battleship has a typical crew complement of around 2,000.
A fleet will be at least ten ships, so that's 20,000 members of the navy.
And yet, none of the families of these dead soldiers mentioned anything to the news?
No one noticed a load of naval vessels never returned to port?
Russia's spy satellites, which track all surface fleet movements of both China and the US, didn't notice a US fleet disappearing and didn't mention it to the press to score political points?
There is lots of stuff happening in the world that would embarrass the USA and the west in general.
But none of it hits the news-stands over hereHave you ever read the news?
There's lots of stuff that embarrasses the USA in it every day.
Most recently it was coverage of their meeting with Pakistan.
And where is that guy that transformed the good old telephone network to a high-speed digital IP-network?It's now widely deployed.
It's called ADSL.
I worked with him at the time...but you can't remember his name till the USA threatened to nuke the Netherlands if he ever got a hand on his money.
A nice personal message from then president Clinton.Right, President Clinton threatened to use nuclear weapons against a country that has a mutual defence treaty with at least two other nuclear powers and they just backed down?
There was no diplomatic outrage?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869376</id>
	<title>And China is right in doing so</title>
	<author>noddyxoi</author>
	<datestamp>1264259580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>First when you're a guest you have to play by the house rules.

And China can't handle CIA sponsored like Iran or Venezuela had. So for the greater good bye bye google.</htmltext>
<tokenext>First when you 're a guest you have to play by the house rules .
And China ca n't handle CIA sponsored like Iran or Venezuela had .
So for the greater good bye bye google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First when you're a guest you have to play by the house rules.
And China can't handle CIA sponsored like Iran or Venezuela had.
So for the greater good bye bye google.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868202</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30871166</id>
	<title>Re:China DDoS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264275300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What makes you think there is only one route from china to the rest of the world? Copying the firewall configuration shouldn't be much of a problem...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What makes you think there is only one route from china to the rest of the world ?
Copying the firewall configuration should n't be much of a problem.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What makes you think there is only one route from china to the rest of the world?
Copying the firewall configuration shouldn't be much of a problem...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869844</id>
	<title>That was hardly "slamming"</title>
	<author>jonnat</author>
	<datestamp>1264264200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It was, instead, a very crude (embarrassing, for western standards) attempt at Orwellian revisionism substantiated by a direct threat. Their claim that Clinton's comments contradict their constitution just shows how worthless that piece of paper is under a dictatorship.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It was , instead , a very crude ( embarrassing , for western standards ) attempt at Orwellian revisionism substantiated by a direct threat .
Their claim that Clinton 's comments contradict their constitution just shows how worthless that piece of paper is under a dictatorship .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was, instead, a very crude (embarrassing, for western standards) attempt at Orwellian revisionism substantiated by a direct threat.
Their claim that Clinton's comments contradict their constitution just shows how worthless that piece of paper is under a dictatorship.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869186</id>
	<title>What about American firms, Mrs. Clinton?</title>
	<author>yuna49</author>
	<datestamp>1264257540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Evidence continues to surface about American and other Western firms cooperating with repressive governments in their efforts to censor and eavesdrop on their citizens.  Why didn't Mrs. Clinton mention them in her speech?</p><p>We have, for instance, <a href="http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/palfrey/2008/05/22/leaked-cisco-document-chinese-censorship-among-opportunities/" title="harvard.edu">Cisco</a> [harvard.edu], <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124562668777335653.html#mod=rss\_whats\_news\_us" title="wsj.com">Nokia/Siemens</a> [wsj.com], <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4088702.stm" title="bbc.co.uk">Microsoft</a> [bbc.co.uk], and <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4221538.stm" title="bbc.co.uk">Yahoo</a> [bbc.co.uk], just to name a few.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Evidence continues to surface about American and other Western firms cooperating with repressive governments in their efforts to censor and eavesdrop on their citizens .
Why did n't Mrs. Clinton mention them in her speech ? We have , for instance , Cisco [ harvard.edu ] , Nokia/Siemens [ wsj.com ] , Microsoft [ bbc.co.uk ] , and Yahoo [ bbc.co.uk ] , just to name a few .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Evidence continues to surface about American and other Western firms cooperating with repressive governments in their efforts to censor and eavesdrop on their citizens.
Why didn't Mrs. Clinton mention them in her speech?We have, for instance, Cisco [harvard.edu], Nokia/Siemens [wsj.com], Microsoft [bbc.co.uk], and Yahoo [bbc.co.uk], just to name a few.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869746</id>
	<title>America is in the wrong</title>
	<author>Reilaos</author>
	<datestamp>1264263060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We all should know that preemptive use of Hilary Clinton is against everything we stand for.  This is the worst thing since Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

<a href="http://www.theonion.com/content/video/u\_s\_condemned\_for\_pre\_emptive\_use" title="theonion.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.theonion.com/content/video/u\_s\_condemned\_for\_pre\_emptive\_use</a> [theonion.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>We all should know that preemptive use of Hilary Clinton is against everything we stand for .
This is the worst thing since Hiroshima and Nagasaki .
http : //www.theonion.com/content/video/u \ _s \ _condemned \ _for \ _pre \ _emptive \ _use [ theonion.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We all should know that preemptive use of Hilary Clinton is against everything we stand for.
This is the worst thing since Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/u\_s\_condemned\_for\_pre\_emptive\_use [theonion.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869456</id>
	<title>Freedom &ldquo;vital&rdquo; except music downloadi</title>
	<author>David Gerard</author>
	<datestamp>1264260360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Remarks by US Secretary of State Hilary Rodham Clinton on the occasion of the massive hacker attack on US companies by an unspecified national entity. <a href="http://newstechnica.com/2010/01/21/clinton-internet-freedom-vital-except-for-music-downloaders/" title="newstechnica.com">Translated</a> [newstechnica.com] for your convenience.</i></p><p>On Monday, a seven-year-old girl in Port-au-Prince was pulled from the rubble after they sent a text message calling for help. The spread of information networks is forming a new nervous system for our planet. And even in authoritarian countries, information networks are helping people discover new facts and making governments more accountable.</p><p>Amid this unprecedented surge in connectivity, we must also recognize that these technologies are not an unmitigated blessing. These tools are also being exploited to undermine human progress and political rights. Just as steel can be used to build hospitals or machine guns, or nuclear power can energize a city or destroy it, the same networks that help organize movements for freedom also enable al-Qaida to ruthlessly copy American songs and movies in &ldquo;M-P-Three&rdquo; format.</p><p>Freedom of expression is no longer defined solely by whether citizens can go into the town square and criticize their government without fear of retribution. No &mdash; they must be able to give their full name and credit card number and put them on the Internet as well. A connection to global information networks is like an on-ramp to modernity &mdash; one cell phone in a remote community can enable people previously unavailable access to Monsanto seeds.</p><p>On their own, new technologies do not take sides in the struggle for freedom and progress &mdash; but the United States does. We stand for a single internet where all of humanity has equal access to knowledge and ideas, paid for at 99 cents &mdash; I&rsquo;m sorry, $1.29 &mdash; a song. And we recognize that the world&rsquo;s information infrastructure will become what we and others make of it.</p><p>Now, all societies recognize that free expression has its limits. We do not tolerate those who incite others to violence or copyright violation, such as the agents of al-Qaida who are, at this moment, downloading songs at a furious rate, and setting their sights on cracking the patriotic protection of Blu-Ray discs. Those who use the internet to recruit terrorists or distribute stolen intellectual property cannot divorce their online actions from their real world identities.</p><p>States, terrorists, downloaders and those who would act as their proxies must know that the United States will protect our networks. Those who disrupt the free flow of paid information in our society or any other pose a threat to our economy, our government, our civil society and our economy.</p><p>Increasingly, U.S. companies are making the issue of internet and information freedom a greater consideration in their business decisions. The most recent situation involving Google has attracted a great deal of interest. And we look to the Chinese authorities to conduct a thorough review of the cyber intrusions that led Google to make its announcement. And we also look for that investigation and its results to be China signing the ACTA treaty like our campaign donors want them to.</p><p>The internet has already been a source of tremendous progress in China, and it is fabulous. There are so many people in China now online. But countries that restrict free access to information or violate the basic rights of Internet users to be protected from being able to download any song ever released, any time, anywhere, risk walling themselves off from the progress of the next century.</p><p>So let me close by asking you to remember the little girl who was pulled from the rubble on Monday in Port-au-Prince. She&rsquo;s alive, she was reunited with her family, she will have the chance to grow up and pay the going rate for a licence not a sale see end user license agreement of a song in a given format on a given device. We cannot stand by while people are separated from the iTunes store by walls of censorship.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Remarks by US Secretary of State Hilary Rodham Clinton on the occasion of the massive hacker attack on US companies by an unspecified national entity .
Translated [ newstechnica.com ] for your convenience.On Monday , a seven-year-old girl in Port-au-Prince was pulled from the rubble after they sent a text message calling for help .
The spread of information networks is forming a new nervous system for our planet .
And even in authoritarian countries , information networks are helping people discover new facts and making governments more accountable.Amid this unprecedented surge in connectivity , we must also recognize that these technologies are not an unmitigated blessing .
These tools are also being exploited to undermine human progress and political rights .
Just as steel can be used to build hospitals or machine guns , or nuclear power can energize a city or destroy it , the same networks that help organize movements for freedom also enable al-Qaida to ruthlessly copy American songs and movies in    M-P-Three    format.Freedom of expression is no longer defined solely by whether citizens can go into the town square and criticize their government without fear of retribution .
No    they must be able to give their full name and credit card number and put them on the Internet as well .
A connection to global information networks is like an on-ramp to modernity    one cell phone in a remote community can enable people previously unavailable access to Monsanto seeds.On their own , new technologies do not take sides in the struggle for freedom and progress    but the United States does .
We stand for a single internet where all of humanity has equal access to knowledge and ideas , paid for at 99 cents    I    m sorry , $ 1.29    a song .
And we recognize that the world    s information infrastructure will become what we and others make of it.Now , all societies recognize that free expression has its limits .
We do not tolerate those who incite others to violence or copyright violation , such as the agents of al-Qaida who are , at this moment , downloading songs at a furious rate , and setting their sights on cracking the patriotic protection of Blu-Ray discs .
Those who use the internet to recruit terrorists or distribute stolen intellectual property can not divorce their online actions from their real world identities.States , terrorists , downloaders and those who would act as their proxies must know that the United States will protect our networks .
Those who disrupt the free flow of paid information in our society or any other pose a threat to our economy , our government , our civil society and our economy.Increasingly , U.S. companies are making the issue of internet and information freedom a greater consideration in their business decisions .
The most recent situation involving Google has attracted a great deal of interest .
And we look to the Chinese authorities to conduct a thorough review of the cyber intrusions that led Google to make its announcement .
And we also look for that investigation and its results to be China signing the ACTA treaty like our campaign donors want them to.The internet has already been a source of tremendous progress in China , and it is fabulous .
There are so many people in China now online .
But countries that restrict free access to information or violate the basic rights of Internet users to be protected from being able to download any song ever released , any time , anywhere , risk walling themselves off from the progress of the next century.So let me close by asking you to remember the little girl who was pulled from the rubble on Monday in Port-au-Prince .
She    s alive , she was reunited with her family , she will have the chance to grow up and pay the going rate for a licence not a sale see end user license agreement of a song in a given format on a given device .
We can not stand by while people are separated from the iTunes store by walls of censorship .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remarks by US Secretary of State Hilary Rodham Clinton on the occasion of the massive hacker attack on US companies by an unspecified national entity.
Translated [newstechnica.com] for your convenience.On Monday, a seven-year-old girl in Port-au-Prince was pulled from the rubble after they sent a text message calling for help.
The spread of information networks is forming a new nervous system for our planet.
And even in authoritarian countries, information networks are helping people discover new facts and making governments more accountable.Amid this unprecedented surge in connectivity, we must also recognize that these technologies are not an unmitigated blessing.
These tools are also being exploited to undermine human progress and political rights.
Just as steel can be used to build hospitals or machine guns, or nuclear power can energize a city or destroy it, the same networks that help organize movements for freedom also enable al-Qaida to ruthlessly copy American songs and movies in “M-P-Three” format.Freedom of expression is no longer defined solely by whether citizens can go into the town square and criticize their government without fear of retribution.
No — they must be able to give their full name and credit card number and put them on the Internet as well.
A connection to global information networks is like an on-ramp to modernity — one cell phone in a remote community can enable people previously unavailable access to Monsanto seeds.On their own, new technologies do not take sides in the struggle for freedom and progress — but the United States does.
We stand for a single internet where all of humanity has equal access to knowledge and ideas, paid for at 99 cents — I’m sorry, $1.29 — a song.
And we recognize that the world’s information infrastructure will become what we and others make of it.Now, all societies recognize that free expression has its limits.
We do not tolerate those who incite others to violence or copyright violation, such as the agents of al-Qaida who are, at this moment, downloading songs at a furious rate, and setting their sights on cracking the patriotic protection of Blu-Ray discs.
Those who use the internet to recruit terrorists or distribute stolen intellectual property cannot divorce their online actions from their real world identities.States, terrorists, downloaders and those who would act as their proxies must know that the United States will protect our networks.
Those who disrupt the free flow of paid information in our society or any other pose a threat to our economy, our government, our civil society and our economy.Increasingly, U.S. companies are making the issue of internet and information freedom a greater consideration in their business decisions.
The most recent situation involving Google has attracted a great deal of interest.
And we look to the Chinese authorities to conduct a thorough review of the cyber intrusions that led Google to make its announcement.
And we also look for that investigation and its results to be China signing the ACTA treaty like our campaign donors want them to.The internet has already been a source of tremendous progress in China, and it is fabulous.
There are so many people in China now online.
But countries that restrict free access to information or violate the basic rights of Internet users to be protected from being able to download any song ever released, any time, anywhere, risk walling themselves off from the progress of the next century.So let me close by asking you to remember the little girl who was pulled from the rubble on Monday in Port-au-Prince.
She’s alive, she was reunited with her family, she will have the chance to grow up and pay the going rate for a licence not a sale see end user license agreement of a song in a given format on a given device.
We cannot stand by while people are separated from the iTunes store by walls of censorship.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869132</id>
	<title>Re: Censorship in the rest of the world</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264256880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>of course, nobody's told Mrs Clinton that, before she began getting righteous, which is very embarrassing for her and for the U.S. government she's representing. it also puts the comments made by the Chinese Government into perspective: namely that the Chinese Government know damn well that the U.S. Government also performs Internet Censorship; Ma Zhaoxu is simply calling things "as they are".</p></div><p>Yes, sadly China has a very good argument when they are criticized for censoring the Internet: Denmark censors their Internet. Australia censors their Internet. The US censors their Internet. Norway covertly tortures people who write the wrong thing on the Internet. And on and on. This gives China the very good argument "Why are you picking on us, everybody censors their Internet". The EU and the US can't really say anything as long as they are covertly doing the same thing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>of course , nobody 's told Mrs Clinton that , before she began getting righteous , which is very embarrassing for her and for the U.S. government she 's representing .
it also puts the comments made by the Chinese Government into perspective : namely that the Chinese Government know damn well that the U.S. Government also performs Internet Censorship ; Ma Zhaoxu is simply calling things " as they are " .Yes , sadly China has a very good argument when they are criticized for censoring the Internet : Denmark censors their Internet .
Australia censors their Internet .
The US censors their Internet .
Norway covertly tortures people who write the wrong thing on the Internet .
And on and on .
This gives China the very good argument " Why are you picking on us , everybody censors their Internet " .
The EU and the US ca n't really say anything as long as they are covertly doing the same thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>of course, nobody's told Mrs Clinton that, before she began getting righteous, which is very embarrassing for her and for the U.S. government she's representing.
it also puts the comments made by the Chinese Government into perspective: namely that the Chinese Government know damn well that the U.S. Government also performs Internet Censorship; Ma Zhaoxu is simply calling things "as they are".Yes, sadly China has a very good argument when they are criticized for censoring the Internet: Denmark censors their Internet.
Australia censors their Internet.
The US censors their Internet.
Norway covertly tortures people who write the wrong thing on the Internet.
And on and on.
This gives China the very good argument "Why are you picking on us, everybody censors their Internet".
The EU and the US can't really say anything as long as they are covertly doing the same thing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868446</id>
	<title>A view from inside China</title>
	<author>afflatus\_com</author>
	<datestamp>1264247280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am actually currently in China. Sites which are carte-blance blocked include: Facebook, youtube, wikipedia, blogger.com (as a side note: Wikipedia really is useful--reminded of that now that it is not available).</p><p>The reason for blocking Facebook and company is because they are starting to work for serious political change: see today's 'No Prorouge' rallies occurring today in Canada [and at worldwide Canadian embassies] after the Canadian prime minister leader cancelled the democratically-elected parliament for weeks--these rallies are a result of over 200,000 strong grassroots Facebook group support. Concurrent to that is an evaporation of that prime ministers lead in the polls versus the opposition party.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am actually currently in China .
Sites which are carte-blance blocked include : Facebook , youtube , wikipedia , blogger.com ( as a side note : Wikipedia really is useful--reminded of that now that it is not available ) .The reason for blocking Facebook and company is because they are starting to work for serious political change : see today 's 'No Prorouge ' rallies occurring today in Canada [ and at worldwide Canadian embassies ] after the Canadian prime minister leader cancelled the democratically-elected parliament for weeks--these rallies are a result of over 200,000 strong grassroots Facebook group support .
Concurrent to that is an evaporation of that prime ministers lead in the polls versus the opposition party .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am actually currently in China.
Sites which are carte-blance blocked include: Facebook, youtube, wikipedia, blogger.com (as a side note: Wikipedia really is useful--reminded of that now that it is not available).The reason for blocking Facebook and company is because they are starting to work for serious political change: see today's 'No Prorouge' rallies occurring today in Canada [and at worldwide Canadian embassies] after the Canadian prime minister leader cancelled the democratically-elected parliament for weeks--these rallies are a result of over 200,000 strong grassroots Facebook group support.
Concurrent to that is an evaporation of that prime ministers lead in the polls versus the opposition party.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869162</id>
	<title>Re:Internet Censorship operates in the U.S.</title>
	<author>Antique Geekmeister</author>
	<datestamp>1264257180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's keep a sense of scale. Guantanamo Bay, and a lot going on in Iraq and Afghanistan, is awful and the information tightly controlled. But given that China willingly and effectively censors political speech and porn, but is unwilling or unable to do anything about the 99\% spam email coming from their domains, is an indication that they can't be bothered with censoring criminal behavior. They only censor political or politically embarrassing behavior.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's keep a sense of scale .
Guantanamo Bay , and a lot going on in Iraq and Afghanistan , is awful and the information tightly controlled .
But given that China willingly and effectively censors political speech and porn , but is unwilling or unable to do anything about the 99 \ % spam email coming from their domains , is an indication that they ca n't be bothered with censoring criminal behavior .
They only censor political or politically embarrassing behavior .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's keep a sense of scale.
Guantanamo Bay, and a lot going on in Iraq and Afghanistan, is awful and the information tightly controlled.
But given that China willingly and effectively censors political speech and porn, but is unwilling or unable to do anything about the 99\% spam email coming from their domains, is an indication that they can't be bothered with censoring criminal behavior.
They only censor political or politically embarrassing behavior.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868622</id>
	<title>Re:Google and business</title>
	<author>Xeno man</author>
	<datestamp>1264250640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ethics may be a part of it but time and money will be a larger part of it. If you need to have an entire office of people to run China's version of Google, spending man hours on complying with every government request and policy and continually undoing what Google does (it finds stuff), there comes a point when it's just not worth the effort. Then you find out that the government that you have been bending over backwards for just to please enough to allow you to do business hacks your machines just to get more of what they want may have been the final straw. It may be easier to just set the auto reply for any email from China to "fuck off" and go back to running business in the rest of the world.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ethics may be a part of it but time and money will be a larger part of it .
If you need to have an entire office of people to run China 's version of Google , spending man hours on complying with every government request and policy and continually undoing what Google does ( it finds stuff ) , there comes a point when it 's just not worth the effort .
Then you find out that the government that you have been bending over backwards for just to please enough to allow you to do business hacks your machines just to get more of what they want may have been the final straw .
It may be easier to just set the auto reply for any email from China to " fuck off " and go back to running business in the rest of the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ethics may be a part of it but time and money will be a larger part of it.
If you need to have an entire office of people to run China's version of Google, spending man hours on complying with every government request and policy and continually undoing what Google does (it finds stuff), there comes a point when it's just not worth the effort.
Then you find out that the government that you have been bending over backwards for just to please enough to allow you to do business hacks your machines just to get more of what they want may have been the final straw.
It may be easier to just set the auto reply for any email from China to "fuck off" and go back to running business in the rest of the world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869536</id>
	<title>China's laws</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264261080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>''China's laws forbid hacking attacks and violations of citizens' privacy"</p><p>China's constitution also says all sorts of interesting things, such as freedom of religious worship, freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, association, etc.  (Look up the "four bigs" and Article 35).  The ability to exercise those rights is rather limited.  Really, the whole thing reads like some kind of bad joke.</p><p>Let's just say that the implementation and enforcement of China's laws leaves much to be desired, and when the law is inconveniently contrary to the wishes of the dictators in charge, they change or ignore the laws more or less at will (including the constitution).  So, I'll be impressed when the Chinese government actually uses the laws against "hacking and violations of citizens' privacy" to track down and bring to justice the people responsible for this episode of widespread corporate espionage.  No credit for anything less.  Unless met by appropriate action, these laws are just words on a page, like the "rights" that exist in the Chinese constitution.</p><p>I suppose someone will pipe up and say that isn't much different from some western countries, but at least we're allowed to openly talk about and protest the fact, and the expression of the problem isn't quite so egregious.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>''China 's laws forbid hacking attacks and violations of citizens ' privacy " China 's constitution also says all sorts of interesting things , such as freedom of religious worship , freedom of speech , of the press , of assembly , association , etc .
( Look up the " four bigs " and Article 35 ) .
The ability to exercise those rights is rather limited .
Really , the whole thing reads like some kind of bad joke.Let 's just say that the implementation and enforcement of China 's laws leaves much to be desired , and when the law is inconveniently contrary to the wishes of the dictators in charge , they change or ignore the laws more or less at will ( including the constitution ) .
So , I 'll be impressed when the Chinese government actually uses the laws against " hacking and violations of citizens ' privacy " to track down and bring to justice the people responsible for this episode of widespread corporate espionage .
No credit for anything less .
Unless met by appropriate action , these laws are just words on a page , like the " rights " that exist in the Chinese constitution.I suppose someone will pipe up and say that is n't much different from some western countries , but at least we 're allowed to openly talk about and protest the fact , and the expression of the problem is n't quite so egregious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>''China's laws forbid hacking attacks and violations of citizens' privacy"China's constitution also says all sorts of interesting things, such as freedom of religious worship, freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, association, etc.
(Look up the "four bigs" and Article 35).
The ability to exercise those rights is rather limited.
Really, the whole thing reads like some kind of bad joke.Let's just say that the implementation and enforcement of China's laws leaves much to be desired, and when the law is inconveniently contrary to the wishes of the dictators in charge, they change or ignore the laws more or less at will (including the constitution).
So, I'll be impressed when the Chinese government actually uses the laws against "hacking and violations of citizens' privacy" to track down and bring to justice the people responsible for this episode of widespread corporate espionage.
No credit for anything less.
Unless met by appropriate action, these laws are just words on a page, like the "rights" that exist in the Chinese constitution.I suppose someone will pipe up and say that isn't much different from some western countries, but at least we're allowed to openly talk about and protest the fact, and the expression of the problem isn't quite so egregious.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868472</id>
	<title>Re:Internet Censorship operates in the U.S.</title>
	<author>indiechild</author>
	<datestamp>1264247700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So what "stuff" did you find and what websites were you looking at that were mysteriously blocked?</p><p>You must be a very important person!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So what " stuff " did you find and what websites were you looking at that were mysteriously blocked ? You must be a very important person !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what "stuff" did you find and what websites were you looking at that were mysteriously blocked?You must be a very important person!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868346</id>
	<title>The Chinese better be careful what they say</title>
	<author>ionix5891</author>
	<datestamp>1264245900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>or we might use <a href="http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/286145" title="digitaljournal.com">our tectonic weapon</a> [digitaljournal.com] on them<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:O</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>or we might use our tectonic weapon [ digitaljournal.com ] on them : O</tokentext>
<sentencetext>or we might use our tectonic weapon [digitaljournal.com] on them :O</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869152</id>
	<title>China or Australia?</title>
	<author>lindseyp</author>
	<datestamp>1264257120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Australia on Friday slammed remarks made by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton promoting Internet freedom worldwide, saying her words harmed US-Australia relations. Clinton's speech and Australia's response both come after Google last week said it planned to reverse its long-standing position in Australia by ending censorship of its Australian search engine. Google cited increasingly tough censorship and recent cyberattacks on the Gmail accounts of human rights activists for its decision, which it said might force it to close its offices in Australia altogether. On Thursday in Washington, DC, Clinton unveiled US initiatives to help people living under repressive governments access the Internet for purposes such as reporting corruption. The US will support circumvention tools for dissidents whose Internet connections are blocked, she said. Australian Foreign Ministry spokesman Ma Zhaoxu called for the US 'to respect the facts and stop using the issue of so-called Internet freedom to unreasonably criticize Australia.' Australia's laws forbid hacking attacks and violations of citizens' privacy, the statement said, apparently referring to the issues raised by Google."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Australia on Friday slammed remarks made by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton promoting Internet freedom worldwide , saying her words harmed US-Australia relations .
Clinton 's speech and Australia 's response both come after Google last week said it planned to reverse its long-standing position in Australia by ending censorship of its Australian search engine .
Google cited increasingly tough censorship and recent cyberattacks on the Gmail accounts of human rights activists for its decision , which it said might force it to close its offices in Australia altogether .
On Thursday in Washington , DC , Clinton unveiled US initiatives to help people living under repressive governments access the Internet for purposes such as reporting corruption .
The US will support circumvention tools for dissidents whose Internet connections are blocked , she said .
Australian Foreign Ministry spokesman Ma Zhaoxu called for the US 'to respect the facts and stop using the issue of so-called Internet freedom to unreasonably criticize Australia .
' Australia 's laws forbid hacking attacks and violations of citizens ' privacy , the statement said , apparently referring to the issues raised by Google .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Australia on Friday slammed remarks made by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton promoting Internet freedom worldwide, saying her words harmed US-Australia relations.
Clinton's speech and Australia's response both come after Google last week said it planned to reverse its long-standing position in Australia by ending censorship of its Australian search engine.
Google cited increasingly tough censorship and recent cyberattacks on the Gmail accounts of human rights activists for its decision, which it said might force it to close its offices in Australia altogether.
On Thursday in Washington, DC, Clinton unveiled US initiatives to help people living under repressive governments access the Internet for purposes such as reporting corruption.
The US will support circumvention tools for dissidents whose Internet connections are blocked, she said.
Australian Foreign Ministry spokesman Ma Zhaoxu called for the US 'to respect the facts and stop using the issue of so-called Internet freedom to unreasonably criticize Australia.
' Australia's laws forbid hacking attacks and violations of citizens' privacy, the statement said, apparently referring to the issues raised by Google.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868816</id>
	<title>Re:A view from inside China</title>
	<author>RMS Eats Toejam</author>
	<datestamp>1264252920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wikipedia is not blocked in Beijing.  It's slow and sometimes the pictures don't display, but pages <b>do</b> load.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wikipedia is not blocked in Beijing .
It 's slow and sometimes the pictures do n't display , but pages do load .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wikipedia is not blocked in Beijing.
It's slow and sometimes the pictures don't display, but pages do load.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869652</id>
	<title>Re:Finally! Youtube in China!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264262220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hate being the one to play devils advocate, and I am by no means a fan of China or censorship but I want to pose a question to the class.</p><p>Why? I live in America. I hate seeing people held down because we have thus far been afforded great freedoms albeit at great personal costs. Can the 1.3billion Chinese not have there own revolution?  Yes, yes I know they can't even legally read about ours but if the majority of them is still content why do we feel the need to exacerbate the situation.</p><p>Bonus question, definitely biased though: And if it is okay for us to do this is Hilary Clinton really the one we want rattling the chains?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hate being the one to play devils advocate , and I am by no means a fan of China or censorship but I want to pose a question to the class.Why ?
I live in America .
I hate seeing people held down because we have thus far been afforded great freedoms albeit at great personal costs .
Can the 1.3billion Chinese not have there own revolution ?
Yes , yes I know they ca n't even legally read about ours but if the majority of them is still content why do we feel the need to exacerbate the situation.Bonus question , definitely biased though : And if it is okay for us to do this is Hilary Clinton really the one we want rattling the chains ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hate being the one to play devils advocate, and I am by no means a fan of China or censorship but I want to pose a question to the class.Why?
I live in America.
I hate seeing people held down because we have thus far been afforded great freedoms albeit at great personal costs.
Can the 1.3billion Chinese not have there own revolution?
Yes, yes I know they can't even legally read about ours but if the majority of them is still content why do we feel the need to exacerbate the situation.Bonus question, definitely biased though: And if it is okay for us to do this is Hilary Clinton really the one we want rattling the chains?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869992</id>
	<title>Welcome to Cold War 2.0</title>
	<author>istartedi</author>
	<datestamp>1264265700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it's a battle of proxies, rather than a battle
of proxy wars, it might not be so bad.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it 's a battle of proxies , rather than a battle of proxy wars , it might not be so bad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it's a battle of proxies, rather than a battle
of proxy wars, it might not be so bad.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30886594</id>
	<title>Re:Color me skeptical</title>
	<author>kdemetter</author>
	<datestamp>1264360260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Or do you really think you can find ANY book written in the world on Amazon?</p></div><p>On Amazon , no . But on the internet , yes.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or do you really think you can find ANY book written in the world on Amazon ? On Amazon , no .
But on the internet , yes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or do you really think you can find ANY book written in the world on Amazon?On Amazon , no .
But on the internet , yes.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30872290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30871532</id>
	<title>Re:US is banning internet poker</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264277700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its called having your cake... and eating it too!</p><p>*I'm a little bit country..  and I'm a little bit rock'n'roll-ah!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its called having your cake... and eating it too !
* I 'm a little bit country.. and I 'm a little bit rock'n'roll-ah !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its called having your cake... and eating it too!
*I'm a little bit country..  and I'm a little bit rock'n'roll-ah!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30871692</id>
	<title>Re:I'm Not a Betting Man...</title>
	<author>kc8apf</author>
	<datestamp>1264278660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A controlling interest in Google is owned by the CEO and two founders.  Their IPO stated that this would be the case and that public investors would be able to share in the financial gains, but not significantly in the direction or operation of the company.  If those three have decided that China isn't worth it, there is little the investors can do to stop them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A controlling interest in Google is owned by the CEO and two founders .
Their IPO stated that this would be the case and that public investors would be able to share in the financial gains , but not significantly in the direction or operation of the company .
If those three have decided that China is n't worth it , there is little the investors can do to stop them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A controlling interest in Google is owned by the CEO and two founders.
Their IPO stated that this would be the case and that public investors would be able to share in the financial gains, but not significantly in the direction or operation of the company.
If those three have decided that China isn't worth it, there is little the investors can do to stop them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868550</id>
	<title>Re:Internet Censorship operates in the U.S.</title>
	<author>TiberiusMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1264249080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>it took some phone calls to stop the censorship.</p></div><p>You're either amazingly important, simply summarising a very long painful process up in a few words for the sake of keeping an internet post shortish or you're basically lying...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>it took some phone calls to stop the censorship.You 're either amazingly important , simply summarising a very long painful process up in a few words for the sake of keeping an internet post shortish or you 're basically lying.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it took some phone calls to stop the censorship.You're either amazingly important, simply summarising a very long painful process up in a few words for the sake of keeping an internet post shortish or you're basically lying...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869350</id>
	<title>FREE and OPEN!!! (so we can spy on you)</title>
	<author>breagerey</author>
	<datestamp>1264259280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hillary's "freedom of information" masturbatory rhetoric is aimed at people who know a little but not too much.
It has a different ring when coupled with the knowledge that the US govt has colluded with US providers to eavesdrop on people.<br> <br>

Eavesdropping and censoring aren't the same thing - but knowing that somebody is monitoring your "free and open" Internet access makes it feel a bit less "free and open".</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hillary 's " freedom of information " masturbatory rhetoric is aimed at people who know a little but not too much .
It has a different ring when coupled with the knowledge that the US govt has colluded with US providers to eavesdrop on people .
Eavesdropping and censoring are n't the same thing - but knowing that somebody is monitoring your " free and open " Internet access makes it feel a bit less " free and open " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hillary's "freedom of information" masturbatory rhetoric is aimed at people who know a little but not too much.
It has a different ring when coupled with the knowledge that the US govt has colluded with US providers to eavesdrop on people.
Eavesdropping and censoring aren't the same thing - but knowing that somebody is monitoring your "free and open" Internet access makes it feel a bit less "free and open".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868206</id>
	<title>Woot First Post</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264243620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From Guam</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From Guam</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From Guam</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868406</id>
	<title>Re:Internet Censorship operates in the U.S.</title>
	<author>euyis</author>
	<datestamp>1264246800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>At least your censor don't act like an idiot.<br>
Hell, the Great Firewall even blocked the "Down for everyone or just me"; last night Amazon's images have all disappeared.<br>
And recently some imbeciles have configured the firewall block CDNs... The results are, bizarre.</htmltext>
<tokenext>At least your censor do n't act like an idiot .
Hell , the Great Firewall even blocked the " Down for everyone or just me " ; last night Amazon 's images have all disappeared .
And recently some imbeciles have configured the firewall block CDNs... The results are , bizarre .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least your censor don't act like an idiot.
Hell, the Great Firewall even blocked the "Down for everyone or just me"; last night Amazon's images have all disappeared.
And recently some imbeciles have configured the firewall block CDNs... The results are, bizarre.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868468</id>
	<title>Re:Typical US of A mentality</title>
	<author>Renraku</author>
	<datestamp>1264247640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The USA isn't the world police, even if they think they are.  But you can't criticize them for taking steps to reduce the power of potential future opposition.  China is responsible for a TON of industrial and scientific espionage.  Companies are fully aware that their brand spanking new designs are being ripped off and sold for pennies on the dollar of their original price under different brand names, yet it's so much cheaper to send products to China to be produced that this doesn't deter them.</p><p>But it's not cheaper to run a website in China than it is to run it here in America.  Internet-based companies won't tolerate the hacking and espionage that production-based companies do, because the internet-based companies have nothing to lose.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The USA is n't the world police , even if they think they are .
But you ca n't criticize them for taking steps to reduce the power of potential future opposition .
China is responsible for a TON of industrial and scientific espionage .
Companies are fully aware that their brand spanking new designs are being ripped off and sold for pennies on the dollar of their original price under different brand names , yet it 's so much cheaper to send products to China to be produced that this does n't deter them.But it 's not cheaper to run a website in China than it is to run it here in America .
Internet-based companies wo n't tolerate the hacking and espionage that production-based companies do , because the internet-based companies have nothing to lose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The USA isn't the world police, even if they think they are.
But you can't criticize them for taking steps to reduce the power of potential future opposition.
China is responsible for a TON of industrial and scientific espionage.
Companies are fully aware that their brand spanking new designs are being ripped off and sold for pennies on the dollar of their original price under different brand names, yet it's so much cheaper to send products to China to be produced that this doesn't deter them.But it's not cheaper to run a website in China than it is to run it here in America.
Internet-based companies won't tolerate the hacking and espionage that production-based companies do, because the internet-based companies have nothing to lose.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869198</id>
	<title>Hah!</title>
	<author>Shatteredstar</author>
	<datestamp>1264257720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>HAH!  I love how China acts like they are innocent and all.

"China's laws forbid hacking attacks and violations of citizens' privacy, the statement said, apparently referring to the issues raised by Google.""

Riiiight.  I'm also the Queen of England!  China would NEVER hack anyone.

The Chinese government is one of the biggest fattest LIARS ever.  They constantly say one thing while time and time again they prove that they don't care about anyone's benefit but their own.

Whether it is manipulating trade markets and currancy, hacking, controlling the people of the country, human rights issues, etc.  Yet whenever confronted they are all "You can't tell us what to do" or "we don't do that!" or "We will change things." but what changes?  Exactly nothing.  They might sweep it under the rug or shift things around but nearly every time the SAME issue comes right back up.

The world needs to basically tell China to stuff it and come back when they learn their lesson.  Stop manufacturing stuff in China, stop buying Chinese goods, the whole nine yards.  Put the squeeze on them till they show their hand.</htmltext>
<tokenext>HAH !
I love how China acts like they are innocent and all .
" China 's laws forbid hacking attacks and violations of citizens ' privacy , the statement said , apparently referring to the issues raised by Google .
" " Riiiight .
I 'm also the Queen of England !
China would NEVER hack anyone .
The Chinese government is one of the biggest fattest LIARS ever .
They constantly say one thing while time and time again they prove that they do n't care about anyone 's benefit but their own .
Whether it is manipulating trade markets and currancy , hacking , controlling the people of the country , human rights issues , etc .
Yet whenever confronted they are all " You ca n't tell us what to do " or " we do n't do that !
" or " We will change things .
" but what changes ?
Exactly nothing .
They might sweep it under the rug or shift things around but nearly every time the SAME issue comes right back up .
The world needs to basically tell China to stuff it and come back when they learn their lesson .
Stop manufacturing stuff in China , stop buying Chinese goods , the whole nine yards .
Put the squeeze on them till they show their hand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HAH!
I love how China acts like they are innocent and all.
"China's laws forbid hacking attacks and violations of citizens' privacy, the statement said, apparently referring to the issues raised by Google.
""

Riiiight.
I'm also the Queen of England!
China would NEVER hack anyone.
The Chinese government is one of the biggest fattest LIARS ever.
They constantly say one thing while time and time again they prove that they don't care about anyone's benefit but their own.
Whether it is manipulating trade markets and currancy, hacking, controlling the people of the country, human rights issues, etc.
Yet whenever confronted they are all "You can't tell us what to do" or "we don't do that!
" or "We will change things.
" but what changes?
Exactly nothing.
They might sweep it under the rug or shift things around but nearly every time the SAME issue comes right back up.
The world needs to basically tell China to stuff it and come back when they learn their lesson.
Stop manufacturing stuff in China, stop buying Chinese goods, the whole nine yards.
Put the squeeze on them till they show their hand.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868658</id>
	<title>Re:Internet Censorship operates in the U.S.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264251120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>An analogy like your comparison of China and US:  Sweden's government is EVIL!! They KILLED people!  The Third Reich was equally EVIL!!  Because they also KILLED people!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>An analogy like your comparison of China and US : Sweden 's government is EVIL ! !
They KILLED people !
The Third Reich was equally EVIL ! !
Because they also KILLED people !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An analogy like your comparison of China and US:  Sweden's government is EVIL!!
They KILLED people!
The Third Reich was equally EVIL!!
Because they also KILLED people!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868408</id>
	<title>Re:Sick and Tired of Hacking</title>
	<author>x2A</author>
	<datestamp>1264246800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Originating from China... so that narrows it down to what, one sixth of the worlds population? Can you see any problem with your argument?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Originating from China... so that narrows it down to what , one sixth of the worlds population ?
Can you see any problem with your argument ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Originating from China... so that narrows it down to what, one sixth of the worlds population?
Can you see any problem with your argument?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869392</id>
	<title>Slashdot Is also censoring my comments</title>
	<author>noddyxoi</author>
	<datestamp>1264259820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In the way that they are rated 1 / 5 after i write them and nobody reads them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the way that they are rated 1 / 5 after i write them and nobody reads them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the way that they are rated 1 / 5 after i write them and nobody reads them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868330</id>
	<title>Hillary Clinton's quotable quote</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264245780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I really love what Hillary Clinton said in the article:<br> <br>

<i> <b>"Ultimately, this issue isn't just about information freedom -- it is about what kind of world we want and what kind of world we will inhabit," she said.<br> <br>

"It's about whether we live on a planet with one Internet, one global community and a common body of knowledge that benefits and unites us all, or a fragmented planet in which access to information and opportunity is dependent on where you live and the whims of censors."</b> </i> <br> <br>

Really lovely and Charles Stross-ian, brings a tear to my eye<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I really love what Hillary Clinton said in the article : " Ultimately , this issue is n't just about information freedom -- it is about what kind of world we want and what kind of world we will inhabit , " she said .
" It 's about whether we live on a planet with one Internet , one global community and a common body of knowledge that benefits and unites us all , or a fragmented planet in which access to information and opportunity is dependent on where you live and the whims of censors .
" Really lovely and Charles Stross-ian , brings a tear to my eye : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really love what Hillary Clinton said in the article: 

 "Ultimately, this issue isn't just about information freedom -- it is about what kind of world we want and what kind of world we will inhabit," she said.
"It's about whether we live on a planet with one Internet, one global community and a common body of knowledge that benefits and unites us all, or a fragmented planet in which access to information and opportunity is dependent on where you live and the whims of censors.
"   

Really lovely and Charles Stross-ian, brings a tear to my eye :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30872646</id>
	<title>Yep Yep ...</title>
	<author>golodh</author>
	<datestamp>1264242240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But of course!
<p>
If you're a "guest" in a country ruled by a one-party dictatorship that doesn't like people to see (legitimate) views that aren't necessarily the ones the state-controlled news agencies and state-approved opinion leaders dish up, then yes.
</p><p>
They will naturally take a dim view of you if you allow their citizens to learn about those dissenting opinions. You have to abide by their "house" rules that you don't let their citizens have access to uncontrolled information.
</p><p>
Oh yes, of course any rumours about systematic, large-scale, well-coordinated cyberwarfare dressed up as "random hacker activity" are just samples of malicious slander, yep? And if you're hosting an e-mail service and find your systems subjected to systematic attack from "hackers" (who just happen to target email accounts of regime critics), that too is no more than a big spiky everyday coincidence, yep?  And making noise about being hacked like that is impolite, yep?
</p><p>
You've gotta be soooo careful to "abide by their rules". We all understand that, don't we? Yep Yep !</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But of course !
If you 're a " guest " in a country ruled by a one-party dictatorship that does n't like people to see ( legitimate ) views that are n't necessarily the ones the state-controlled news agencies and state-approved opinion leaders dish up , then yes .
They will naturally take a dim view of you if you allow their citizens to learn about those dissenting opinions .
You have to abide by their " house " rules that you do n't let their citizens have access to uncontrolled information .
Oh yes , of course any rumours about systematic , large-scale , well-coordinated cyberwarfare dressed up as " random hacker activity " are just samples of malicious slander , yep ?
And if you 're hosting an e-mail service and find your systems subjected to systematic attack from " hackers " ( who just happen to target email accounts of regime critics ) , that too is no more than a big spiky everyday coincidence , yep ?
And making noise about being hacked like that is impolite , yep ?
You 've got ta be soooo careful to " abide by their rules " .
We all understand that , do n't we ?
Yep Yep !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But of course!
If you're a "guest" in a country ruled by a one-party dictatorship that doesn't like people to see (legitimate) views that aren't necessarily the ones the state-controlled news agencies and state-approved opinion leaders dish up, then yes.
They will naturally take a dim view of you if you allow their citizens to learn about those dissenting opinions.
You have to abide by their "house" rules that you don't let their citizens have access to uncontrolled information.
Oh yes, of course any rumours about systematic, large-scale, well-coordinated cyberwarfare dressed up as "random hacker activity" are just samples of malicious slander, yep?
And if you're hosting an e-mail service and find your systems subjected to systematic attack from "hackers" (who just happen to target email accounts of regime critics), that too is no more than a big spiky everyday coincidence, yep?
And making noise about being hacked like that is impolite, yep?
You've gotta be soooo careful to "abide by their rules".
We all understand that, don't we?
Yep Yep !</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869674</id>
	<title>Re:Finally! Youtube in China!</title>
	<author>pha3r0</author>
	<datestamp>1264262340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's like being only allowed to watch State-sponsored TV and government approved books in libraries, and then suddenly being allowed to experience the wealth of the world.</p></div><p>China by no means has access the 'The wealth of the world' just because google stops filtering on their side.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's like being only allowed to watch State-sponsored TV and government approved books in libraries , and then suddenly being allowed to experience the wealth of the world.China by no means has access the 'The wealth of the world ' just because google stops filtering on their side .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's like being only allowed to watch State-sponsored TV and government approved books in libraries, and then suddenly being allowed to experience the wealth of the world.China by no means has access the 'The wealth of the world' just because google stops filtering on their side.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869290</id>
	<title>Time for some diplomatic pressure</title>
	<author>russotto</author>
	<datestamp>1264258680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>New announcement from the Secretary of State: The Secretary of State will say what she wishes about Internet Freedom.  And if Ma Zhaoxu continues to object, the State Department is NOT going to send the Secretary of State's husband over with the Dallas Cowgirls and a few cases of cigars.  That is all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>New announcement from the Secretary of State : The Secretary of State will say what she wishes about Internet Freedom .
And if Ma Zhaoxu continues to object , the State Department is NOT going to send the Secretary of State 's husband over with the Dallas Cowgirls and a few cases of cigars .
That is all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>New announcement from the Secretary of State: The Secretary of State will say what she wishes about Internet Freedom.
And if Ma Zhaoxu continues to object, the State Department is NOT going to send the Secretary of State's husband over with the Dallas Cowgirls and a few cases of cigars.
That is all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868320</id>
	<title>Irony at its finest.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264245720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because Hillary would never want anything censored now would <a href="http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=53129" title="ucsb.edu" rel="nofollow">she</a> [ucsb.edu].</p><p>(Not the same league as China, but its still the same sport...)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because Hillary would never want anything censored now would she [ ucsb.edu ] .
( Not the same league as China , but its still the same sport... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because Hillary would never want anything censored now would she [ucsb.edu].
(Not the same league as China, but its still the same sport...)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868536</id>
	<title>Meanwhile, back in the U.S. of A.....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264248780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The MafiAAs receive carte blanche from the courts to abuse their customers, Net Neutrality simmers on the legislative back burner, allowing vertically integrating ISP's to throttle traffic in cavalier and arbitrary ways, as well as allowing them to merge with content providing companies to "better serve" their customers.</p><p>But we don't have censorship, nope.  But we don't give American internet users that tube of KY which'd help it all go down so much easier.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The MafiAAs receive carte blanche from the courts to abuse their customers , Net Neutrality simmers on the legislative back burner , allowing vertically integrating ISP 's to throttle traffic in cavalier and arbitrary ways , as well as allowing them to merge with content providing companies to " better serve " their customers.But we do n't have censorship , nope .
But we do n't give American internet users that tube of KY which 'd help it all go down so much easier .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The MafiAAs receive carte blanche from the courts to abuse their customers, Net Neutrality simmers on the legislative back burner, allowing vertically integrating ISP's to throttle traffic in cavalier and arbitrary ways, as well as allowing them to merge with content providing companies to "better serve" their customers.But we don't have censorship, nope.
But we don't give American internet users that tube of KY which'd help it all go down so much easier.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30870100</id>
	<title>How disingenuous is this...</title>
	<author>moxley</author>
	<datestamp>1264266720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Many US politicians, corporations and intelligence agecnies loooove to talk about how China should allow internet freedom, while at the same time they're looking for ways to curtail our freedom online over here. Their whole wet dream is for the US internet to be like China's.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Many US politicians , corporations and intelligence agecnies loooove to talk about how China should allow internet freedom , while at the same time they 're looking for ways to curtail our freedom online over here .
Their whole wet dream is for the US internet to be like China 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many US politicians, corporations and intelligence agecnies loooove to talk about how China should allow internet freedom, while at the same time they're looking for ways to curtail our freedom online over here.
Their whole wet dream is for the US internet to be like China's.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30870054</id>
	<title>Re:Hillary Clinton's quotable quote</title>
	<author>Scrameustache</author>
	<datestamp>1264266420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>a fragmented planet in which access to information and opportunity is dependent on where you live and the whims of censors."</p> </div><p>Yeah, it's touching... it's also empty bullshit. When <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20100120/0216537828.shtml" title="techdirt.com">ACTA</a> [techdirt.com] comes into effect, Hilary will be pushing hard to enforce the whims of her censors.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>a fragmented planet in which access to information and opportunity is dependent on where you live and the whims of censors .
" Yeah , it 's touching... it 's also empty bullshit .
When ACTA [ techdirt.com ] comes into effect , Hilary will be pushing hard to enforce the whims of her censors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a fragmented planet in which access to information and opportunity is dependent on where you live and the whims of censors.
" Yeah, it's touching... it's also empty bullshit.
When ACTA [techdirt.com] comes into effect, Hilary will be pushing hard to enforce the whims of her censors.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30870962</id>
	<title>Re:I'm Not a Betting Man...</title>
	<author>dissy</author>
	<datestamp>1264273860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A company that willingly turns its back on a market of 1 billion people risks having its CEO bludgeoned to death by angry investors.</p></div><p>The only problem with your projection I see is the above statement.<br>You word it as such to imply 1 billion people in a market are lost and that somehow translates to less money.</p><p>Lets be perfectly clear here.  It is not a market, it is China.<br>It's not JUST 1 billion people, it's 1 billion people living in China.  (No, not to imply they aren't people)</p><p>So add up the amount of money all 1 billion Chinese people not living in a market will gain.<br>I haven't done this, but I can be certain Google has done this.</p><p>I bet Larry Page has more cash in his cars ash tray than one would get out of China in the same amount of time.  It's not exactly a great loss.</p><p>It's no different from a business looking at its lowest priced 'budget' service, and cutting out the customers that end up costing way more than anyone else in non-legit support and such.  Your bottom line goes up.<br>Both in that yes you lose a tiny amount of money, while at the same time not having to spend a much larger amount of money on that same 'customer'.  I quote 'customer' because people that consistently COST you money are not customers.  The word we have for that is liability.</p><p>In a normal market, it is also a good thing for those people to go to your competition, as that means you will now gain more money over all due to their loss, and your competition will LOSE money due to that person changing to them.  Win Win!<br>Don't think the competitor part comes into play here with a whole country, but the point still stands.</p><p>Odds are if Larry ploped down a $100 bill on the table, it would balance out their China account.  And to someone like Larry, that is soda pop money in his desk drawer.<br>No real loss at all.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A company that willingly turns its back on a market of 1 billion people risks having its CEO bludgeoned to death by angry investors.The only problem with your projection I see is the above statement.You word it as such to imply 1 billion people in a market are lost and that somehow translates to less money.Lets be perfectly clear here .
It is not a market , it is China.It 's not JUST 1 billion people , it 's 1 billion people living in China .
( No , not to imply they are n't people ) So add up the amount of money all 1 billion Chinese people not living in a market will gain.I have n't done this , but I can be certain Google has done this.I bet Larry Page has more cash in his cars ash tray than one would get out of China in the same amount of time .
It 's not exactly a great loss.It 's no different from a business looking at its lowest priced 'budget ' service , and cutting out the customers that end up costing way more than anyone else in non-legit support and such .
Your bottom line goes up.Both in that yes you lose a tiny amount of money , while at the same time not having to spend a much larger amount of money on that same 'customer' .
I quote 'customer ' because people that consistently COST you money are not customers .
The word we have for that is liability.In a normal market , it is also a good thing for those people to go to your competition , as that means you will now gain more money over all due to their loss , and your competition will LOSE money due to that person changing to them .
Win Win ! Do n't think the competitor part comes into play here with a whole country , but the point still stands.Odds are if Larry ploped down a $ 100 bill on the table , it would balance out their China account .
And to someone like Larry , that is soda pop money in his desk drawer.No real loss at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A company that willingly turns its back on a market of 1 billion people risks having its CEO bludgeoned to death by angry investors.The only problem with your projection I see is the above statement.You word it as such to imply 1 billion people in a market are lost and that somehow translates to less money.Lets be perfectly clear here.
It is not a market, it is China.It's not JUST 1 billion people, it's 1 billion people living in China.
(No, not to imply they aren't people)So add up the amount of money all 1 billion Chinese people not living in a market will gain.I haven't done this, but I can be certain Google has done this.I bet Larry Page has more cash in his cars ash tray than one would get out of China in the same amount of time.
It's not exactly a great loss.It's no different from a business looking at its lowest priced 'budget' service, and cutting out the customers that end up costing way more than anyone else in non-legit support and such.
Your bottom line goes up.Both in that yes you lose a tiny amount of money, while at the same time not having to spend a much larger amount of money on that same 'customer'.
I quote 'customer' because people that consistently COST you money are not customers.
The word we have for that is liability.In a normal market, it is also a good thing for those people to go to your competition, as that means you will now gain more money over all due to their loss, and your competition will LOSE money due to that person changing to them.
Win Win!Don't think the competitor part comes into play here with a whole country, but the point still stands.Odds are if Larry ploped down a $100 bill on the table, it would balance out their China account.
And to someone like Larry, that is soda pop money in his desk drawer.No real loss at all.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869034</id>
	<title>fuck China!</title>
	<author>FudRucker</author>
	<datestamp>1264255620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>to hell with China, this is coming from a nation that puts lead paint on children's toys, makes jewelry for teenagers out of cadmium, makes infant formula with poison in it just to pass a test so they can sell it, makes pet food poisonous too, no telling what else that slipped through under the radar, so fuck china i hope they all die a miserable death!</htmltext>
<tokenext>to hell with China , this is coming from a nation that puts lead paint on children 's toys , makes jewelry for teenagers out of cadmium , makes infant formula with poison in it just to pass a test so they can sell it , makes pet food poisonous too , no telling what else that slipped through under the radar , so fuck china i hope they all die a miserable death !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>to hell with China, this is coming from a nation that puts lead paint on children's toys, makes jewelry for teenagers out of cadmium, makes infant formula with poison in it just to pass a test so they can sell it, makes pet food poisonous too, no telling what else that slipped through under the radar, so fuck china i hope they all die a miserable death!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868830</id>
	<title>Re:Meanwhile, back in the U.S. of A.....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264253160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Stop posting or kill yourself.  I don't care which.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Stop posting or kill yourself .
I do n't care which .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stop posting or kill yourself.
I don't care which.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30871850</id>
	<title>Cut the Phone Lines</title>
	<author>b4upoo</author>
	<datestamp>1264279560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>      Until China straightens out its human rights issues we should bar all communications of any type with China as well as all trade. Frankly buying products made in China supports a form of slavery that is not acceptable at all. Governments of this type are haters and enemies of humanity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Until China straightens out its human rights issues we should bar all communications of any type with China as well as all trade .
Frankly buying products made in China supports a form of slavery that is not acceptable at all .
Governments of this type are haters and enemies of humanity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>      Until China straightens out its human rights issues we should bar all communications of any type with China as well as all trade.
Frankly buying products made in China supports a form of slavery that is not acceptable at all.
Governments of this type are haters and enemies of humanity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869038</id>
	<title>Peace-loving democracies all around</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264255680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cold war flashback! Nobody censors, everybody simply enforces just and reasonable laws. It's all for the people, not against them. If only we could make a stand for freedom, but we have so many skeletons in the closet that we have to tread lightly. Sigh.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cold war flashback !
Nobody censors , everybody simply enforces just and reasonable laws .
It 's all for the people , not against them .
If only we could make a stand for freedom , but we have so many skeletons in the closet that we have to tread lightly .
Sigh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cold war flashback!
Nobody censors, everybody simply enforces just and reasonable laws.
It's all for the people, not against them.
If only we could make a stand for freedom, but we have so many skeletons in the closet that we have to tread lightly.
Sigh.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30870394</id>
	<title>Re:I'm Not a Betting Man...</title>
	<author>Sycraft-fu</author>
	<datestamp>1264269180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is this false idea of 1 billion customers. Just because China has 1 billion people doesn't really mean anything. The reason is that a small percentage of them are in a position where they even could be customers.</p><p>There are two Chinas more or less. The China you hear about in the news is the city China. Their cities, mostly along the eastern seaboard, are quite modern. This is where all the industry is and where people are seeing massive improvements in their quality of life. The rest of China? Well there people are peasants, and I use that term fairly literally. They usually don't have access to electricity and running water, much less Internet. They are living in the middle ages in very many ways. This is the majority of China.</p><p>So while China is a large potential, they currently aren't as large as the US. There are only so many of their people that are in a position to be customers, even if they want to.</p><p>You always have to keep that in perspective. All people are not potential customers. In Google's case, they need to have Internet access to be at all useful.</p><p>After all, Africa also has over a billion people, yet you don't hear about the need to exploit that massive market. Why? Well because most of those billion are in no position to be customers unless your products are food and clean water and your prices are zero.</p><p>Now, this will hopefully change in the future. We can hope that some day all of China more or less will be modern with access to modern amenities. However, we can also hope that as that happens, they'll grow to be free. As such at some time in the future, it may make sense for Google to go back to the Chinese market. Google just doesn't think it makes sense now.</p><p>Remember that it isn't as though they are saying "Fuck China, we'll never do business there." They are just mad about what the current government is doing. In 5 or 10 years, maybe things have changed and they come back.</p><p>In investment terms, Google may well feel that the cost of doing business in China currently exceeds the value of that business. In that case, the prudent investment is to stop, and try again later when the market is more amenable. Before my dad retired his company looked at expanding in to China. However, after a few months of research and meetings and such, they concluded that there wasn't enough of a market to justify the costs. They didn't write China off as in "We'll never sell there," they just decided that at the present time they won't be able to make money there, and thus aren't going to expand to it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is this false idea of 1 billion customers .
Just because China has 1 billion people does n't really mean anything .
The reason is that a small percentage of them are in a position where they even could be customers.There are two Chinas more or less .
The China you hear about in the news is the city China .
Their cities , mostly along the eastern seaboard , are quite modern .
This is where all the industry is and where people are seeing massive improvements in their quality of life .
The rest of China ?
Well there people are peasants , and I use that term fairly literally .
They usually do n't have access to electricity and running water , much less Internet .
They are living in the middle ages in very many ways .
This is the majority of China.So while China is a large potential , they currently are n't as large as the US .
There are only so many of their people that are in a position to be customers , even if they want to.You always have to keep that in perspective .
All people are not potential customers .
In Google 's case , they need to have Internet access to be at all useful.After all , Africa also has over a billion people , yet you do n't hear about the need to exploit that massive market .
Why ? Well because most of those billion are in no position to be customers unless your products are food and clean water and your prices are zero.Now , this will hopefully change in the future .
We can hope that some day all of China more or less will be modern with access to modern amenities .
However , we can also hope that as that happens , they 'll grow to be free .
As such at some time in the future , it may make sense for Google to go back to the Chinese market .
Google just does n't think it makes sense now.Remember that it is n't as though they are saying " Fuck China , we 'll never do business there .
" They are just mad about what the current government is doing .
In 5 or 10 years , maybe things have changed and they come back.In investment terms , Google may well feel that the cost of doing business in China currently exceeds the value of that business .
In that case , the prudent investment is to stop , and try again later when the market is more amenable .
Before my dad retired his company looked at expanding in to China .
However , after a few months of research and meetings and such , they concluded that there was n't enough of a market to justify the costs .
They did n't write China off as in " We 'll never sell there , " they just decided that at the present time they wo n't be able to make money there , and thus are n't going to expand to it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is this false idea of 1 billion customers.
Just because China has 1 billion people doesn't really mean anything.
The reason is that a small percentage of them are in a position where they even could be customers.There are two Chinas more or less.
The China you hear about in the news is the city China.
Their cities, mostly along the eastern seaboard, are quite modern.
This is where all the industry is and where people are seeing massive improvements in their quality of life.
The rest of China?
Well there people are peasants, and I use that term fairly literally.
They usually don't have access to electricity and running water, much less Internet.
They are living in the middle ages in very many ways.
This is the majority of China.So while China is a large potential, they currently aren't as large as the US.
There are only so many of their people that are in a position to be customers, even if they want to.You always have to keep that in perspective.
All people are not potential customers.
In Google's case, they need to have Internet access to be at all useful.After all, Africa also has over a billion people, yet you don't hear about the need to exploit that massive market.
Why? Well because most of those billion are in no position to be customers unless your products are food and clean water and your prices are zero.Now, this will hopefully change in the future.
We can hope that some day all of China more or less will be modern with access to modern amenities.
However, we can also hope that as that happens, they'll grow to be free.
As such at some time in the future, it may make sense for Google to go back to the Chinese market.
Google just doesn't think it makes sense now.Remember that it isn't as though they are saying "Fuck China, we'll never do business there.
" They are just mad about what the current government is doing.
In 5 or 10 years, maybe things have changed and they come back.In investment terms, Google may well feel that the cost of doing business in China currently exceeds the value of that business.
In that case, the prudent investment is to stop, and try again later when the market is more amenable.
Before my dad retired his company looked at expanding in to China.
However, after a few months of research and meetings and such, they concluded that there wasn't enough of a market to justify the costs.
They didn't write China off as in "We'll never sell there," they just decided that at the present time they won't be able to make money there, and thus aren't going to expand to it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868316</id>
	<title>Is it hacking?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264245540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Would it actualy be cracking (I assume it's what they ment<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-) ) for internet users in china to get around the great firewall? The owners of the information the people want to access has effectivly given universal permission for the access of the data and the use of say a proxy site or ssh to a server in the US wouldn't realy be modifying any software at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would it actualy be cracking ( I assume it 's what they ment ; - ) ) for internet users in china to get around the great firewall ?
The owners of the information the people want to access has effectivly given universal permission for the access of the data and the use of say a proxy site or ssh to a server in the US would n't realy be modifying any software at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would it actualy be cracking (I assume it's what they ment ;-) ) for internet users in china to get around the great firewall?
The owners of the information the people want to access has effectivly given universal permission for the access of the data and the use of say a proxy site or ssh to a server in the US wouldn't realy be modifying any software at all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30875956</id>
	<title>Re:Google and business</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264270800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's unfortunate about being skeptical about it?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's unfortunate about being skeptical about it ?
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's unfortunate about being skeptical about it?
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30872090</id>
	<title>end free trade agreements w/repressive governments</title>
	<author>Dreben</author>
	<datestamp>1264238160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is far past time to stop free trade agreements with countries of repressive governments. They are destroying the economies of the rest of the world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is far past time to stop free trade agreements with countries of repressive governments .
They are destroying the economies of the rest of the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is far past time to stop free trade agreements with countries of repressive governments.
They are destroying the economies of the rest of the world.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30872290</id>
	<title>Re:Color me skeptical</title>
	<author>indi0144</author>
	<datestamp>1264239300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt;&gt; "and stop using the issue of so-called Internet freedom to unreasonably criticize China".<br><br>No, I think they mean that western governments are not the most fervent defenders of Internet freedom (throttling, wiretapping, ACTA etc.)<br><br>I wonder if we westerners realize were being monitored and censored the same that Chinese people when we point the Chinese censorship.<br><br>Just because we can have porn and irrelevant on-line stuff so we don't care too much, and were not getting shot by going to 4chan.<br><br>Or do you really think you can find ANY book written in the world on Amazon?</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; " and stop using the issue of so-called Internet freedom to unreasonably criticize China " .No , I think they mean that western governments are not the most fervent defenders of Internet freedom ( throttling , wiretapping , ACTA etc .
) I wonder if we westerners realize were being monitored and censored the same that Chinese people when we point the Chinese censorship.Just because we can have porn and irrelevant on-line stuff so we do n't care too much , and were not getting shot by going to 4chan.Or do you really think you can find ANY book written in the world on Amazon ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt; "and stop using the issue of so-called Internet freedom to unreasonably criticize China".No, I think they mean that western governments are not the most fervent defenders of Internet freedom (throttling, wiretapping, ACTA etc.
)I wonder if we westerners realize were being monitored and censored the same that Chinese people when we point the Chinese censorship.Just because we can have porn and irrelevant on-line stuff so we don't care too much, and were not getting shot by going to 4chan.Or do you really think you can find ANY book written in the world on Amazon?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30870198</id>
	<title>6 Feet Under...</title>
	<author>flyneye</author>
	<datestamp>1264267560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>6 feet underground, Henry Kissinger is tapping morse code on the casket lid,  "Let me out, that fatass cow is going to get you all killed yet".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>6 feet underground , Henry Kissinger is tapping morse code on the casket lid , " Let me out , that fatass cow is going to get you all killed yet " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>6 feet underground, Henry Kissinger is tapping morse code on the casket lid,  "Let me out, that fatass cow is going to get you all killed yet".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868906</id>
	<title>Re:A view from inside China</title>
	<author>magbottle</author>
	<datestamp>1264254240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So how's come<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. isn't blocked? We're not important enough? Not outre' enough? What?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So how 's come / .
is n't blocked ?
We 're not important enough ?
Not outre ' enough ?
What ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So how's come /.
isn't blocked?
We're not important enough?
Not outre' enough?
What?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30871516</id>
	<title>Re:Color me skeptical</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264277580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What do you expect from that piece of shit Country. Fuck China.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What do you expect from that piece of shit Country .
Fuck China .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What do you expect from that piece of shit Country.
Fuck China.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868202</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30871320</id>
	<title>Sounds like the Chinese Gov't is feeling insecure</title>
	<author>shoor</author>
	<datestamp>1264276380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm no expert on China, but when people start getting this touchy, it usually means they sense they're in trouble.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm no expert on China , but when people start getting this touchy , it usually means they sense they 're in trouble .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm no expert on China, but when people start getting this touchy, it usually means they sense they're in trouble.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868802</id>
	<title>first Post</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264252860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">slings are limited, same worthless backward5.  To the</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>slings are limited , same worthless backward5 .
To the [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>slings are limited, same worthless backward5.
To the [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868294</id>
	<title>Finally! Youtube in China!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264245180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have a friend in Shanghai, and it sucks because when I send him video links on Youtube, he can't view them because they're firewalled from Youtube.<br> <br>

Kudos for giving countries like this access to freedom of information.<br> <br>

It's like being only allowed to watch State-sponsored TV and government approved books in libraries, and then suddenly being allowed to experience the wealth of the world.<br> <br>

4chan and the dark underbelly of the internet aside, I hope this gives people a taste of culture/information other than what's force-fed down their throats and see what they're missing out on.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a friend in Shanghai , and it sucks because when I send him video links on Youtube , he ca n't view them because they 're firewalled from Youtube .
Kudos for giving countries like this access to freedom of information .
It 's like being only allowed to watch State-sponsored TV and government approved books in libraries , and then suddenly being allowed to experience the wealth of the world .
4chan and the dark underbelly of the internet aside , I hope this gives people a taste of culture/information other than what 's force-fed down their throats and see what they 're missing out on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a friend in Shanghai, and it sucks because when I send him video links on Youtube, he can't view them because they're firewalled from Youtube.
Kudos for giving countries like this access to freedom of information.
It's like being only allowed to watch State-sponsored TV and government approved books in libraries, and then suddenly being allowed to experience the wealth of the world.
4chan and the dark underbelly of the internet aside, I hope this gives people a taste of culture/information other than what's force-fed down their throats and see what they're missing out on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30870650</id>
	<title>Re:A view from inside China</title>
	<author>njriley</author>
	<datestamp>1264271100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, it means "blank page."  Makes sense to me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , it means " blank page .
" Makes sense to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, it means "blank page.
"  Makes sense to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868852</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868852</id>
	<title>Re:A view from inside China</title>
	<author>solferino</author>
	<datestamp>1264253520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Sites which are carte-blance blocked</p></div></blockquote><p>Poor use of the term <i>carte blanche</i> which means full power, open sanction, free hand etc.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sites which are carte-blance blockedPoor use of the term carte blanche which means full power , open sanction , free hand etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sites which are carte-blance blockedPoor use of the term carte blanche which means full power, open sanction, free hand etc.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868226</id>
	<title>Not answering the real issues</title>
	<author>Jaden42</author>
	<datestamp>1264244040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Talk about a non-responsive response: "Our rules don't allow for hacking and violations of citizen's privacy".</p><p>Considering the state of privacy there, they certainly aren't lying.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Talk about a non-responsive response : " Our rules do n't allow for hacking and violations of citizen 's privacy " .Considering the state of privacy there , they certainly are n't lying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Talk about a non-responsive response: "Our rules don't allow for hacking and violations of citizen's privacy".Considering the state of privacy there, they certainly aren't lying.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30870210</id>
	<title>Re:Hillary Clinton's quotable quote</title>
	<author>sourcerror</author>
	<datestamp>1264267680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think she should really talk this through with his husband. (DMCA, anyone?)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think she should really talk this through with his husband .
( DMCA , anyone ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think she should really talk this through with his husband.
(DMCA, anyone?
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868202</id>
	<title>Color me skeptical</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264243560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> Google cited increasingly tough censorship and recent cyberattacks on the Gmail accounts of human rights activists for its decision, which it said might force it to close its offices in China altogether.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Maybe, but <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20100121-717467.html?mod=WSJ\_earnings\_MIDDLETopHeadlines" title="wsj.com" rel="nofollow">I wouldn't bet the ranch on it.</a> [wsj.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google cited increasingly tough censorship and recent cyberattacks on the Gmail accounts of human rights activists for its decision , which it said might force it to close its offices in China altogether .
Maybe , but I would n't bet the ranch on it .
[ wsj.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Google cited increasingly tough censorship and recent cyberattacks on the Gmail accounts of human rights activists for its decision, which it said might force it to close its offices in China altogether.
Maybe, but I wouldn't bet the ranch on it.
[wsj.com]
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868518</id>
	<title>I'm Not a Betting Man...</title>
	<author>Greyfox</author>
	<datestamp>1264248420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well... yeah, I am, actually. But I don't bet against Google. I also don't bet against China, which makes this dispute rather interesting. A company that willingly turns its back on a market of 1 billion people risks having its CEO bludgeoned to death by angry investors. At the same time, any entity that willingly cuts itself off from google also cuts itself off from one of the most amazing information tools ever invented. If I had to call it, I'd say both sides make angry mouth noises for, oh, 3 to 6 months and then quietly settles on a compromise that allows Google to pretend that they're not evil while allowing China to continue keeping information out of the hands of its citizens.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well... yeah , I am , actually .
But I do n't bet against Google .
I also do n't bet against China , which makes this dispute rather interesting .
A company that willingly turns its back on a market of 1 billion people risks having its CEO bludgeoned to death by angry investors .
At the same time , any entity that willingly cuts itself off from google also cuts itself off from one of the most amazing information tools ever invented .
If I had to call it , I 'd say both sides make angry mouth noises for , oh , 3 to 6 months and then quietly settles on a compromise that allows Google to pretend that they 're not evil while allowing China to continue keeping information out of the hands of its citizens .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well... yeah, I am, actually.
But I don't bet against Google.
I also don't bet against China, which makes this dispute rather interesting.
A company that willingly turns its back on a market of 1 billion people risks having its CEO bludgeoned to death by angry investors.
At the same time, any entity that willingly cuts itself off from google also cuts itself off from one of the most amazing information tools ever invented.
If I had to call it, I'd say both sides make angry mouth noises for, oh, 3 to 6 months and then quietly settles on a compromise that allows Google to pretend that they're not evil while allowing China to continue keeping information out of the hands of its citizens.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869442</id>
	<title>Re:I'm Not a Betting Man...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264260180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While we obviously don't want to risk another cold war, I actually think a bit of grandstanding and rivalry between USA and China could make for interesting times.</p><p>China could have another go at that Linux distro of theirs and achieve more independence in computing - or maybe they'd launch their own Windows clone - they have source code. They could rip off the American entertainment industry and start exporting more of their culture to the world at large.</p><p>America could get their manufacturing industry up and running again, which may require adjusting their image of themselves as a super power down a notch and focusing on internal societal issues.</p><p>Us in rest of the world would maintain good relations with both and try to keep things calm. The benefit for us would be gaining a 'two supplier' security, since if they tried to lessen dependence on another, it would be harder for any single company to dominate internationally.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... I guess what I really want to see is an economic war between nations, fought on the global market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While we obviously do n't want to risk another cold war , I actually think a bit of grandstanding and rivalry between USA and China could make for interesting times.China could have another go at that Linux distro of theirs and achieve more independence in computing - or maybe they 'd launch their own Windows clone - they have source code .
They could rip off the American entertainment industry and start exporting more of their culture to the world at large.America could get their manufacturing industry up and running again , which may require adjusting their image of themselves as a super power down a notch and focusing on internal societal issues.Us in rest of the world would maintain good relations with both and try to keep things calm .
The benefit for us would be gaining a 'two supplier ' security , since if they tried to lessen dependence on another , it would be harder for any single company to dominate internationally .
... I guess what I really want to see is an economic war between nations , fought on the global market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While we obviously don't want to risk another cold war, I actually think a bit of grandstanding and rivalry between USA and China could make for interesting times.China could have another go at that Linux distro of theirs and achieve more independence in computing - or maybe they'd launch their own Windows clone - they have source code.
They could rip off the American entertainment industry and start exporting more of their culture to the world at large.America could get their manufacturing industry up and running again, which may require adjusting their image of themselves as a super power down a notch and focusing on internal societal issues.Us in rest of the world would maintain good relations with both and try to keep things calm.
The benefit for us would be gaining a 'two supplier' security, since if they tried to lessen dependence on another, it would be harder for any single company to dominate internationally.
... I guess what I really want to see is an economic war between nations, fought on the global market.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869528</id>
	<title>Operation freedom</title>
	<author>Via\_Patrino</author>
	<datestamp>1264260960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Those people really lack diplomacy, freedom is not seem the same way everywhere in the world which makes the use of that word to have different meanings.</p><p>I don't see the US supporting the freedom in the internet to selling illegal drugs, sending spam, prostitution, DMCA,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>Likewise is totally acceptable that other countries impose restrictions to Internet use where there is concern to that community, like to pornography until issues of age checking and privacy are addressed.</p><p>Surely China's censorship is outrageous but US needs to make a point: What exactly are you talking about? How that compares to others country sovereignty and general laws?</p><p>This kind of "freedom speech" is just for the internal audience.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Those people really lack diplomacy , freedom is not seem the same way everywhere in the world which makes the use of that word to have different meanings.I do n't see the US supporting the freedom in the internet to selling illegal drugs , sending spam , prostitution , DMCA , ...Likewise is totally acceptable that other countries impose restrictions to Internet use where there is concern to that community , like to pornography until issues of age checking and privacy are addressed.Surely China 's censorship is outrageous but US needs to make a point : What exactly are you talking about ?
How that compares to others country sovereignty and general laws ? This kind of " freedom speech " is just for the internal audience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those people really lack diplomacy, freedom is not seem the same way everywhere in the world which makes the use of that word to have different meanings.I don't see the US supporting the freedom in the internet to selling illegal drugs, sending spam, prostitution, DMCA, ...Likewise is totally acceptable that other countries impose restrictions to Internet use where there is concern to that community, like to pornography until issues of age checking and privacy are addressed.Surely China's censorship is outrageous but US needs to make a point: What exactly are you talking about?
How that compares to others country sovereignty and general laws?This kind of "freedom speech" is just for the internal audience.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868402</id>
	<title>Re:Internet Censorship operates in the U.S.</title>
	<author>mrmeval</author>
	<datestamp>1264246800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is an amazing bit of conspiriakii.</p><p>There is not references other that some buzz words gleanable from US procurement contracts. No phone numbers, no names, no websites and yet you manage to get a +2 insightful.</p><p>I am impressed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is an amazing bit of conspiriakii.There is not references other that some buzz words gleanable from US procurement contracts .
No phone numbers , no names , no websites and yet you manage to get a + 2 insightful.I am impressed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is an amazing bit of conspiriakii.There is not references other that some buzz words gleanable from US procurement contracts.
No phone numbers, no names, no websites and yet you manage to get a +2 insightful.I am impressed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868664</id>
	<title>US also censors the internet, by law</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264251300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And the U.S. public endorses it.</p><p>Even when people painstakingly obey the laws, the US government has been known to arrest them and throw them in prison.  I know of at least two cases where law-abiding American dissidents were arrested or attacked by American agents OVERSEAS because they publicly spoke out against the status quo.</p><p>And the American public continues to hate no one so much as kind, gentle men who love children.  Worse than terrorists, you know, because terrorists only kill people, they don't LOVE CHILDREN.</p><p>Love is very bad, you know.  Must outlaw it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And the U.S. public endorses it.Even when people painstakingly obey the laws , the US government has been known to arrest them and throw them in prison .
I know of at least two cases where law-abiding American dissidents were arrested or attacked by American agents OVERSEAS because they publicly spoke out against the status quo.And the American public continues to hate no one so much as kind , gentle men who love children .
Worse than terrorists , you know , because terrorists only kill people , they do n't LOVE CHILDREN.Love is very bad , you know .
Must outlaw it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And the U.S. public endorses it.Even when people painstakingly obey the laws, the US government has been known to arrest them and throw them in prison.
I know of at least two cases where law-abiding American dissidents were arrested or attacked by American agents OVERSEAS because they publicly spoke out against the status quo.And the American public continues to hate no one so much as kind, gentle men who love children.
Worse than terrorists, you know, because terrorists only kill people, they don't LOVE CHILDREN.Love is very bad, you know.
Must outlaw it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30872332</id>
	<title>Re:Google has BACKED DOWN in China</title>
	<author>indi0144</author>
	<datestamp>1264239660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You keep touting that in every article and the fact is that when we look if it's true we find uncensored results so people do not believe what you say. It's not any form of censorship by<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. or we the readers, just that maybe your proxies or other way of doing the search are giving you censored results.<br><br>Maybe if you point us to some news site providing prof that censorship it's re-enabled? Some insiders info? I'd be the first to vote up your submission because THATS NEWS.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You keep touting that in every article and the fact is that when we look if it 's true we find uncensored results so people do not believe what you say .
It 's not any form of censorship by / .
or we the readers , just that maybe your proxies or other way of doing the search are giving you censored results.Maybe if you point us to some news site providing prof that censorship it 's re-enabled ?
Some insiders info ?
I 'd be the first to vote up your submission because THATS NEWS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You keep touting that in every article and the fact is that when we look if it's true we find uncensored results so people do not believe what you say.
It's not any form of censorship by /.
or we the readers, just that maybe your proxies or other way of doing the search are giving you censored results.Maybe if you point us to some news site providing prof that censorship it's re-enabled?
Some insiders info?
I'd be the first to vote up your submission because THATS NEWS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30871512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869082</id>
	<title>Re:Sick and Tired of Hacking</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264256220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>After seeing in my logs hundreds of hacking attempts a day that originate in China, it really sucks that we cannot just cut them off the Internet.</p></div><p>I manage quite a few servers who target users in a non-English speaking EU country. I eventually put a -j DROP on China. That reduced hacking attempts, spam and other garbage by 90\%. It's not that anyone from China understands the language anyway. I keep hearing about this firewall they supposedly have, it seems a bit strange that it seems to stop human rights activists yet it lets a flood of garbage through. There may be actual users in China who want to browse the web, who knows, I never seen one. I have never seen anything but hostile connections coming from China. Not one.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>After seeing in my logs hundreds of hacking attempts a day that originate in China , it really sucks that we can not just cut them off the Internet.I manage quite a few servers who target users in a non-English speaking EU country .
I eventually put a -j DROP on China .
That reduced hacking attempts , spam and other garbage by 90 \ % .
It 's not that anyone from China understands the language anyway .
I keep hearing about this firewall they supposedly have , it seems a bit strange that it seems to stop human rights activists yet it lets a flood of garbage through .
There may be actual users in China who want to browse the web , who knows , I never seen one .
I have never seen anything but hostile connections coming from China .
Not one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After seeing in my logs hundreds of hacking attempts a day that originate in China, it really sucks that we cannot just cut them off the Internet.I manage quite a few servers who target users in a non-English speaking EU country.
I eventually put a -j DROP on China.
That reduced hacking attempts, spam and other garbage by 90\%.
It's not that anyone from China understands the language anyway.
I keep hearing about this firewall they supposedly have, it seems a bit strange that it seems to stop human rights activists yet it lets a flood of garbage through.
There may be actual users in China who want to browse the web, who knows, I never seen one.
I have never seen anything but hostile connections coming from China.
Not one.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30872828</id>
	<title>Re:And China is right in doing so</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264243620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If humans did that, we'd still be living in caves, afraid to attack the "leader" whose only qualification is being the son of the previous one, stoning people just because he feels like it.</p><p>So let's not play by the house rules. Let's liberate China. Even if it needs to be done one Chinese at a time, and even if it will probably result in bloodshed. We are better than the Chinese state, and we are not fucking ashamed that we believe in freedom. Likewise we're not ashamed to say that not stoning women makes the west better.</p><p>And to be honest, if the CIA wants to kill Chavez (which I don't think is true with president gutless). Chavez wants to be dictator of the world, and kill scores of people. I don't know about you, but I'd be rooting for the CIA. Chavez deserved death for what he did even before he entered politics. And frankly, so does Ahmadinejad, Khatami and a whole lot of others in the Iranian government. I hope the demonstrators succeed in hanging them from the highest available pole, along with any woman in black chador (you know, the islamic dress "secret police"). We all know this will make the world a better place. A MUCH better place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If humans did that , we 'd still be living in caves , afraid to attack the " leader " whose only qualification is being the son of the previous one , stoning people just because he feels like it.So let 's not play by the house rules .
Let 's liberate China .
Even if it needs to be done one Chinese at a time , and even if it will probably result in bloodshed .
We are better than the Chinese state , and we are not fucking ashamed that we believe in freedom .
Likewise we 're not ashamed to say that not stoning women makes the west better.And to be honest , if the CIA wants to kill Chavez ( which I do n't think is true with president gutless ) .
Chavez wants to be dictator of the world , and kill scores of people .
I do n't know about you , but I 'd be rooting for the CIA .
Chavez deserved death for what he did even before he entered politics .
And frankly , so does Ahmadinejad , Khatami and a whole lot of others in the Iranian government .
I hope the demonstrators succeed in hanging them from the highest available pole , along with any woman in black chador ( you know , the islamic dress " secret police " ) .
We all know this will make the world a better place .
A MUCH better place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If humans did that, we'd still be living in caves, afraid to attack the "leader" whose only qualification is being the son of the previous one, stoning people just because he feels like it.So let's not play by the house rules.
Let's liberate China.
Even if it needs to be done one Chinese at a time, and even if it will probably result in bloodshed.
We are better than the Chinese state, and we are not fucking ashamed that we believe in freedom.
Likewise we're not ashamed to say that not stoning women makes the west better.And to be honest, if the CIA wants to kill Chavez (which I don't think is true with president gutless).
Chavez wants to be dictator of the world, and kill scores of people.
I don't know about you, but I'd be rooting for the CIA.
Chavez deserved death for what he did even before he entered politics.
And frankly, so does Ahmadinejad, Khatami and a whole lot of others in the Iranian government.
I hope the demonstrators succeed in hanging them from the highest available pole, along with any woman in black chador (you know, the islamic dress "secret police").
We all know this will make the world a better place.
A MUCH better place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869704</id>
	<title>Re:I'm Not a Betting Man...</title>
	<author>Zackbass</author>
	<datestamp>1264262760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why does everyone keep saying investors will be angry as a fact when as this has been happening Google's stock price hasn't budged. In fact, the only thing that's made it move lately is the signal that the founders (the guys you seem to think will be bludgeoned) are going to be selling stock to bring their stake to less than 50\%.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does everyone keep saying investors will be angry as a fact when as this has been happening Google 's stock price has n't budged .
In fact , the only thing that 's made it move lately is the signal that the founders ( the guys you seem to think will be bludgeoned ) are going to be selling stock to bring their stake to less than 50 \ % .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does everyone keep saying investors will be angry as a fact when as this has been happening Google's stock price hasn't budged.
In fact, the only thing that's made it move lately is the signal that the founders (the guys you seem to think will be bludgeoned) are going to be selling stock to bring their stake to less than 50\%.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868216</id>
	<title>Google and business</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264243860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>If Google, because etics, is willing to lose such market as China, could get a huge credibility and respect increase (kudos, Google). Unfortunately, I'm skeptical about it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If Google , because etics , is willing to lose such market as China , could get a huge credibility and respect increase ( kudos , Google ) .
Unfortunately , I 'm skeptical about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Google, because etics, is willing to lose such market as China, could get a huge credibility and respect increase (kudos, Google).
Unfortunately, I'm skeptical about it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869618</id>
	<title>Re:Meanwhile, back in the U.S. of A.....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264261860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't forget the treaty that is being negotiated in secret that will have a three strikes provision to ban you completely from the Internet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't forget the treaty that is being negotiated in secret that will have a three strikes provision to ban you completely from the Internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't forget the treaty that is being negotiated in secret that will have a three strikes provision to ban you completely from the Internet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868314</id>
	<title>Re:Internet Censorship operates in the U.S.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264245420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>it took some phone calls to stop the censorship.</p></div><p>Trust me, if it was government censorship you were experiencing, it would take an act of god to stop the censorship.  Not a few phone calls from Mr. <a href="http://www.thewebsiteisdown.com/" title="thewebsiteisdown.com" rel="nofollow">TheWebSiteIsDown</a> [thewebsiteisdown.com].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>it took some phone calls to stop the censorship.Trust me , if it was government censorship you were experiencing , it would take an act of god to stop the censorship .
Not a few phone calls from Mr. TheWebSiteIsDown [ thewebsiteisdown.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it took some phone calls to stop the censorship.Trust me, if it was government censorship you were experiencing, it would take an act of god to stop the censorship.
Not a few phone calls from Mr. TheWebSiteIsDown [thewebsiteisdown.com].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30871916</id>
	<title>Re:Hillary Clinton's quotable quote</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264279920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>leaves out the third way- One Internet, one global community, one body of knowledge, where everyone's access to information is dependant on the whims of Hillary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>leaves out the third way- One Internet , one global community , one body of knowledge , where everyone 's access to information is dependant on the whims of Hillary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>leaves out the third way- One Internet, one global community, one body of knowledge, where everyone's access to information is dependant on the whims of Hillary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30871866</id>
	<title>Don't be such a cynic</title>
	<author>WML MUNSON</author>
	<datestamp>1264279620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In order to win the net neutrality fight, we will need to to educate the general population on the reasons why it matters to them, and national officials making highly publicised speeches like Hillary Clinton's go a long way toward that goal.
<br> <br>
Also, Hillary Clinton publicly stating that we'll support anti-censorship tools on a national level is a huge diplomatic middle finger to China in direct response to the Google situation.
<br> <br>
I, for one, am extremely proud of both Google and my government's handling of this situation so far.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In order to win the net neutrality fight , we will need to to educate the general population on the reasons why it matters to them , and national officials making highly publicised speeches like Hillary Clinton 's go a long way toward that goal .
Also , Hillary Clinton publicly stating that we 'll support anti-censorship tools on a national level is a huge diplomatic middle finger to China in direct response to the Google situation .
I , for one , am extremely proud of both Google and my government 's handling of this situation so far .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In order to win the net neutrality fight, we will need to to educate the general population on the reasons why it matters to them, and national officials making highly publicised speeches like Hillary Clinton's go a long way toward that goal.
Also, Hillary Clinton publicly stating that we'll support anti-censorship tools on a national level is a huge diplomatic middle finger to China in direct response to the Google situation.
I, for one, am extremely proud of both Google and my government's handling of this situation so far.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868430</id>
	<title>US Censorship</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264247100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ms. Clinton has great rhetoric, but its not supported by the facts.</p><p>We know damn well that the US censors the internet.  It's written in the law, and with very harsh penalties for those who publish what the US doesn't want published.  Even when individuals painstakingly obey the laws, the US government has been known to arrest people and put them in jail for a very long time, and has even sent agents to foreign countries to kidnap or attack American dissidents living there.  I personally know of at least two cases.</p><p>Of course, the American public enthusiastically supports these actions against kind and gentle men who love children and are brave enough to say so publicly, just as the Chinese public enthusiastically supports the Chinese government's actions against "unpatriotic" Chinese who are brave enough to denounce corruption and attempt to improve their country.  So it's unlikely that the average American will have the brains or moral integrity to even notice the hypocrisy in Ms. Clinton's remarks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ms. Clinton has great rhetoric , but its not supported by the facts.We know damn well that the US censors the internet .
It 's written in the law , and with very harsh penalties for those who publish what the US does n't want published .
Even when individuals painstakingly obey the laws , the US government has been known to arrest people and put them in jail for a very long time , and has even sent agents to foreign countries to kidnap or attack American dissidents living there .
I personally know of at least two cases.Of course , the American public enthusiastically supports these actions against kind and gentle men who love children and are brave enough to say so publicly , just as the Chinese public enthusiastically supports the Chinese government 's actions against " unpatriotic " Chinese who are brave enough to denounce corruption and attempt to improve their country .
So it 's unlikely that the average American will have the brains or moral integrity to even notice the hypocrisy in Ms. Clinton 's remarks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ms. Clinton has great rhetoric, but its not supported by the facts.We know damn well that the US censors the internet.
It's written in the law, and with very harsh penalties for those who publish what the US doesn't want published.
Even when individuals painstakingly obey the laws, the US government has been known to arrest people and put them in jail for a very long time, and has even sent agents to foreign countries to kidnap or attack American dissidents living there.
I personally know of at least two cases.Of course, the American public enthusiastically supports these actions against kind and gentle men who love children and are brave enough to say so publicly, just as the Chinese public enthusiastically supports the Chinese government's actions against "unpatriotic" Chinese who are brave enough to denounce corruption and attempt to improve their country.
So it's unlikely that the average American will have the brains or moral integrity to even notice the hypocrisy in Ms. Clinton's remarks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868274</id>
	<title>Dollars...</title>
	<author>reverendbeer</author>
	<datestamp>1264244880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm sure RIAA or the MPAA is behind this push for "freedom".</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure RIAA or the MPAA is behind this push for " freedom " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure RIAA or the MPAA is behind this push for "freedom".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868904</id>
	<title>Re:Hillary Clinton's quotable quote</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1264254240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Really lovely and Charles Stross-ian, brings a tear to my eye<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div><p>Kind of makes you wonder who wrote those words, eh? Or is Hilary the only politician without writers?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Really lovely and Charles Stross-ian , brings a tear to my eye : ) Kind of makes you wonder who wrote those words , eh ?
Or is Hilary the only politician without writers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really lovely and Charles Stross-ian, brings a tear to my eye :)Kind of makes you wonder who wrote those words, eh?
Or is Hilary the only politician without writers?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869960</id>
	<title>Re:I'm Not a Betting Man...</title>
	<author>Darkman, Walkin Dude</author>
	<datestamp>1264265400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A company that willingly turns its back on a market of 1 billion people risks having its CEO bludgeoned to death by angry investors.</p></div><p>Google isn't like other companies, the majority of shares are still held by the founders, at least one of whom, Brin, has had personal experience with repressive regimes growing up. They can do whatever they like.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A company that willingly turns its back on a market of 1 billion people risks having its CEO bludgeoned to death by angry investors.Google is n't like other companies , the majority of shares are still held by the founders , at least one of whom , Brin , has had personal experience with repressive regimes growing up .
They can do whatever they like .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A company that willingly turns its back on a market of 1 billion people risks having its CEO bludgeoned to death by angry investors.Google isn't like other companies, the majority of shares are still held by the founders, at least one of whom, Brin, has had personal experience with repressive regimes growing up.
They can do whatever they like.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868364</id>
	<title>How about the Black Fleet?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264246200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like China is the only part of the world where censorship is in action. In the west we never heard about the US Black Fleet that was about to conquer Taiwan and got blown out of the water by the Chinese. That happened in 2003 and never hit the news nor the Internet. At least the part of the Internet over here. In China this is all well known. But over here the embarrassment for the USA would be devastating. Loosing a whole fleet to China, them walking away without a scratch, as if they had performed a show.</p><p>There is lots of stuff happening in the world that would embarrass the USA and the west in general. But none of it hits the news-stands over here. And where is that guy that transformed the good old telephone network to a high-speed digital IP-network? I worked with him at the time, till the USA threatened to nuke the Netherlands if he ever got a hand on his money. A nice personal message from then president Clinton.</p><p>Censorship in the west is way more severe than in the east. We just do not know what is not been told to us, but that does not mean that it did not happen. We are just not allowed to know. And are told that they are the baddies. But they saved the planet where the USA tried to destroy them. And that makes the USA look like a fool and, when everything comes out, the most hated country on the planet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like China is the only part of the world where censorship is in action .
In the west we never heard about the US Black Fleet that was about to conquer Taiwan and got blown out of the water by the Chinese .
That happened in 2003 and never hit the news nor the Internet .
At least the part of the Internet over here .
In China this is all well known .
But over here the embarrassment for the USA would be devastating .
Loosing a whole fleet to China , them walking away without a scratch , as if they had performed a show.There is lots of stuff happening in the world that would embarrass the USA and the west in general .
But none of it hits the news-stands over here .
And where is that guy that transformed the good old telephone network to a high-speed digital IP-network ?
I worked with him at the time , till the USA threatened to nuke the Netherlands if he ever got a hand on his money .
A nice personal message from then president Clinton.Censorship in the west is way more severe than in the east .
We just do not know what is not been told to us , but that does not mean that it did not happen .
We are just not allowed to know .
And are told that they are the baddies .
But they saved the planet where the USA tried to destroy them .
And that makes the USA look like a fool and , when everything comes out , the most hated country on the planet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like China is the only part of the world where censorship is in action.
In the west we never heard about the US Black Fleet that was about to conquer Taiwan and got blown out of the water by the Chinese.
That happened in 2003 and never hit the news nor the Internet.
At least the part of the Internet over here.
In China this is all well known.
But over here the embarrassment for the USA would be devastating.
Loosing a whole fleet to China, them walking away without a scratch, as if they had performed a show.There is lots of stuff happening in the world that would embarrass the USA and the west in general.
But none of it hits the news-stands over here.
And where is that guy that transformed the good old telephone network to a high-speed digital IP-network?
I worked with him at the time, till the USA threatened to nuke the Netherlands if he ever got a hand on his money.
A nice personal message from then president Clinton.Censorship in the west is way more severe than in the east.
We just do not know what is not been told to us, but that does not mean that it did not happen.
We are just not allowed to know.
And are told that they are the baddies.
But they saved the planet where the USA tried to destroy them.
And that makes the USA look like a fool and, when everything comes out, the most hated country on the planet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869694</id>
	<title>Re:Hillary Clinton's quotable quote</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264262640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Western hypocrites are once again busy pointing fingers at others, while at the same time engaging in state terrorism (e.g. Iran) and illegal invasions of other countries (e.g. Iraq). The media is happy to use censorship and creative manipulation of truth to present whatever version best supports their political agenda. I don't think we're in any way qualified to tell China what to do, until we sort out our own problems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Western hypocrites are once again busy pointing fingers at others , while at the same time engaging in state terrorism ( e.g .
Iran ) and illegal invasions of other countries ( e.g .
Iraq ) . The media is happy to use censorship and creative manipulation of truth to present whatever version best supports their political agenda .
I do n't think we 're in any way qualified to tell China what to do , until we sort out our own problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Western hypocrites are once again busy pointing fingers at others, while at the same time engaging in state terrorism (e.g.
Iran) and illegal invasions of other countries (e.g.
Iraq). The media is happy to use censorship and creative manipulation of truth to present whatever version best supports their political agenda.
I don't think we're in any way qualified to tell China what to do, until we sort out our own problems.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868958</id>
	<title>google should block china</title>
	<author>mr\_musan</author>
	<datestamp>1264254900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>the way this argument is going google should take the bluf and block chinas access to gmail, this way the chinese people will see that something is going on and the chinese government will lose face, because as it is now googles side is simply not reported in china if they take the first step and redirect chinese traffic to a site explaing how f**ked up the censorship is then the proper gander will fail, because as it is now gmail accounts are advertised on the beijing subway ! imagen stopping all  of that !</htmltext>
<tokenext>the way this argument is going google should take the bluf and block chinas access to gmail , this way the chinese people will see that something is going on and the chinese government will lose face , because as it is now googles side is simply not reported in china if they take the first step and redirect chinese traffic to a site explaing how f * * ked up the censorship is then the proper gander will fail , because as it is now gmail accounts are advertised on the beijing subway !
imagen stopping all of that !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the way this argument is going google should take the bluf and block chinas access to gmail, this way the chinese people will see that something is going on and the chinese government will lose face, because as it is now googles side is simply not reported in china if they take the first step and redirect chinese traffic to a site explaing how f**ked up the censorship is then the proper gander will fail, because as it is now gmail accounts are advertised on the beijing subway !
imagen stopping all  of that !</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868304</id>
	<title>So when...</title>
	<author>lattyware</author>
	<datestamp>1264245240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does Australia get no Google? And the UK, we are getting pretty poor at this freedom thing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does Australia get no Google ?
And the UK , we are getting pretty poor at this freedom thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does Australia get no Google?
And the UK, we are getting pretty poor at this freedom thing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30871514</id>
	<title>But should china stop the hacking?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264277580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At first I thought of this mostly in jest, but then I'm not sure anymore, but let's imagine that we have tech-savvy Chinese individuals who's only access to unfettered information is out there, somewhere on the Internet, but direct access to it is blocked, monitored, or otherwise frowned upon (if not quite risky).</p><p>What if these guys figured out that the best way to get the info, is to use some sort of random proxy, so to speak, such that the data is good, and such that this relaying host may not garner too much interest form the great firewall...</p><p>Wouldn't the best way to do that involve pwning other people's computers, outside of China?  Would blocking all traffic from China actually result in helping a regime bent on massaging its subject's perception of reality?  Wouldn't allowing this traffic be the democratic thing to do?</p><p>I guess that's why so many don't update windows or refuse to install IE8, right?  They're just trying to help a brother out!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At first I thought of this mostly in jest , but then I 'm not sure anymore , but let 's imagine that we have tech-savvy Chinese individuals who 's only access to unfettered information is out there , somewhere on the Internet , but direct access to it is blocked , monitored , or otherwise frowned upon ( if not quite risky ) .What if these guys figured out that the best way to get the info , is to use some sort of random proxy , so to speak , such that the data is good , and such that this relaying host may not garner too much interest form the great firewall...Would n't the best way to do that involve pwning other people 's computers , outside of China ?
Would blocking all traffic from China actually result in helping a regime bent on massaging its subject 's perception of reality ?
Would n't allowing this traffic be the democratic thing to do ? I guess that 's why so many do n't update windows or refuse to install IE8 , right ?
They 're just trying to help a brother out !
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At first I thought of this mostly in jest, but then I'm not sure anymore, but let's imagine that we have tech-savvy Chinese individuals who's only access to unfettered information is out there, somewhere on the Internet, but direct access to it is blocked, monitored, or otherwise frowned upon (if not quite risky).What if these guys figured out that the best way to get the info, is to use some sort of random proxy, so to speak, such that the data is good, and such that this relaying host may not garner too much interest form the great firewall...Wouldn't the best way to do that involve pwning other people's computers, outside of China?
Would blocking all traffic from China actually result in helping a regime bent on massaging its subject's perception of reality?
Wouldn't allowing this traffic be the democratic thing to do?I guess that's why so many don't update windows or refuse to install IE8, right?
They're just trying to help a brother out!
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30871136</id>
	<title>Re:A view from inside China</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264275120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You could both easily be right.</p><p>I don't know where in China the GP is.  But when I was there for the Olympics; YouTube and Wikipedia were blocked in Beijing (I couldn't say about twitter or facebook... I despise "social media/marketing" sites with a passion.).  But when we went down to Shanghai after the games, both sites came in just fine.  But when I was in Shanghai for business about a year and a half or so before that, I could access YouTube but not Wikipedia.  So it does appear that China censors different parts of the internet at different times in different parts of the country.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You could both easily be right.I do n't know where in China the GP is .
But when I was there for the Olympics ; YouTube and Wikipedia were blocked in Beijing ( I could n't say about twitter or facebook... I despise " social media/marketing " sites with a passion. ) .
But when we went down to Shanghai after the games , both sites came in just fine .
But when I was in Shanghai for business about a year and a half or so before that , I could access YouTube but not Wikipedia .
So it does appear that China censors different parts of the internet at different times in different parts of the country .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You could both easily be right.I don't know where in China the GP is.
But when I was there for the Olympics; YouTube and Wikipedia were blocked in Beijing (I couldn't say about twitter or facebook... I despise "social media/marketing" sites with a passion.).
But when we went down to Shanghai after the games, both sites came in just fine.
But when I was in Shanghai for business about a year and a half or so before that, I could access YouTube but not Wikipedia.
So it does appear that China censors different parts of the internet at different times in different parts of the country.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868248</id>
	<title>Internet Censorship operates in the U.S.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264244460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i don't know if people are going to believe this (but i don't care) because i'm a "statistical sample of one", but there is empirical evidence (on a statistical sample of one - me) to suggest that real-time Internet Censorship operates in the United States on a level far more sophisticated than that of China.</p><p>when i was last in the U.S. i happened to be making enquiries about "knowledge-based" systems and about TETRA modems.  unfortunately, the best "knowledge-based" software happens to fall into a category of tools (ontology classifiers for example) used and deployed by Intelligence Agencies; and unfortunately, the best companies that do TETRA also happen to do APCO P25 radios used by Police, Homeland Security, Airports, the FBI etc.</p><p>so there's little me, waving a red flag to a bull, and finding that web site browsing was behaving particularly odd.  one moment web sites would be accessible and the next they would be offline.</p><p>i surmised that i was finding "stuff" that, embarrassingly for the people monitoring my internet traffic, they had never encountered before, never evaluated and so out of knee-jerk fear reaction slapped a block on it.</p><p>it also turns out that one of the companies i had found had \_just\_ been funded by InQTel.</p><p>it took some phone calls to stop the censorship.</p><p>so if you push the right buttons and wave the right kind of red flags, there's enough empirical evidence to suggest that the United States also performs Internet Censorship.</p><p>of course, nobody's told Mrs Clinton that, before she began getting righteous, which is very embarrassing for her and for the U.S. government she's representing.  it also puts the comments made by the Chinese Government into perspective: namely that the Chinese Government know damn well that the U.S. Government also performs Internet Censorship; Ma Zhaoxu is simply calling things "as they are".</p><p>p.s. in replies to this, i don't want to see any messages saying "But That's All Irrelevant Because China Has A Bad Human Rights Record" to which the response is "Guantanamo Bay?  remember that place?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i do n't know if people are going to believe this ( but i do n't care ) because i 'm a " statistical sample of one " , but there is empirical evidence ( on a statistical sample of one - me ) to suggest that real-time Internet Censorship operates in the United States on a level far more sophisticated than that of China.when i was last in the U.S. i happened to be making enquiries about " knowledge-based " systems and about TETRA modems .
unfortunately , the best " knowledge-based " software happens to fall into a category of tools ( ontology classifiers for example ) used and deployed by Intelligence Agencies ; and unfortunately , the best companies that do TETRA also happen to do APCO P25 radios used by Police , Homeland Security , Airports , the FBI etc.so there 's little me , waving a red flag to a bull , and finding that web site browsing was behaving particularly odd .
one moment web sites would be accessible and the next they would be offline.i surmised that i was finding " stuff " that , embarrassingly for the people monitoring my internet traffic , they had never encountered before , never evaluated and so out of knee-jerk fear reaction slapped a block on it.it also turns out that one of the companies i had found had \ _just \ _ been funded by InQTel.it took some phone calls to stop the censorship.so if you push the right buttons and wave the right kind of red flags , there 's enough empirical evidence to suggest that the United States also performs Internet Censorship.of course , nobody 's told Mrs Clinton that , before she began getting righteous , which is very embarrassing for her and for the U.S. government she 's representing .
it also puts the comments made by the Chinese Government into perspective : namely that the Chinese Government know damn well that the U.S. Government also performs Internet Censorship ; Ma Zhaoxu is simply calling things " as they are " .p.s .
in replies to this , i do n't want to see any messages saying " But That 's All Irrelevant Because China Has A Bad Human Rights Record " to which the response is " Guantanamo Bay ?
remember that place ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i don't know if people are going to believe this (but i don't care) because i'm a "statistical sample of one", but there is empirical evidence (on a statistical sample of one - me) to suggest that real-time Internet Censorship operates in the United States on a level far more sophisticated than that of China.when i was last in the U.S. i happened to be making enquiries about "knowledge-based" systems and about TETRA modems.
unfortunately, the best "knowledge-based" software happens to fall into a category of tools (ontology classifiers for example) used and deployed by Intelligence Agencies; and unfortunately, the best companies that do TETRA also happen to do APCO P25 radios used by Police, Homeland Security, Airports, the FBI etc.so there's little me, waving a red flag to a bull, and finding that web site browsing was behaving particularly odd.
one moment web sites would be accessible and the next they would be offline.i surmised that i was finding "stuff" that, embarrassingly for the people monitoring my internet traffic, they had never encountered before, never evaluated and so out of knee-jerk fear reaction slapped a block on it.it also turns out that one of the companies i had found had \_just\_ been funded by InQTel.it took some phone calls to stop the censorship.so if you push the right buttons and wave the right kind of red flags, there's enough empirical evidence to suggest that the United States also performs Internet Censorship.of course, nobody's told Mrs Clinton that, before she began getting righteous, which is very embarrassing for her and for the U.S. government she's representing.
it also puts the comments made by the Chinese Government into perspective: namely that the Chinese Government know damn well that the U.S. Government also performs Internet Censorship; Ma Zhaoxu is simply calling things "as they are".p.s.
in replies to this, i don't want to see any messages saying "But That's All Irrelevant Because China Has A Bad Human Rights Record" to which the response is "Guantanamo Bay?
remember that place?
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30871650</id>
	<title>Hillary the China-Hater strikes again</title>
	<author>superyanthrax</author>
	<datestamp>1264278420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>How will she backpedal this time after we make menacing statements on how reliable we think T-Bonds are? How will Obama clean up her mess?
<br> <br>
If you want to get real progress on the real issues between China and the United States (i.e. NOT HUMAN RIGHTS), keep Hillary out of it. We'd like to discuss and make progress on those issues but not when Hillary the irrational China-Hater is out there spewing garbage about "human rights".</htmltext>
<tokenext>How will she backpedal this time after we make menacing statements on how reliable we think T-Bonds are ?
How will Obama clean up her mess ?
If you want to get real progress on the real issues between China and the United States ( i.e .
NOT HUMAN RIGHTS ) , keep Hillary out of it .
We 'd like to discuss and make progress on those issues but not when Hillary the irrational China-Hater is out there spewing garbage about " human rights " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How will she backpedal this time after we make menacing statements on how reliable we think T-Bonds are?
How will Obama clean up her mess?
If you want to get real progress on the real issues between China and the United States (i.e.
NOT HUMAN RIGHTS), keep Hillary out of it.
We'd like to discuss and make progress on those issues but not when Hillary the irrational China-Hater is out there spewing garbage about "human rights".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30871622</id>
	<title>Re:Sick and Tired of Hacking</title>
	<author>Anpheus</author>
	<datestamp>1264278240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They have government controlled packet inspection on their internet backbone, and they claim to be unable to do anything about the countless hacking attempts, probes and the like? B.S.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They have government controlled packet inspection on their internet backbone , and they claim to be unable to do anything about the countless hacking attempts , probes and the like ?
B.S .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They have government controlled packet inspection on their internet backbone, and they claim to be unable to do anything about the countless hacking attempts, probes and the like?
B.S.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868224</id>
	<title>Sick and Tired of Hacking</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264244040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google is not the only organization that is sick and tired of China's hacking and industrial espionage.  After seeing in my logs hundreds of hacking attempts a day that originate in China, it really sucks that we cannot just cut them off the Internet.  If they attached anywhere near the interest in stopping the hacking that they did in prosecuting the people who dealt in porn, the problem would stop overnight.  They supposedly have the most sophisticated government firewall in the world, but they cannot spot and stop these continual hacking attempts?  Obviously the Chinese government is behind this hacking activity.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google is not the only organization that is sick and tired of China 's hacking and industrial espionage .
After seeing in my logs hundreds of hacking attempts a day that originate in China , it really sucks that we can not just cut them off the Internet .
If they attached anywhere near the interest in stopping the hacking that they did in prosecuting the people who dealt in porn , the problem would stop overnight .
They supposedly have the most sophisticated government firewall in the world , but they can not spot and stop these continual hacking attempts ?
Obviously the Chinese government is behind this hacking activity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google is not the only organization that is sick and tired of China's hacking and industrial espionage.
After seeing in my logs hundreds of hacking attempts a day that originate in China, it really sucks that we cannot just cut them off the Internet.
If they attached anywhere near the interest in stopping the hacking that they did in prosecuting the people who dealt in porn, the problem would stop overnight.
They supposedly have the most sophisticated government firewall in the world, but they cannot spot and stop these continual hacking attempts?
Obviously the Chinese government is behind this hacking activity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869628</id>
	<title>The rule of law</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264261920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>China may have laws but they have no one who actually implements them. The police are uneducated and corrupt. They know nothing and extremely bribable. The officials are often quite corrupt and bribable. Yes there are corruption call in lines but that's just useful for the communist party intel people to give intel to their buddies so they can leverage corrupt politicians and officials. Then there is the communist party and govt who make all the rules and follow none of them.</p><p>You cannot have rule of law til the govt must follow the very same rules that impose on everyone else. This will not happen in China for at least another 20 to 30 years because it also requires societal change. Society has to expect rule of law, and currently they don't. Most people don't realize it but China is self-ruled at a social level and it is the communist party who fights against this social rule for power over China.</p><p>If you doubt any of this, buy  a ticket to Beijing and learn some Mandarin.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>China may have laws but they have no one who actually implements them .
The police are uneducated and corrupt .
They know nothing and extremely bribable .
The officials are often quite corrupt and bribable .
Yes there are corruption call in lines but that 's just useful for the communist party intel people to give intel to their buddies so they can leverage corrupt politicians and officials .
Then there is the communist party and govt who make all the rules and follow none of them.You can not have rule of law til the govt must follow the very same rules that impose on everyone else .
This will not happen in China for at least another 20 to 30 years because it also requires societal change .
Society has to expect rule of law , and currently they do n't .
Most people do n't realize it but China is self-ruled at a social level and it is the communist party who fights against this social rule for power over China.If you doubt any of this , buy a ticket to Beijing and learn some Mandarin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>China may have laws but they have no one who actually implements them.
The police are uneducated and corrupt.
They know nothing and extremely bribable.
The officials are often quite corrupt and bribable.
Yes there are corruption call in lines but that's just useful for the communist party intel people to give intel to their buddies so they can leverage corrupt politicians and officials.
Then there is the communist party and govt who make all the rules and follow none of them.You cannot have rule of law til the govt must follow the very same rules that impose on everyone else.
This will not happen in China for at least another 20 to 30 years because it also requires societal change.
Society has to expect rule of law, and currently they don't.
Most people don't realize it but China is self-ruled at a social level and it is the communist party who fights against this social rule for power over China.If you doubt any of this, buy  a ticket to Beijing and learn some Mandarin.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868914</id>
	<title>US is banning internet poker</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264254300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wait, is that the same US that banned the internet poker?  Now it wants something called "freedom"?</p><p>Says one thing does the other?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait , is that the same US that banned the internet poker ?
Now it wants something called " freedom " ? Says one thing does the other ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait, is that the same US that banned the internet poker?
Now it wants something called "freedom"?Says one thing does the other?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868872</id>
	<title>Re:How about the Black Fleet?</title>
	<author>Kneo24</author>
	<datestamp>1264253880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would venture to guess you got a "troll" mod because you didn't provide any relevant links. If it's well known in some part of the world, some part of the world as big as China anyway, I somehow doubt it wouldn't be on the Internet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would venture to guess you got a " troll " mod because you did n't provide any relevant links .
If it 's well known in some part of the world , some part of the world as big as China anyway , I somehow doubt it would n't be on the Internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would venture to guess you got a "troll" mod because you didn't provide any relevant links.
If it's well known in some part of the world, some part of the world as big as China anyway, I somehow doubt it wouldn't be on the Internet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868390</id>
	<title>Typical US of A mentality</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264246620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For some reason they think they're the world police.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For some reason they think they 're the world police .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For some reason they think they're the world police.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869266</id>
	<title>China DDoS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264258440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Given China's bottleneck of a firewall, I am surprised it hasn't been DDoS'ed. Routing their entire country through one node is an exploit just ripe for an attack.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Given China 's bottleneck of a firewall , I am surprised it has n't been DDoS'ed .
Routing their entire country through one node is an exploit just ripe for an attack .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given China's bottleneck of a firewall, I am surprised it hasn't been DDoS'ed.
Routing their entire country through one node is an exploit just ripe for an attack.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0338225_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0338225_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30871916
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0338225_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0338225_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869652
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0338225_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0338225_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30870538
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0338225_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30871514
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0338225_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869052
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0338225_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30871692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0338225_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30871512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30873812
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0338225_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30870210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0338225_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0338225_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30872646
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0338225_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30875956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0338225_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0338225_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30877610
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0338225_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869700
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0338225_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30872828
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0338225_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0338225_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869856
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0338225_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30871516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0338225_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0338225_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869674
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0338225_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869120
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0338225_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0338225_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30871532
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0338225_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868622
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0338225_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0338225_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869618
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0338225_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30871622
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0338225_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30871732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0338225_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0338225_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868402
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0338225_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30871166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0338225_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30872290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30886594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0338225_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30871512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30872332
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0338225_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30870836
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0338225_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0338225_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869286
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0338225_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869132
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0338225_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0338225_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869214
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0338225_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0338225_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0338225_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0338225_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30871866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0338225_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30870962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0338225_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30870394
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0338225_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0338225_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30870650
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0338225_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868406
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0338225_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0338225_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30871512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30872278
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0338225_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0338225_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30871136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0338225_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869082
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0338225_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30870054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0338225_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868472
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0338225_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0338225_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_0338225.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869290
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_0338225.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868446
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868852
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30870650
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30877610
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868816
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868838
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30871136
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868906
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_0338225.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869266
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30871732
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30871166
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_0338225.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868248
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868658
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869700
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868314
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869162
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868550
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868302
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868472
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869132
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868406
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868402
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_0338225.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868216
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30875956
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868330
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869120
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868904
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869694
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30870054
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869528
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869052
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30871916
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30870210
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30870836
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869458
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868294
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869674
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869652
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868622
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_0338225.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868304
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869286
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_0338225.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868390
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868468
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_0338225.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868914
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30871532
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869748
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869326
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_0338225.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868364
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868872
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869362
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869856
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_0338225.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868202
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30871512
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30872278
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30872332
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30873812
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869376
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30872646
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30872828
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30871516
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869480
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30872290
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30886594
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_0338225.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868518
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869704
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869442
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30871692
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30870962
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869960
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30870394
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_0338225.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868536
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30870538
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868830
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30871866
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869618
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_0338225.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868224
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30871514
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869082
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868408
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869214
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30871622
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_0338225.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30868474
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_0338225.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869602
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_0338225.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0338225.30869034
</commentlist>
</conversation>
