<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_28_183208</id>
	<title>Google Proposes DNS Extension</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1264701720000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>ElusiveJoe writes <i>"Google, along with a group of DNS and content providers, <a href="http://googlecode.blogspot.com/2010/01/proposal-to-extend-dns-protocol.html">hopes to alter the DNS protocol</a>. Currently, a DNS request can be sent to a recursive DNS server, which would send out requests to other DNS servers from its own IP address, thus acting somewhat similar to a proxy server. The proposed modification would allow authoritative nameservers to expose your IP address (instead of an address of your ISP's DNS server, for example) in order to 'load balance traffic and send users to a nearby server.' Or it would allow any interested party to look at your DNS requests. Or it would send a user from Iran or Libya to a 'domain name doesn't exist' server."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>ElusiveJoe writes " Google , along with a group of DNS and content providers , hopes to alter the DNS protocol .
Currently , a DNS request can be sent to a recursive DNS server , which would send out requests to other DNS servers from its own IP address , thus acting somewhat similar to a proxy server .
The proposed modification would allow authoritative nameservers to expose your IP address ( instead of an address of your ISP 's DNS server , for example ) in order to 'load balance traffic and send users to a nearby server .
' Or it would allow any interested party to look at your DNS requests .
Or it would send a user from Iran or Libya to a 'domain name does n't exist ' server .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ElusiveJoe writes "Google, along with a group of DNS and content providers, hopes to alter the DNS protocol.
Currently, a DNS request can be sent to a recursive DNS server, which would send out requests to other DNS servers from its own IP address, thus acting somewhat similar to a proxy server.
The proposed modification would allow authoritative nameservers to expose your IP address (instead of an address of your ISP's DNS server, for example) in order to 'load balance traffic and send users to a nearby server.
' Or it would allow any interested party to look at your DNS requests.
Or it would send a user from Iran or Libya to a 'domain name doesn't exist' server.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30940346</id>
	<title>Re:Google, you are wrong here.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264671000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It seems this balancing is already possible withouth the need to propagate that data. I choose here safety/privacy, over a potential speed gain.  Also the risk is for everyone, but the gain is just for a few ones (the people that has lots of servers and need a balancing solution)... hence, is unfair.  My view of this.</p></div><p>How are you suggesting that load-balancing is possible at the DNS level in the current DNS architecture?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems this balancing is already possible withouth the need to propagate that data .
I choose here safety/privacy , over a potential speed gain .
Also the risk is for everyone , but the gain is just for a few ones ( the people that has lots of servers and need a balancing solution ) ... hence , is unfair .
My view of this.How are you suggesting that load-balancing is possible at the DNS level in the current DNS architecture ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems this balancing is already possible withouth the need to propagate that data.
I choose here safety/privacy, over a potential speed gain.
Also the risk is for everyone, but the gain is just for a few ones (the people that has lots of servers and need a balancing solution)... hence, is unfair.
My view of this.How are you suggesting that load-balancing is possible at the DNS level in the current DNS architecture?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30945456</id>
	<title>Re:What DNS Is Not</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264697640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>This all sounds totally crazy if you're Paul Vixie and have written a little article titled What DNS Is Not which specifically mentions that it shouldn't be used for this.</p></div></blockquote><p>That may be true, but this proposal mitigates the two reasons he said DNS should not be used for directing users to particular locations:</p><blockquote><div><p>First and foremost it is necessary to defeat or severely limit caching and reuse of this policy-based data ("DNS lies"). Caching and reuse, which once were considered essential to the performance and scalability of DNS, would allow a policy-based response intended for requester A also to be seen by requester B, which might not otherwise receive the same answer&mdash;for example, when server loads have changed and there's a new balance. The effects of this noncaching are a higher DNS request rate (perhaps leading to higher revenue for CDNs that charge by the transaction) and more network load for access-side networks and a slightly higher floor for average transaction time.</p></div></blockquote><p>This doesn't defeat caching. It does limit the cache entry's validity to a specific netblock. Paul Vixie might say that it "severely" limits caching, but that's subjective.</p><blockquote><div><p>Furthermore, it has never been wise to assume that a DNS request's IP source address gives any hint of an end-system Web browser's network location. This is because DNS requests heard by a CDN come from recursive DNS servers as a result of cache misses; they do not come from end systems themselves.</p></div></blockquote><p>This proposal explicitly adding something to determine the end-system Web browser's IP address. Google (and other providers) have been making the assumption Paul Vixie doesn't like (and I've seen the stats - though it's not perfect, it's pretty good), and now they're trying to stop.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This all sounds totally crazy if you 're Paul Vixie and have written a little article titled What DNS Is Not which specifically mentions that it should n't be used for this.That may be true , but this proposal mitigates the two reasons he said DNS should not be used for directing users to particular locations : First and foremost it is necessary to defeat or severely limit caching and reuse of this policy-based data ( " DNS lies " ) .
Caching and reuse , which once were considered essential to the performance and scalability of DNS , would allow a policy-based response intended for requester A also to be seen by requester B , which might not otherwise receive the same answer    for example , when server loads have changed and there 's a new balance .
The effects of this noncaching are a higher DNS request rate ( perhaps leading to higher revenue for CDNs that charge by the transaction ) and more network load for access-side networks and a slightly higher floor for average transaction time.This does n't defeat caching .
It does limit the cache entry 's validity to a specific netblock .
Paul Vixie might say that it " severely " limits caching , but that 's subjective.Furthermore , it has never been wise to assume that a DNS request 's IP source address gives any hint of an end-system Web browser 's network location .
This is because DNS requests heard by a CDN come from recursive DNS servers as a result of cache misses ; they do not come from end systems themselves.This proposal explicitly adding something to determine the end-system Web browser 's IP address .
Google ( and other providers ) have been making the assumption Paul Vixie does n't like ( and I 've seen the stats - though it 's not perfect , it 's pretty good ) , and now they 're trying to stop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This all sounds totally crazy if you're Paul Vixie and have written a little article titled What DNS Is Not which specifically mentions that it shouldn't be used for this.That may be true, but this proposal mitigates the two reasons he said DNS should not be used for directing users to particular locations:First and foremost it is necessary to defeat or severely limit caching and reuse of this policy-based data ("DNS lies").
Caching and reuse, which once were considered essential to the performance and scalability of DNS, would allow a policy-based response intended for requester A also to be seen by requester B, which might not otherwise receive the same answer—for example, when server loads have changed and there's a new balance.
The effects of this noncaching are a higher DNS request rate (perhaps leading to higher revenue for CDNs that charge by the transaction) and more network load for access-side networks and a slightly higher floor for average transaction time.This doesn't defeat caching.
It does limit the cache entry's validity to a specific netblock.
Paul Vixie might say that it "severely" limits caching, but that's subjective.Furthermore, it has never been wise to assume that a DNS request's IP source address gives any hint of an end-system Web browser's network location.
This is because DNS requests heard by a CDN come from recursive DNS servers as a result of cache misses; they do not come from end systems themselves.This proposal explicitly adding something to determine the end-system Web browser's IP address.
Google (and other providers) have been making the assumption Paul Vixie doesn't like (and I've seen the stats - though it's not perfect, it's pretty good), and now they're trying to stop.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30939182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30944728</id>
	<title>Now there's a google shill</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264690440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How did this get modded to a +5? Probably by Google employees, no doubt.</p><p>"do you think that Google of all companies really wants to endanger your privacy?"</p><p>Google's entire business model is about endangering your privacy as much as possible, and selling it as much as possible. And that's why they've been so hot to trot about hacking DNS for their own benefit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How did this get modded to a + 5 ?
Probably by Google employees , no doubt .
" do you think that Google of all companies really wants to endanger your privacy ?
" Google 's entire business model is about endangering your privacy as much as possible , and selling it as much as possible .
And that 's why they 've been so hot to trot about hacking DNS for their own benefit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How did this get modded to a +5?
Probably by Google employees, no doubt.
"do you think that Google of all companies really wants to endanger your privacy?
"Google's entire business model is about endangering your privacy as much as possible, and selling it as much as possible.
And that's why they've been so hot to trot about hacking DNS for their own benefit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30940380</id>
	<title>Don't like it? Circumvent it!</title>
	<author>bilbo.fraggins</author>
	<datestamp>1264671060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you can learn how to use "tor", "stunnel", or "socks", you can simply appear to be coming from a different IP. This really doesn't seem to be a big deal. It doesn't sound much different from the root server anycast system currently in place that allows an IPv4 root server query to be routed to the actual root server closest the IP of the requesting server. The change I see is that instead of managing the server's IP (which often can identify the ISP of the requestor anyway) this identifies the class C subnet of the requesting client. (Get the grease off yer tinfoil hats on, Slashdotters!)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you can learn how to use " tor " , " stunnel " , or " socks " , you can simply appear to be coming from a different IP .
This really does n't seem to be a big deal .
It does n't sound much different from the root server anycast system currently in place that allows an IPv4 root server query to be routed to the actual root server closest the IP of the requesting server .
The change I see is that instead of managing the server 's IP ( which often can identify the ISP of the requestor anyway ) this identifies the class C subnet of the requesting client .
( Get the grease off yer tinfoil hats on , Slashdotters !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you can learn how to use "tor", "stunnel", or "socks", you can simply appear to be coming from a different IP.
This really doesn't seem to be a big deal.
It doesn't sound much different from the root server anycast system currently in place that allows an IPv4 root server query to be routed to the actual root server closest the IP of the requesting server.
The change I see is that instead of managing the server's IP (which often can identify the ISP of the requestor anyway) this identifies the class C subnet of the requesting client.
(Get the grease off yer tinfoil hats on, Slashdotters!
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30939572</id>
	<title>Re:Do no evil, eh?</title>
	<author>badboy\_tw2002</author>
	<datestamp>1264711740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So wait, you're resolving someone's DNS name and use the first three octets of their ip (the spec calls for hiding the 4th).  But then what are you going to do with that?  Are you going to use the IP address?  If so, then you subject yourself to the same "monitoring" by \_actually opening a connection\_ to the third party that runs the evil greedy DNS server.  If they're that evil, why are you connecting to them in the first place.  And speaking of monitoring, your ISP probably has every single DNS request you've made tied to your IP which also is tagged to your name, SSN, credit card, etc.  I think you've got a little more to worry about here than this...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So wait , you 're resolving someone 's DNS name and use the first three octets of their ip ( the spec calls for hiding the 4th ) .
But then what are you going to do with that ?
Are you going to use the IP address ?
If so , then you subject yourself to the same " monitoring " by \ _actually opening a connection \ _ to the third party that runs the evil greedy DNS server .
If they 're that evil , why are you connecting to them in the first place .
And speaking of monitoring , your ISP probably has every single DNS request you 've made tied to your IP which also is tagged to your name , SSN , credit card , etc .
I think you 've got a little more to worry about here than this.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So wait, you're resolving someone's DNS name and use the first three octets of their ip (the spec calls for hiding the 4th).
But then what are you going to do with that?
Are you going to use the IP address?
If so, then you subject yourself to the same "monitoring" by \_actually opening a connection\_ to the third party that runs the evil greedy DNS server.
If they're that evil, why are you connecting to them in the first place.
And speaking of monitoring, your ISP probably has every single DNS request you've made tied to your IP which also is tagged to your name, SSN, credit card, etc.
I think you've got a little more to worry about here than this...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30939914</id>
	<title>Re:Not as evil as suggested</title>
	<author>Imagix</author>
	<datestamp>1264669800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And that defeats the purpose.  The internet got away from classes of IPs and went to classless delegation for a reason.  Now they want to bring it back.  And if the concern was really for geolocation purposes, then the ISP can simply put a recursive nameserver close to the clients (say only 1 hop up from the client).  Since all of the client's traffic must pass by that hop anyway, that DNS will be close enough to determine where the client is.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And that defeats the purpose .
The internet got away from classes of IPs and went to classless delegation for a reason .
Now they want to bring it back .
And if the concern was really for geolocation purposes , then the ISP can simply put a recursive nameserver close to the clients ( say only 1 hop up from the client ) .
Since all of the client 's traffic must pass by that hop anyway , that DNS will be close enough to determine where the client is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And that defeats the purpose.
The internet got away from classes of IPs and went to classless delegation for a reason.
Now they want to bring it back.
And if the concern was really for geolocation purposes, then the ISP can simply put a recursive nameserver close to the clients (say only 1 hop up from the client).
Since all of the client's traffic must pass by that hop anyway, that DNS will be close enough to determine where the client is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30938812</id>
	<title>Re:Wow, Slashdot editors hate Google</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264709700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>They are just pissed because they didn't like the new iPad.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P<br>
That feeling should go soon.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They are just pissed because they did n't like the new iPad .
: P That feeling should go soon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are just pissed because they didn't like the new iPad.
:P
That feeling should go soon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937150</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937150</id>
	<title>Wow, Slashdot editors hate Google</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264705920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The summary isn't even close to correct. What the hell is going on with Slashdot these days?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The summary is n't even close to correct .
What the hell is going on with Slashdot these days ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The summary isn't even close to correct.
What the hell is going on with Slashdot these days?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30938894</id>
	<title>Re:Needed, not evil...</title>
	<author>divisionbyzero</author>
	<datestamp>1264709880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>++  Mod parent up.  I wish I had mod point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>+ + Mod parent up .
I wish I had mod point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>++  Mod parent up.
I wish I had mod point.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937508</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937768</id>
	<title>Re:Do no evil, eh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264707240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"There is no good reason for this other than to facilitate the monitoring of users."</p><p>Did you miss this part:</p><p>"DNS can be used to load balance traffic and send users to a nearby server."</p><p>There is at least one good reason for this other than to facilitate the monitoring of users.  Maybe it's insufficient, maybe it isn't, but ignoring it doesn't help your argument.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" There is no good reason for this other than to facilitate the monitoring of users .
" Did you miss this part : " DNS can be used to load balance traffic and send users to a nearby server .
" There is at least one good reason for this other than to facilitate the monitoring of users .
Maybe it 's insufficient , maybe it is n't , but ignoring it does n't help your argument .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"There is no good reason for this other than to facilitate the monitoring of users.
"Did you miss this part:"DNS can be used to load balance traffic and send users to a nearby server.
"There is at least one good reason for this other than to facilitate the monitoring of users.
Maybe it's insufficient, maybe it isn't, but ignoring it doesn't help your argument.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937104</id>
	<title>Re:Do no evil, eh?</title>
	<author>Gabrill</author>
	<datestamp>1264705800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mod parent up.  There is no good reason for this other than to facilitate the monitoring of users.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod parent up .
There is no good reason for this other than to facilitate the monitoring of users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod parent up.
There is no good reason for this other than to facilitate the monitoring of users.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30936986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937790</id>
	<title>it's about CDN geocaching, not a conspiracy</title>
	<author>markhahn</author>
	<datestamp>1264707300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>look, you can already use whatever DNS server you want.  if you're worried about your traffic being analyzed by someone else's DNS, just use your own (or a privacy-respecting) DNS elsewhere.</p><p>DNS is just the obvious way to ensure that clients use the best path to content.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>look , you can already use whatever DNS server you want .
if you 're worried about your traffic being analyzed by someone else 's DNS , just use your own ( or a privacy-respecting ) DNS elsewhere.DNS is just the obvious way to ensure that clients use the best path to content .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>look, you can already use whatever DNS server you want.
if you're worried about your traffic being analyzed by someone else's DNS, just use your own (or a privacy-respecting) DNS elsewhere.DNS is just the obvious way to ensure that clients use the best path to content.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30938248</id>
	<title>Intelligence at the ends, not the middle</title>
	<author>ka9dgx</author>
	<datestamp>1264708380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The reason the internet is so successful is that it has a core that doesn't try to think too much. Get packet, forward packet, etc..</p><p>If load balancing is a concern, the client node should determine where the best place to get content from is at, NOT some hack which makes DNS less reliable, and noisier.</p><p>Use digital fountains and give out multiple sources to get streams from, and let the end user's computer figure it out. They are the ones in the best place to determine which is a more reliable stream of packets, not some aggregated delayed measure post facto.</p><p>I don't like this idea. Round robin should be good enough.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason the internet is so successful is that it has a core that does n't try to think too much .
Get packet , forward packet , etc..If load balancing is a concern , the client node should determine where the best place to get content from is at , NOT some hack which makes DNS less reliable , and noisier.Use digital fountains and give out multiple sources to get streams from , and let the end user 's computer figure it out .
They are the ones in the best place to determine which is a more reliable stream of packets , not some aggregated delayed measure post facto.I do n't like this idea .
Round robin should be good enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason the internet is so successful is that it has a core that doesn't try to think too much.
Get packet, forward packet, etc..If load balancing is a concern, the client node should determine where the best place to get content from is at, NOT some hack which makes DNS less reliable, and noisier.Use digital fountains and give out multiple sources to get streams from, and let the end user's computer figure it out.
They are the ones in the best place to determine which is a more reliable stream of packets, not some aggregated delayed measure post facto.I don't like this idea.
Round robin should be good enough.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937452</id>
	<title>yah but they are already close</title>
	<author>digitalsushi</author>
	<datestamp>1264706640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>this is what anycast routing was invented for.  the root servers use it, why not secondaries?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>this is what anycast routing was invented for .
the root servers use it , why not secondaries ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this is what anycast routing was invented for.
the root servers use it, why not secondaries?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30941616</id>
	<title>Re:What DNS Is Not</title>
	<author>osu-neko</author>
	<datestamp>1264674660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem being, when Paul Vixie says, "DNS was designed to express facts, not policies," he's either asserting a particular policy should be forced on all administrators, or asserting that the "facts" are something other than what they are on today's internet.  Alas, this is far from the only example of Vixie attempting to enforce his policy decisions on others, while pretending it's some factual dispute and of course his idea of the way things should are the "facts" about the way it is.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem being , when Paul Vixie says , " DNS was designed to express facts , not policies , " he 's either asserting a particular policy should be forced on all administrators , or asserting that the " facts " are something other than what they are on today 's internet .
Alas , this is far from the only example of Vixie attempting to enforce his policy decisions on others , while pretending it 's some factual dispute and of course his idea of the way things should are the " facts " about the way it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem being, when Paul Vixie says, "DNS was designed to express facts, not policies," he's either asserting a particular policy should be forced on all administrators, or asserting that the "facts" are something other than what they are on today's internet.
Alas, this is far from the only example of Vixie attempting to enforce his policy decisions on others, while pretending it's some factual dispute and of course his idea of the way things should are the "facts" about the way it is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30939182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937720</id>
	<title>Hmmmmm...</title>
	<author>QuietLagoon</author>
	<datestamp>1264707180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just what is google's problem lately?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just what is google 's problem lately ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just what is google's problem lately?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30939010</id>
	<title>Re:Needed, not evil...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264710180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The proper way to solve this problem is with anycast-routing, not with DNS. DNS records are cached. That is not a problem if the records only depend on the resolver's location (because that's where the cache is), but making DNS records depend on the location of the resolver's client can only work without caching at the resolving server level. Any perceived speed boost from contacting geographically closer web servers would be lost by first having to go around all DNS caches to get a location-dependent response directly from the authoritative DNS server. Anycast routing does not negatively impact cache performance and can still connect users to geographically closer servers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The proper way to solve this problem is with anycast-routing , not with DNS .
DNS records are cached .
That is not a problem if the records only depend on the resolver 's location ( because that 's where the cache is ) , but making DNS records depend on the location of the resolver 's client can only work without caching at the resolving server level .
Any perceived speed boost from contacting geographically closer web servers would be lost by first having to go around all DNS caches to get a location-dependent response directly from the authoritative DNS server .
Anycast routing does not negatively impact cache performance and can still connect users to geographically closer servers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The proper way to solve this problem is with anycast-routing, not with DNS.
DNS records are cached.
That is not a problem if the records only depend on the resolver's location (because that's where the cache is), but making DNS records depend on the location of the resolver's client can only work without caching at the resolving server level.
Any perceived speed boost from contacting geographically closer web servers would be lost by first having to go around all DNS caches to get a location-dependent response directly from the authoritative DNS server.
Anycast routing does not negatively impact cache performance and can still connect users to geographically closer servers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937508</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30938624</id>
	<title>Re:Needed, not evil...</title>
	<author>drachenstern</author>
	<datestamp>1264709340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's the part that I don't get about what people are moaning about. You're obviously connecting to the host server at the end, it's inherent in the DNS request (unless you're doing a whois or something, but that's not the same is it?).</p><p>I think most people are getting jacked up about "could be used for tracking purposes".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's the part that I do n't get about what people are moaning about .
You 're obviously connecting to the host server at the end , it 's inherent in the DNS request ( unless you 're doing a whois or something , but that 's not the same is it ?
) .I think most people are getting jacked up about " could be used for tracking purposes " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's the part that I don't get about what people are moaning about.
You're obviously connecting to the host server at the end, it's inherent in the DNS request (unless you're doing a whois or something, but that's not the same is it?
).I think most people are getting jacked up about "could be used for tracking purposes".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937508</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30941010</id>
	<title>Re:Not as evil as suggested</title>
	<author>osu-neko</author>
	<datestamp>1264672800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes.  This would be using DNS to give you the best IP address to connect to if you want to browse a particular site.  DNS shouldn't be used to associate a name with an IP address unless it's done randomly...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/sarcasm</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes .
This would be using DNS to give you the best IP address to connect to if you want to browse a particular site .
DNS should n't be used to associate a name with an IP address unless it 's done randomly... /sarcasm</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes.
This would be using DNS to give you the best IP address to connect to if you want to browse a particular site.
DNS shouldn't be used to associate a name with an IP address unless it's done randomly... /sarcasm</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30939874</id>
	<title>Fantastic</title>
	<author>RabidMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1264669740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We've been running into this wall for a while, and let me tell you, the workaround is the most disgusting mess imaginable.  Trying to manage views/geolocation when everything is hidden behind a caching server is horrible.  There is no car analogy.</p><p>Sure, this might give google more information about you, but frankly, they already have it if you're querying their servers (directly).  Where this benefits them, and other content players, is when they aren't the default DNS server.  This allows them to know that you're coming from say, your city, as opposed to the city where your ISPs DNS server is.  I would imagine for huge ISPs in the states, their DNS infrastructure is probably, at best, regionalized (east, central, west?).  This would allow google/ms/anyone to get a much better idea as to where you are actually coming from, to provide you with much better content.  As well, it makes managing DNS much easier.</p><p>Two thumbs up for this.</p><p>Next up - a DNS management protocol (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-name-server-management-reqs-03)...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 've been running into this wall for a while , and let me tell you , the workaround is the most disgusting mess imaginable .
Trying to manage views/geolocation when everything is hidden behind a caching server is horrible .
There is no car analogy.Sure , this might give google more information about you , but frankly , they already have it if you 're querying their servers ( directly ) .
Where this benefits them , and other content players , is when they are n't the default DNS server .
This allows them to know that you 're coming from say , your city , as opposed to the city where your ISPs DNS server is .
I would imagine for huge ISPs in the states , their DNS infrastructure is probably , at best , regionalized ( east , central , west ? ) .
This would allow google/ms/anyone to get a much better idea as to where you are actually coming from , to provide you with much better content .
As well , it makes managing DNS much easier.Two thumbs up for this.Next up - a DNS management protocol ( http : //tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-name-server-management-reqs-03 ) .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We've been running into this wall for a while, and let me tell you, the workaround is the most disgusting mess imaginable.
Trying to manage views/geolocation when everything is hidden behind a caching server is horrible.
There is no car analogy.Sure, this might give google more information about you, but frankly, they already have it if you're querying their servers (directly).
Where this benefits them, and other content players, is when they aren't the default DNS server.
This allows them to know that you're coming from say, your city, as opposed to the city where your ISPs DNS server is.
I would imagine for huge ISPs in the states, their DNS infrastructure is probably, at best, regionalized (east, central, west?).
This would allow google/ms/anyone to get a much better idea as to where you are actually coming from, to provide you with much better content.
As well, it makes managing DNS much easier.Two thumbs up for this.Next up - a DNS management protocol (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-name-server-management-reqs-03)...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30945234</id>
	<title>Google DNS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264694880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google: Hey I decided to create a DNS service, ditch your ISPs DNS and use mine.</p><p>Me: Why?</p><p>Google: Cause then we can find out exactly what you are browsing for and when. We can even correlate your DNS behaviour with our search results. This way we can even take an educated guess at what other search engines are doing.</p><p>Me: Sweet, but by pointing at the Google DNS, won't I break stuff like location awareness.</p><p>Google: Yep, thats why we want to change the way DNS works.</p><p>Me: So now every DNS client needs to be changed so that Google can get better search results, That doesnt sound evil at all!</p><p>Google: Exactly</p><p>Google: Next we will get DNS servers to forward their logs to www.google.com/dnsanalytics</p><p>Me: Why?</p><p>Google: Just in case users dont use the Google DNS, then we can still get all the data that we need, the DNS owners will give it to us.</p><p>Me: Sweet, finally I will get some targeted ads.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google : Hey I decided to create a DNS service , ditch your ISPs DNS and use mine.Me : Why ? Google : Cause then we can find out exactly what you are browsing for and when .
We can even correlate your DNS behaviour with our search results .
This way we can even take an educated guess at what other search engines are doing.Me : Sweet , but by pointing at the Google DNS , wo n't I break stuff like location awareness.Google : Yep , thats why we want to change the way DNS works.Me : So now every DNS client needs to be changed so that Google can get better search results , That doesnt sound evil at all ! Google : ExactlyGoogle : Next we will get DNS servers to forward their logs to www.google.com/dnsanalyticsMe : Why ? Google : Just in case users dont use the Google DNS , then we can still get all the data that we need , the DNS owners will give it to us.Me : Sweet , finally I will get some targeted ads .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google: Hey I decided to create a DNS service, ditch your ISPs DNS and use mine.Me: Why?Google: Cause then we can find out exactly what you are browsing for and when.
We can even correlate your DNS behaviour with our search results.
This way we can even take an educated guess at what other search engines are doing.Me: Sweet, but by pointing at the Google DNS, won't I break stuff like location awareness.Google: Yep, thats why we want to change the way DNS works.Me: So now every DNS client needs to be changed so that Google can get better search results, That doesnt sound evil at all!Google: ExactlyGoogle: Next we will get DNS servers to forward their logs to www.google.com/dnsanalyticsMe: Why?Google: Just in case users dont use the Google DNS, then we can still get all the data that we need, the DNS owners will give it to us.Me: Sweet, finally I will get some targeted ads.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30938296</id>
	<title>Re:This is important!</title>
	<author>ubrgeek</author>
	<datestamp>1264708440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why can't they just use the IP address of the DNS server and assume (I know, I know. "Assume") the user is somewhat geographically close to the server and feed content from the appropriate source closest to that server? Does something like Comcast use only a couple of DNS servers or do the requests come from regional hubs? (Sorry if my question has an obvious answer; I'm really not overly DNS-savy.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why ca n't they just use the IP address of the DNS server and assume ( I know , I know .
" Assume " ) the user is somewhat geographically close to the server and feed content from the appropriate source closest to that server ?
Does something like Comcast use only a couple of DNS servers or do the requests come from regional hubs ?
( Sorry if my question has an obvious answer ; I 'm really not overly DNS-savy .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why can't they just use the IP address of the DNS server and assume (I know, I know.
"Assume") the user is somewhat geographically close to the server and feed content from the appropriate source closest to that server?
Does something like Comcast use only a couple of DNS servers or do the requests come from regional hubs?
(Sorry if my question has an obvious answer; I'm really not overly DNS-savy.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937338</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30945538</id>
	<title>Re:Wow, Slashdot editors hate Google</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1264698720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, if this was Southpark you'd just say<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>TIMMAH!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , if this was Southpark you 'd just say ...TIMMAH !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, if this was Southpark you'd just say ...TIMMAH!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937150</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30938722</id>
	<title>Google is further away than your ISP</title>
	<author>Sloppy</author>
	<datestamp>1264709520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The way things currently work, really makes sense for most people.  Your ISP is a single hop away and you want the authorities to talk to <em>it</em> (not you) so that it can cache the result.  And it's ok to have that extra traffic between the recursive resolver and you, because it's not a long ride.</p><p>But what Google is asking for <em>also</em> makes sense -- <em>if</em> you're using a far-away recursive resolver.</p><p>And the very premise of that is stupid.  Why the fuck would anyone want to use Google for DNS, instead of something closer (e.g. either their ISP or even a box on their very own LAN)?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The way things currently work , really makes sense for most people .
Your ISP is a single hop away and you want the authorities to talk to it ( not you ) so that it can cache the result .
And it 's ok to have that extra traffic between the recursive resolver and you , because it 's not a long ride.But what Google is asking for also makes sense -- if you 're using a far-away recursive resolver.And the very premise of that is stupid .
Why the fuck would anyone want to use Google for DNS , instead of something closer ( e.g .
either their ISP or even a box on their very own LAN ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The way things currently work, really makes sense for most people.
Your ISP is a single hop away and you want the authorities to talk to it (not you) so that it can cache the result.
And it's ok to have that extra traffic between the recursive resolver and you, because it's not a long ride.But what Google is asking for also makes sense -- if you're using a far-away recursive resolver.And the very premise of that is stupid.
Why the fuck would anyone want to use Google for DNS, instead of something closer (e.g.
either their ISP or even a box on their very own LAN)?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937294</id>
	<title>Re:Do no evil, my ass.</title>
	<author>2obvious4u</author>
	<datestamp>1264706220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>IF governments couldn't get Big Brother information from Corporations, then I wouldn't have a problem with data mining.  What is scary about Big Brother is a government using the information to use the force of the state to put people in jail.  A corporation uses that information to provide products that consumers want.  The government uses that information to control the population through force.<br>
<br>
If Google could be trusted to never hand that information over to the government, then I would have no problem with them data mining as much as they want.<br>
<br>
Those were really big IF's since we all know the government can easily get the information from Google, therefore we don't want them to have it.<br>
<br>
There are lots of value add services that can be done because of data mining that consumers and the population want, they just ignore the consequences of the government also having access to the same data.</htmltext>
<tokenext>IF governments could n't get Big Brother information from Corporations , then I would n't have a problem with data mining .
What is scary about Big Brother is a government using the information to use the force of the state to put people in jail .
A corporation uses that information to provide products that consumers want .
The government uses that information to control the population through force .
If Google could be trusted to never hand that information over to the government , then I would have no problem with them data mining as much as they want .
Those were really big IF 's since we all know the government can easily get the information from Google , therefore we do n't want them to have it .
There are lots of value add services that can be done because of data mining that consumers and the population want , they just ignore the consequences of the government also having access to the same data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IF governments couldn't get Big Brother information from Corporations, then I wouldn't have a problem with data mining.
What is scary about Big Brother is a government using the information to use the force of the state to put people in jail.
A corporation uses that information to provide products that consumers want.
The government uses that information to control the population through force.
If Google could be trusted to never hand that information over to the government, then I would have no problem with them data mining as much as they want.
Those were really big IF's since we all know the government can easily get the information from Google, therefore we don't want them to have it.
There are lots of value add services that can be done because of data mining that consumers and the population want, they just ignore the consequences of the government also having access to the same data.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30942330</id>
	<title>Re:How's that evil?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264677060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There is no way to exploit that.</p></div><p>Famous last words...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no way to exploit that.Famous last words.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no way to exploit that.Famous last words...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30945528</id>
	<title>Re:Do no evil, my ass.</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1264698600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Alternatively they could introduce a different extension that gave the client an option of determine which IP to connect to based on location.</p><p>The information can flow both ways if we're going to change the protocol.  Instead of giving information to Google, Google could give the information to you (or your upstream server).</p><p>Probably less efficient, but theres no real specific reason it has to go either particular reason.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Alternatively they could introduce a different extension that gave the client an option of determine which IP to connect to based on location.The information can flow both ways if we 're going to change the protocol .
Instead of giving information to Google , Google could give the information to you ( or your upstream server ) .Probably less efficient , but theres no real specific reason it has to go either particular reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Alternatively they could introduce a different extension that gave the client an option of determine which IP to connect to based on location.The information can flow both ways if we're going to change the protocol.
Instead of giving information to Google, Google could give the information to you (or your upstream server).Probably less efficient, but theres no real specific reason it has to go either particular reason.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30939154</id>
	<title>Re:Do no evil, eh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264710600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Do no evil, eh?</i> </p><p>Their motto is, "Don't be evil", you stupid fuck.</p><p>If you can't tell the difference between that and the words from the Hippocratic oath, cut off your goddamned hands so people won't know what a pompous dumbass you are.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do no evil , eh ?
Their motto is , " Do n't be evil " , you stupid fuck.If you ca n't tell the difference between that and the words from the Hippocratic oath , cut off your goddamned hands so people wo n't know what a pompous dumbass you are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do no evil, eh?
Their motto is, "Don't be evil", you stupid fuck.If you can't tell the difference between that and the words from the Hippocratic oath, cut off your goddamned hands so people won't know what a pompous dumbass you are.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30936986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30940084</id>
	<title>Re:Wow, Slashdot editors hate Google</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1264670280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Its a part of a convoluted campaign to get people to rtfa on occasion.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Its a part of a convoluted campaign to get people to rtfa on occasion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its a part of a convoluted campaign to get people to rtfa on occasion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937150</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30947188</id>
	<title>Re:Google, you are wrong here.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264759740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Following the OS concept of "Less power"...</p></div></blockquote><p>It's called the "end-to-end principle" in networking.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Following the OS concept of " Less power " ...It 's called the " end-to-end principle " in networking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Following the OS concept of "Less power"...It's called the "end-to-end principle" in networking.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937438</id>
	<title>What about IPv6</title>
	<author>wadey</author>
	<datestamp>1264706580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seems IPv6 will be in use soon; so why tinker with DNS requests on IPv4 ?</p><p>Also, does anybody know how GEO locating an IP will be done on IPv6 (at least down to country level) ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems IPv6 will be in use soon ; so why tinker with DNS requests on IPv4 ? Also , does anybody know how GEO locating an IP will be done on IPv6 ( at least down to country level ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems IPv6 will be in use soon; so why tinker with DNS requests on IPv4 ?Also, does anybody know how GEO locating an IP will be done on IPv6 (at least down to country level) ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937820</id>
	<title>If it ain't broke...</title>
	<author>TheDarkener</author>
	<datestamp>1264707420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...don't fix it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...do n't fix it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...don't fix it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937364</id>
	<title>Google, you are wrong here.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264706400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Internet already work withouth the need to propagate this information. Following the OS concept of "Less power", the less information about you that is propagated, the less problems.</p><p><i>"By returning different addresses to requests coming from different places, DNS can be used to load balance traffic and send users to a nearby server. For example, if you look up www.google.com from a computer in New York, it may resolve to an IP address pointing to a server in New York City. If you look up www.google.com from the Netherlands, the result could be an IP address pointing to a server in the Netherlands. Sending you to a nearby server improves speed, latency, and network utilization."</i></p><p>It seems this balancing is already possible withouth the need to propagate that data. I choose here safety/privacy, over a potential speed gain.  Also the risk is for everyone, but the gain is just for a few ones (the people that has lots of servers and need a balancing solution)... hence, is unfair.  My view of this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Internet already work withouth the need to propagate this information .
Following the OS concept of " Less power " , the less information about you that is propagated , the less problems .
" By returning different addresses to requests coming from different places , DNS can be used to load balance traffic and send users to a nearby server .
For example , if you look up www.google.com from a computer in New York , it may resolve to an IP address pointing to a server in New York City .
If you look up www.google.com from the Netherlands , the result could be an IP address pointing to a server in the Netherlands .
Sending you to a nearby server improves speed , latency , and network utilization .
" It seems this balancing is already possible withouth the need to propagate that data .
I choose here safety/privacy , over a potential speed gain .
Also the risk is for everyone , but the gain is just for a few ones ( the people that has lots of servers and need a balancing solution ) ... hence , is unfair .
My view of this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Internet already work withouth the need to propagate this information.
Following the OS concept of "Less power", the less information about you that is propagated, the less problems.
"By returning different addresses to requests coming from different places, DNS can be used to load balance traffic and send users to a nearby server.
For example, if you look up www.google.com from a computer in New York, it may resolve to an IP address pointing to a server in New York City.
If you look up www.google.com from the Netherlands, the result could be an IP address pointing to a server in the Netherlands.
Sending you to a nearby server improves speed, latency, and network utilization.
"It seems this balancing is already possible withouth the need to propagate that data.
I choose here safety/privacy, over a potential speed gain.
Also the risk is for everyone, but the gain is just for a few ones (the people that has lots of servers and need a balancing solution)... hence, is unfair.
My view of this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937878</id>
	<title>Ups and Downs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264707540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I like it.  I don't know what the aggregate increase in efficiency across the net would be, but I'm betting if Google is suggesting it, it could be significant.  <b>While there are some potential abuses, they're really no different than what can already be done at the router/server level currently.</b></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I like it .
I do n't know what the aggregate increase in efficiency across the net would be , but I 'm betting if Google is suggesting it , it could be significant .
While there are some potential abuses , they 're really no different than what can already be done at the router/server level currently .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like it.
I don't know what the aggregate increase in efficiency across the net would be, but I'm betting if Google is suggesting it, it could be significant.
While there are some potential abuses, they're really no different than what can already be done at the router/server level currently.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937926</id>
	<title>FiZr5t</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264707720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">when IDC Recently To the politicaaly Why not? It's quick as it is licensed</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>when IDC Recently To the politicaaly Why not ?
It 's quick as it is licensed [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>when IDC Recently To the politicaaly Why not?
It's quick as it is licensed [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30936986</id>
	<title>Do no evil, eh?</title>
	<author>Rossman</author>
	<datestamp>1264705500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah right.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah right.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30943232</id>
	<title>Isn't Google backing out of China?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264680720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm pretty sure it's because they don't like censoring.  They are publicly willing to sacrifice millions of dollars in revenue for an ideal.  Yet, all you knuckle heads seem to be bickering about how evil Google is? Yikes.  They've done nothing but push the internet forward at a pace much more rapid than anyone else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm pretty sure it 's because they do n't like censoring .
They are publicly willing to sacrifice millions of dollars in revenue for an ideal .
Yet , all you knuckle heads seem to be bickering about how evil Google is ?
Yikes. They 've done nothing but push the internet forward at a pace much more rapid than anyone else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm pretty sure it's because they don't like censoring.
They are publicly willing to sacrifice millions of dollars in revenue for an ideal.
Yet, all you knuckle heads seem to be bickering about how evil Google is?
Yikes.  They've done nothing but push the internet forward at a pace much more rapid than anyone else.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30945822</id>
	<title>Re:Not as evil as suggested</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264701960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's not the point. The power bestowed by this technology *will* be used to identify you... eventually. It's 3 octets now. How about 5 years from now after Patriot Act II is passed?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's not the point .
The power bestowed by this technology * will * be used to identify you... eventually. It 's 3 octets now .
How about 5 years from now after Patriot Act II is passed ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's not the point.
The power bestowed by this technology *will* be used to identify you... eventually. It's 3 octets now.
How about 5 years from now after Patriot Act II is passed?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30938688</id>
	<title>Re:Not as evil as suggested</title>
	<author>D Ninja</author>
	<datestamp>1264709460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thank you!  Came in here to say this.  Did the submitter even read the article?</p><p>And for those interested:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Our proposed DNS protocol extension lets recursive DNS resolvers include part of your IP address in the request sent to authoritative nameservers. Only the first three octets, or top 24 bits, are sent providing enough information to the authoritative nameserver to determine your network location, without affecting your privacy.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank you !
Came in here to say this .
Did the submitter even read the article ? And for those interested : Our proposed DNS protocol extension lets recursive DNS resolvers include part of your IP address in the request sent to authoritative nameservers .
Only the first three octets , or top 24 bits , are sent providing enough information to the authoritative nameserver to determine your network location , without affecting your privacy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank you!
Came in here to say this.
Did the submitter even read the article?And for those interested:Our proposed DNS protocol extension lets recursive DNS resolvers include part of your IP address in the request sent to authoritative nameservers.
Only the first three octets, or top 24 bits, are sent providing enough information to the authoritative nameserver to determine your network location, without affecting your privacy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30940466</id>
	<title>Re:What about IPv6</title>
	<author>bobbomo</author>
	<datestamp>1264671300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"For IPv6, there is no corresponding number that everyone agrees to, but the authors of the draft suggest truncating IPv6 addresses as well."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" For IPv6 , there is no corresponding number that everyone agrees to , but the authors of the draft suggest truncating IPv6 addresses as well .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"For IPv6, there is no corresponding number that everyone agrees to, but the authors of the draft suggest truncating IPv6 addresses as well.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937438</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937624</id>
	<title>Might be handy for global traffic distribution</title>
	<author>toejam13</author>
	<datestamp>1264707000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are several products currently on the market that allow you to perform geographic load distribution via DNS.  These products look at your LDNS server's address and either attempt to triangulate using a reverse DNS lookup to the LDNS server, calculating number of hops and/or round-trip times to that LDNS from each of your sites, or they use static IP range tables broken down by region.  The assumption is that a client in somewhat close proximity to their LDNS server.
<br> <br>
The problem with these methods is that some very large ISPs may use only a couple of LDNS servers for an entire continent.  In the case of third party DNS services, it grows to being a couple of LDNS servers for the entire planet.  So there is no geographic unity between client and LDNS server.
<br> <br>
This proposal helps a bit, but unless it includes a method where a LDNS server can be told that a DNS query's response is only good for that client's<nobr> <wbr></nobr><b>/24</b> subnet (or any varying mask bitlength), you'll still end up with clients clobbering each other with these geographic load distribution products unless you set the TTL to 1 second.  That work around has the nasty side effect of increasing your DNS load by an exponential factor, which isn't good either.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are several products currently on the market that allow you to perform geographic load distribution via DNS .
These products look at your LDNS server 's address and either attempt to triangulate using a reverse DNS lookup to the LDNS server , calculating number of hops and/or round-trip times to that LDNS from each of your sites , or they use static IP range tables broken down by region .
The assumption is that a client in somewhat close proximity to their LDNS server .
The problem with these methods is that some very large ISPs may use only a couple of LDNS servers for an entire continent .
In the case of third party DNS services , it grows to being a couple of LDNS servers for the entire planet .
So there is no geographic unity between client and LDNS server .
This proposal helps a bit , but unless it includes a method where a LDNS server can be told that a DNS query 's response is only good for that client 's /24 subnet ( or any varying mask bitlength ) , you 'll still end up with clients clobbering each other with these geographic load distribution products unless you set the TTL to 1 second .
That work around has the nasty side effect of increasing your DNS load by an exponential factor , which is n't good either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are several products currently on the market that allow you to perform geographic load distribution via DNS.
These products look at your LDNS server's address and either attempt to triangulate using a reverse DNS lookup to the LDNS server, calculating number of hops and/or round-trip times to that LDNS from each of your sites, or they use static IP range tables broken down by region.
The assumption is that a client in somewhat close proximity to their LDNS server.
The problem with these methods is that some very large ISPs may use only a couple of LDNS servers for an entire continent.
In the case of third party DNS services, it grows to being a couple of LDNS servers for the entire planet.
So there is no geographic unity between client and LDNS server.
This proposal helps a bit, but unless it includes a method where a LDNS server can be told that a DNS query's response is only good for that client's /24 subnet (or any varying mask bitlength), you'll still end up with clients clobbering each other with these geographic load distribution products unless you set the TTL to 1 second.
That work around has the nasty side effect of increasing your DNS load by an exponential factor, which isn't good either.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30940756</id>
	<title>To quote Paul Vixie, inventor of DNS:</title>
	<author>tlambert</author>
	<datestamp>1264672080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To: DNSEXT (DNS Extension Working Group, Internet Engineering Task Force)<br>From: Paul Vixie<br>Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010</p><p>"I don't think that's a general enough solution to be worth standardizing.<br>please investigate the larger context of client identity, beyond the needs<br>of CDN's."</p><p>I also agree with his later statement in the same thread:</p><p>"it may be too dangerous in any form but that's a separate issue."</p><p>-- Terry</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To : DNSEXT ( DNS Extension Working Group , Internet Engineering Task Force ) From : Paul VixieDate : Thu , 28 Jan 2010 " I do n't think that 's a general enough solution to be worth standardizing.please investigate the larger context of client identity , beyond the needsof CDN 's .
" I also agree with his later statement in the same thread : " it may be too dangerous in any form but that 's a separate issue .
" -- Terry</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To: DNSEXT (DNS Extension Working Group, Internet Engineering Task Force)From: Paul VixieDate: Thu, 28 Jan 2010"I don't think that's a general enough solution to be worth standardizing.please investigate the larger context of client identity, beyond the needsof CDN's.
"I also agree with his later statement in the same thread:"it may be too dangerous in any form but that's a separate issue.
"-- Terry</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937324</id>
	<title>How's that evil?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264706280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What a load of crap. There is no way to exploit that. If a someone wants to block certain IP ranges, it is much more efficient to do so at the HTTP (or whatever the protocol in use is) level, rather than in DNS.</p><p>Even if this gets introduced, every DNS server will continue supporting the old (without 'IP forwarding') way of doing things, so it's easy enough to pick a DNS server which doesn't forward your IP. Everything will work just as it does now (you won't have the potential speed advantage you might get with the new system though).</p><p>Whoever wrote TFS doesn't know the first thing about how networks work. Looking at what just happened in China, do you think that Google of all companies really wants to  endanger your privacy?</p><p>The reason why Google offers public DNS servers and why they came up with this is because they want to make the internet faster for everyone. And they're doing it in an open, backwards-compatible way.</p><p>This is a good idea and should be implemented.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What a load of crap .
There is no way to exploit that .
If a someone wants to block certain IP ranges , it is much more efficient to do so at the HTTP ( or whatever the protocol in use is ) level , rather than in DNS.Even if this gets introduced , every DNS server will continue supporting the old ( without 'IP forwarding ' ) way of doing things , so it 's easy enough to pick a DNS server which does n't forward your IP .
Everything will work just as it does now ( you wo n't have the potential speed advantage you might get with the new system though ) .Whoever wrote TFS does n't know the first thing about how networks work .
Looking at what just happened in China , do you think that Google of all companies really wants to endanger your privacy ? The reason why Google offers public DNS servers and why they came up with this is because they want to make the internet faster for everyone .
And they 're doing it in an open , backwards-compatible way.This is a good idea and should be implemented .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What a load of crap.
There is no way to exploit that.
If a someone wants to block certain IP ranges, it is much more efficient to do so at the HTTP (or whatever the protocol in use is) level, rather than in DNS.Even if this gets introduced, every DNS server will continue supporting the old (without 'IP forwarding') way of doing things, so it's easy enough to pick a DNS server which doesn't forward your IP.
Everything will work just as it does now (you won't have the potential speed advantage you might get with the new system though).Whoever wrote TFS doesn't know the first thing about how networks work.
Looking at what just happened in China, do you think that Google of all companies really wants to  endanger your privacy?The reason why Google offers public DNS servers and why they came up with this is because they want to make the internet faster for everyone.
And they're doing it in an open, backwards-compatible way.This is a good idea and should be implemented.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937338</id>
	<title>This is important!</title>
	<author>HaeMaker</author>
	<datestamp>1264706340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is extraordinarily important for efficient operation of the internet.  If people want to block you, they can, DNS or no DNS.  However, for global load balancing, this is vital.  You want to connect to a server near you, not near your DNS server.</p><p>This will not stop the proper function of proxies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is extraordinarily important for efficient operation of the internet .
If people want to block you , they can , DNS or no DNS .
However , for global load balancing , this is vital .
You want to connect to a server near you , not near your DNS server.This will not stop the proper function of proxies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is extraordinarily important for efficient operation of the internet.
If people want to block you, they can, DNS or no DNS.
However, for global load balancing, this is vital.
You want to connect to a server near you, not near your DNS server.This will not stop the proper function of proxies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30938464</id>
	<title>Privacy and internet</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1264708920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While this don't identify you for a lot of reasons, there are some good points of using this. Hitting local caches/distribution network nodes/etc will make internet actually faster (a good percent of total bandwidth comes from places where this applies, and going to somewhat local resources unclogs international links). At least where i live where around 200 ms is the avg ping time with the rest of the world, but 30 or lower to local ones, accessing most of static resources local should make a difference.<br><br>And probably more important, dont forbids you to keep your privacy, old nameservers, or if you want, your own authoritative nameserver,will not send that information and you could use them</htmltext>
<tokenext>While this do n't identify you for a lot of reasons , there are some good points of using this .
Hitting local caches/distribution network nodes/etc will make internet actually faster ( a good percent of total bandwidth comes from places where this applies , and going to somewhat local resources unclogs international links ) .
At least where i live where around 200 ms is the avg ping time with the rest of the world , but 30 or lower to local ones , accessing most of static resources local should make a difference.And probably more important , dont forbids you to keep your privacy , old nameservers , or if you want , your own authoritative nameserver,will not send that information and you could use them</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While this don't identify you for a lot of reasons, there are some good points of using this.
Hitting local caches/distribution network nodes/etc will make internet actually faster (a good percent of total bandwidth comes from places where this applies, and going to somewhat local resources unclogs international links).
At least where i live where around 200 ms is the avg ping time with the rest of the world, but 30 or lower to local ones, accessing most of static resources local should make a difference.And probably more important, dont forbids you to keep your privacy, old nameservers, or if you want, your own authoritative nameserver,will not send that information and you could use them</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30943284</id>
	<title>Re:Google, you are wrong here.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264681080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>God.. the amount of ignorance on Slashdot is just staggering.</p><p>If you make a DNS request for the IP address(es) of a website's domain name, you are going to expose your exact IP address just 50-200 milliseconds later when you connect to the actual HTTP server. Take a fucking chill pill.. christ...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>God.. the amount of ignorance on Slashdot is just staggering.If you make a DNS request for the IP address ( es ) of a website 's domain name , you are going to expose your exact IP address just 50-200 milliseconds later when you connect to the actual HTTP server .
Take a fucking chill pill.. christ.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>God.. the amount of ignorance on Slashdot is just staggering.If you make a DNS request for the IP address(es) of a website's domain name, you are going to expose your exact IP address just 50-200 milliseconds later when you connect to the actual HTTP server.
Take a fucking chill pill.. christ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30939264</id>
	<title>Re:Wow, Slashdot editors hate Google</title>
	<author>symes</author>
	<datestamp>1264710900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The summary isn't even close to correct. What the hell is going on with Slashdot these days?</p></div><p>Hormonal adolescence. To the new youth Google is the old guard. You mark my words, before long we'll be having deep and meaningful conversations about anarchy and the meaning of existance.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The summary is n't even close to correct .
What the hell is going on with Slashdot these days ? Hormonal adolescence .
To the new youth Google is the old guard .
You mark my words , before long we 'll be having deep and meaningful conversations about anarchy and the meaning of existance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The summary isn't even close to correct.
What the hell is going on with Slashdot these days?Hormonal adolescence.
To the new youth Google is the old guard.
You mark my words, before long we'll be having deep and meaningful conversations about anarchy and the meaning of existance.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937150</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30940932</id>
	<title>Re:Wow, Slashdot editors hate Google</title>
	<author>Denny\_za</author>
	<datestamp>1264672560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Digg overflow.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Digg overflow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Digg overflow.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937150</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937300</id>
	<title>Re:Do no evil, my ass.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264706220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dude I was about to write a post with exactly the same title. Google is turning evil.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dude I was about to write a post with exactly the same title .
Google is turning evil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dude I was about to write a post with exactly the same title.
Google is turning evil.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937386</id>
	<title>A real possibility</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264706460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You can also send any user to a "this page has been hacked by XXXX's cyber army" server, thus making psyops and propaganda easier.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can also send any user to a " this page has been hacked by XXXX 's cyber army " server , thus making psyops and propaganda easier .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can also send any user to a "this page has been hacked by XXXX's cyber army" server, thus making psyops and propaganda easier.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30938794</id>
	<title>Countering censorship with more censorship</title>
	<author>BhaKi</author>
	<datestamp>1264709640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Or it would send a user from Iran or Libya to a 'domain name doesn't exist' server.</p></div><p>And who would be the victims? The same people whom Google is claiming to be fighting for.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or it would send a user from Iran or Libya to a 'domain name does n't exist ' server.And who would be the victims ?
The same people whom Google is claiming to be fighting for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or it would send a user from Iran or Libya to a 'domain name doesn't exist' server.And who would be the victims?
The same people whom Google is claiming to be fighting for.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30947444</id>
	<title>pro Google bias on slashdot</title>
	<author>12357bd</author>
	<datestamp>1264763400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>262 comments</p><p>msgs modded at 5 = 11: 10 are blatantly pro-Google, the other one = 5 Funny</p><p>The moderation system is geing vandalized by Google fan boys.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>262 commentsmsgs modded at 5 = 11 : 10 are blatantly pro-Google , the other one = 5 FunnyThe moderation system is geing vandalized by Google fan boys .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>262 commentsmsgs modded at 5 = 11: 10 are blatantly pro-Google, the other one = 5 FunnyThe moderation system is geing vandalized by Google fan boys.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30942258</id>
	<title>Re:Google, you are wrong here.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264676760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who the hell modded this dumbass up?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who the hell modded this dumbass up ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who the hell modded this dumbass up?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30944314</id>
	<title>Re:Google, you are wrong here.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264687440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>hence, is unfair. My view of this.</p></div><p>No, unfair is the fact if you don't want to use the new feature, you can use the method called inaction and not actually put in the work and effort to change to the new system.</p><p>Unfair is keeping those of us that want the option, from being able to choose that option, simply because you feel that you willingly and knowingly having to switch to the new option is somehow the meaning of 'mandatory'</p><p>The old saying goes here.  If you don't like cherry coke, then don't be stupid and buy a bunch of cherry coke.<br>But just because you don't like it, doesn't mean everyone in the world is like you and also doesn't like it.<br>Yet here you are wanting stores to not sell cherry coke because it will be there for people to choose to buy.</p><p>* By the way, cherry coke is an analogy, not the subject of topic.  (I can't believe such things need pointed out here)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>hence , is unfair .
My view of this.No , unfair is the fact if you do n't want to use the new feature , you can use the method called inaction and not actually put in the work and effort to change to the new system.Unfair is keeping those of us that want the option , from being able to choose that option , simply because you feel that you willingly and knowingly having to switch to the new option is somehow the meaning of 'mandatory'The old saying goes here .
If you do n't like cherry coke , then do n't be stupid and buy a bunch of cherry coke.But just because you do n't like it , does n't mean everyone in the world is like you and also does n't like it.Yet here you are wanting stores to not sell cherry coke because it will be there for people to choose to buy .
* By the way , cherry coke is an analogy , not the subject of topic .
( I ca n't believe such things need pointed out here )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>hence, is unfair.
My view of this.No, unfair is the fact if you don't want to use the new feature, you can use the method called inaction and not actually put in the work and effort to change to the new system.Unfair is keeping those of us that want the option, from being able to choose that option, simply because you feel that you willingly and knowingly having to switch to the new option is somehow the meaning of 'mandatory'The old saying goes here.
If you don't like cherry coke, then don't be stupid and buy a bunch of cherry coke.But just because you don't like it, doesn't mean everyone in the world is like you and also doesn't like it.Yet here you are wanting stores to not sell cherry coke because it will be there for people to choose to buy.
* By the way, cherry coke is an analogy, not the subject of topic.
(I can't believe such things need pointed out here)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30941510</id>
	<title>Re:Google is further away than your ISP</title>
	<author>osu-neko</author>
	<datestamp>1264674300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why the fuck would anyone want to use Google for DNS, instead of something closer (e.g. either their ISP or even a box on their very own LAN)?</p></div><p>Sadly, Google's DNS <i>is</i> something closer than the DNS server my ISP tells me to use if I don't want them hijacking misses.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why the fuck would anyone want to use Google for DNS , instead of something closer ( e.g .
either their ISP or even a box on their very own LAN ) ? Sadly , Google 's DNS is something closer than the DNS server my ISP tells me to use if I do n't want them hijacking misses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why the fuck would anyone want to use Google for DNS, instead of something closer (e.g.
either their ISP or even a box on their very own LAN)?Sadly, Google's DNS is something closer than the DNS server my ISP tells me to use if I don't want them hijacking misses.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30938722</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30938180</id>
	<title>Re:Google, you are wrong here.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264708260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Internet already work withouth the need to propagate this information. Following the OS concept of "Less power", the less information about you that is propagated, the less problems.</p></div><p>
If Google wants to do it properly, they should register into DNS all of their servers, with some geographical naming scheme. If I am in San Jose and my computer is configured as such, then the resolver should first try san-jose.california.us.www.google.com before it tries www.google.com. If the lookup for san-jose.california.us.www.google.com fails, then I know that there is no server for that area, so the resolver can try something more generic.

</p><p>
san-jose.california.us.www.google.com<br>
california.us.www.google.com<br>
us.www.google.com<br>
www.google.com

</p><p>
A simple update to the resolver libraries on the client side would add support for this, and the transition can be made incrementally on both the DNS clients and the DNS servers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Internet already work withouth the need to propagate this information .
Following the OS concept of " Less power " , the less information about you that is propagated , the less problems .
If Google wants to do it properly , they should register into DNS all of their servers , with some geographical naming scheme .
If I am in San Jose and my computer is configured as such , then the resolver should first try san-jose.california.us.www.google.com before it tries www.google.com .
If the lookup for san-jose.california.us.www.google.com fails , then I know that there is no server for that area , so the resolver can try something more generic .
san-jose.california.us.www.google.com california.us.www.google.com us.www.google.com www.google.com A simple update to the resolver libraries on the client side would add support for this , and the transition can be made incrementally on both the DNS clients and the DNS servers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Internet already work withouth the need to propagate this information.
Following the OS concept of "Less power", the less information about you that is propagated, the less problems.
If Google wants to do it properly, they should register into DNS all of their servers, with some geographical naming scheme.
If I am in San Jose and my computer is configured as such, then the resolver should first try san-jose.california.us.www.google.com before it tries www.google.com.
If the lookup for san-jose.california.us.www.google.com fails, then I know that there is no server for that area, so the resolver can try something more generic.
san-jose.california.us.www.google.com
california.us.www.google.com
us.www.google.com
www.google.com


A simple update to the resolver libraries on the client side would add support for this, and the transition can be made incrementally on both the DNS clients and the DNS servers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937058</id>
	<title>Do no evil, my ass.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264705740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google just can't seem to go Big Brother soon enough.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google just ca n't seem to go Big Brother soon enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google just can't seem to go Big Brother soon enough.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937936</id>
	<title>Re:Do no evil, my ass.</title>
	<author>mother\_reincarnated</author>
	<datestamp>1264707720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh because they're not going to get all four octets a fraction of a second later when you CONNECT TO THEIR SERVER?</p><p>Critical thinking people...  This would actually let people not use their ISP provided LDNS' without getting asstastic performance from every big site out there!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh because they 're not going to get all four octets a fraction of a second later when you CONNECT TO THEIR SERVER ? Critical thinking people... This would actually let people not use their ISP provided LDNS ' without getting asstastic performance from every big site out there !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh because they're not going to get all four octets a fraction of a second later when you CONNECT TO THEIR SERVER?Critical thinking people...  This would actually let people not use their ISP provided LDNS' without getting asstastic performance from every big site out there!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30938220</id>
	<title>Re:Do no evil, eh?</title>
	<author>badpazzword</author>
	<datestamp>1264708320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>From: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/01/google-wants-to-see-client-addresses-in-dns-queries.ars<br><br>"Google does have a plan to avoid the most egregious privacy concerns. "Recursive Resolvers are strongly encouraged to conceal part of the IP address of the user by truncating IPv4 addresses to 24 bits." Coincidentally, 24 bits maps directly to the minimum address block that can be carried in the Internet's routing system. Carrying any more than that won't help solve the network distance problem using the routing tables. For IPv6, there is no corresponding number that everyone agrees to, but the authors of the draft suggest truncating IPv6 addresses as well. Of course, the owner of the authoritative DNS server still gets to see the client's full IP address when the HTTP request for the actual content is sent."</htmltext>
<tokenext>From : http : //arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/01/google-wants-to-see-client-addresses-in-dns-queries.ars " Google does have a plan to avoid the most egregious privacy concerns .
" Recursive Resolvers are strongly encouraged to conceal part of the IP address of the user by truncating IPv4 addresses to 24 bits .
" Coincidentally , 24 bits maps directly to the minimum address block that can be carried in the Internet 's routing system .
Carrying any more than that wo n't help solve the network distance problem using the routing tables .
For IPv6 , there is no corresponding number that everyone agrees to , but the authors of the draft suggest truncating IPv6 addresses as well .
Of course , the owner of the authoritative DNS server still gets to see the client 's full IP address when the HTTP request for the actual content is sent .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/01/google-wants-to-see-client-addresses-in-dns-queries.ars"Google does have a plan to avoid the most egregious privacy concerns.
"Recursive Resolvers are strongly encouraged to conceal part of the IP address of the user by truncating IPv4 addresses to 24 bits.
" Coincidentally, 24 bits maps directly to the minimum address block that can be carried in the Internet's routing system.
Carrying any more than that won't help solve the network distance problem using the routing tables.
For IPv6, there is no corresponding number that everyone agrees to, but the authors of the draft suggest truncating IPv6 addresses as well.
Of course, the owner of the authoritative DNS server still gets to see the client's full IP address when the HTTP request for the actual content is sent.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30941634</id>
	<title>Re:Wow, Slashdot editors hate Google</title>
	<author>HeckRuler</author>
	<datestamp>1264674720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, what's up with that?<br>
Don't get me wrong, Google has MASSIVE potential for being evil. As does Microsoft. Which has actually been evil at various points in various ways. That potential comes with the power of brand recognition and coffers full of gold. But so far Google has not, in fact, been evil. There are probably some MS fanboys here who hate Google simply because it's threatening Microsoft. I imagine the same goes for the mac-boys, but I just can't see that happening too much. <br>And then there are the freedom fighters and the (open opponents?)  who distrust Google simply because it's a company. A corporation with shareholders.That's a fear I can understand, and more so each time the founders sell some stock, but you can't convict without a crime. It's good to be on guard, but this is ridiculous.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , what 's up with that ?
Do n't get me wrong , Google has MASSIVE potential for being evil .
As does Microsoft .
Which has actually been evil at various points in various ways .
That potential comes with the power of brand recognition and coffers full of gold .
But so far Google has not , in fact , been evil .
There are probably some MS fanboys here who hate Google simply because it 's threatening Microsoft .
I imagine the same goes for the mac-boys , but I just ca n't see that happening too much .
And then there are the freedom fighters and the ( open opponents ?
) who distrust Google simply because it 's a company .
A corporation with shareholders.That 's a fear I can understand , and more so each time the founders sell some stock , but you ca n't convict without a crime .
It 's good to be on guard , but this is ridiculous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, what's up with that?
Don't get me wrong, Google has MASSIVE potential for being evil.
As does Microsoft.
Which has actually been evil at various points in various ways.
That potential comes with the power of brand recognition and coffers full of gold.
But so far Google has not, in fact, been evil.
There are probably some MS fanboys here who hate Google simply because it's threatening Microsoft.
I imagine the same goes for the mac-boys, but I just can't see that happening too much.
And then there are the freedom fighters and the (open opponents?
)  who distrust Google simply because it's a company.
A corporation with shareholders.That's a fear I can understand, and more so each time the founders sell some stock, but you can't convict without a crime.
It's good to be on guard, but this is ridiculous.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937150</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30938570</id>
	<title>Re:Not as evil as suggested</title>
	<author>gparent</author>
	<datestamp>1264709220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>No, but given that only an additional 255 (or is it 254?) users besides you can be coming from that range, it's not like over time someone can't correlate this to you.</p></div><p>Could be 256.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , but given that only an additional 255 ( or is it 254 ?
) users besides you can be coming from that range , it 's not like over time someone ca n't correlate this to you.Could be 256 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, but given that only an additional 255 (or is it 254?
) users besides you can be coming from that range, it's not like over time someone can't correlate this to you.Could be 256.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30939834</id>
	<title>How About</title>
	<author>sexconker</author>
	<datestamp>1264669500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about no?<br>Z E R O  benefit to this bullshit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about no ? Z E R O benefit to this bullshit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about no?Z E R O  benefit to this bullshit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30943206</id>
	<title>Good ISP</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264680600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Shouldn't be this be left to your ISP?</p><p>Your ISP should provide you the resolver that results in the most efficient results for your connection. Your ISP can make these division much better than CDN's ever can because you ISP knows exactly which pipe goes where with what capacity.</p><p>My neighbor and me my be very near to each other but if we're on the border of some local loop divide we could be on totally different pipes of the same ISP, entering the net in different places. This is something my ISP knows and a CDN can only guess.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Should n't be this be left to your ISP ? Your ISP should provide you the resolver that results in the most efficient results for your connection .
Your ISP can make these division much better than CDN 's ever can because you ISP knows exactly which pipe goes where with what capacity.My neighbor and me my be very near to each other but if we 're on the border of some local loop divide we could be on totally different pipes of the same ISP , entering the net in different places .
This is something my ISP knows and a CDN can only guess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shouldn't be this be left to your ISP?Your ISP should provide you the resolver that results in the most efficient results for your connection.
Your ISP can make these division much better than CDN's ever can because you ISP knows exactly which pipe goes where with what capacity.My neighbor and me my be very near to each other but if we're on the border of some local loop divide we could be on totally different pipes of the same ISP, entering the net in different places.
This is something my ISP knows and a CDN can only guess.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30939540</id>
	<title>Re:Google, you are wrong here.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264711680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How is DNS handled in IPv6 again?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How is DNS handled in IPv6 again ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is DNS handled in IPv6 again?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30938036</id>
	<title>Obligatory</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264707900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You must be new here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You must be new here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You must be new here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937150</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937206</id>
	<title>Re:Do no evil, eh?</title>
	<author>suso</author>
	<datestamp>1264706040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My thoughts exactly.  Google already does anycast, so why exactly do they need this?  Obviously to generate logs of what DNS queries are being made by exactly who.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My thoughts exactly .
Google already does anycast , so why exactly do they need this ?
Obviously to generate logs of what DNS queries are being made by exactly who .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My thoughts exactly.
Google already does anycast, so why exactly do they need this?
Obviously to generate logs of what DNS queries are being made by exactly who.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30936986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30941568</id>
	<title>Enough privacy?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264674540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seen in the article:</p><ul> <li><i>Only the first three octets, or top 24 bits, are sent providing enough information to the authoritative nameserver to determine your network location, without affecting your privacy.</i></li> </ul><p>I have no problem with the first 24 bits if it's IPv6.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seen in the article : Only the first three octets , or top 24 bits , are sent providing enough information to the authoritative nameserver to determine your network location , without affecting your privacy .
I have no problem with the first 24 bits if it 's IPv6 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seen in the article: Only the first three octets, or top 24 bits, are sent providing enough information to the authoritative nameserver to determine your network location, without affecting your privacy.
I have no problem with the first 24 bits if it's IPv6.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30956560</id>
	<title>2 reasons for this...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264765920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When you use Google's public DNS, it means you will be able to connect to local CDNs (e.g. Akamai) as they will be able to tell where you are.</p><p>Oh and I'm sure the Goog wants to do some sort of evil advertising stuff, which is fine by me as they already pwn me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When you use Google 's public DNS , it means you will be able to connect to local CDNs ( e.g .
Akamai ) as they will be able to tell where you are.Oh and I 'm sure the Goog wants to do some sort of evil advertising stuff , which is fine by me as they already pwn me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you use Google's public DNS, it means you will be able to connect to local CDNs (e.g.
Akamai) as they will be able to tell where you are.Oh and I'm sure the Goog wants to do some sort of evil advertising stuff, which is fine by me as they already pwn me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30938740</id>
	<title>Re:Google, you are wrong here.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264709520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If that's how you prioritize then no driving/riding any vehicles (hypocrite?)... crawl back into the pen you chicken, you!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If that 's how you prioritize then no driving/riding any vehicles ( hypocrite ? ) .. .
crawl back into the pen you chicken , you !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If that's how you prioritize then no driving/riding any vehicles (hypocrite?)...
crawl back into the pen you chicken, you!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937458</id>
	<title>Re:Not as evil as suggested</title>
	<author>Vainglorious Coward</author>
	<datestamp>1264706640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>only the first 3 octects of the IP address are transmitted...could not be used to expose you</p></div></blockquote><p>Combining this with the information from the already quite pervasive tracking google does, I can't imagine that identifying your one-of-256-addresses is anything other than trivial.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>only the first 3 octects of the IP address are transmitted...could not be used to expose youCombining this with the information from the already quite pervasive tracking google does , I ca n't imagine that identifying your one-of-256-addresses is anything other than trivial .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>only the first 3 octects of the IP address are transmitted...could not be used to expose youCombining this with the information from the already quite pervasive tracking google does, I can't imagine that identifying your one-of-256-addresses is anything other than trivial.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937968</id>
	<title>Re:Wow, Slashdot editors hate Google</title>
	<author>Nimey</author>
	<datestamp>1264707780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These days?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These days ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These days?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937150</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937280</id>
	<title>I agree with this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264706160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After RTFM, I think it is a good idea. And sharing the first 3 octets of your IP shouldn't hurt your privacy, actually</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After RTFM , I think it is a good idea .
And sharing the first 3 octets of your IP should n't hurt your privacy , actually</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After RTFM, I think it is a good idea.
And sharing the first 3 octets of your IP shouldn't hurt your privacy, actually</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30938948</id>
	<title>Caching?  Hello?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264710060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So even if your resolver DNS already has the answer cached, it's supposed to transmit the request again so the authoritative server can see the requesting client's IP network, and possibly return a different answer.  Is it supposed to cache that, or not?  Is a resolver supposed to use this extension for all queries, or only load-balanced ones?  The draft includes no mechanism for specifying whether a particular query should or should not use the extension.  I assume then that a resolver patched with this extension would use it for all queries, which would completly negate the benefits of caching.</p><p>So Google thinks obsoleting the DNS cache will help speed up web browsing?  Really?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So even if your resolver DNS already has the answer cached , it 's supposed to transmit the request again so the authoritative server can see the requesting client 's IP network , and possibly return a different answer .
Is it supposed to cache that , or not ?
Is a resolver supposed to use this extension for all queries , or only load-balanced ones ?
The draft includes no mechanism for specifying whether a particular query should or should not use the extension .
I assume then that a resolver patched with this extension would use it for all queries , which would completly negate the benefits of caching.So Google thinks obsoleting the DNS cache will help speed up web browsing ?
Really ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So even if your resolver DNS already has the answer cached, it's supposed to transmit the request again so the authoritative server can see the requesting client's IP network, and possibly return a different answer.
Is it supposed to cache that, or not?
Is a resolver supposed to use this extension for all queries, or only load-balanced ones?
The draft includes no mechanism for specifying whether a particular query should or should not use the extension.
I assume then that a resolver patched with this extension would use it for all queries, which would completly negate the benefits of caching.So Google thinks obsoleting the DNS cache will help speed up web browsing?
Really?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30943724</id>
	<title>Re:Ups and Downs</title>
	<author>ekhben</author>
	<datestamp>1264683480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google wants Google Public DNS to not suck when doing Akamai requests, that's all.  No gains for anyone else, just increased query load and cache entries.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google wants Google Public DNS to not suck when doing Akamai requests , that 's all .
No gains for anyone else , just increased query load and cache entries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google wants Google Public DNS to not suck when doing Akamai requests, that's all.
No gains for anyone else, just increased query load and cache entries.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937944</id>
	<title>Marginal Good, Whole lot of Bad</title>
	<author>mpapet</author>
	<datestamp>1264707720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> The use of the word 'marginal' needs to be disambiguated too.  It means 'not of central importance.'</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The use of the word 'marginal ' needs to be disambiguated too .
It means 'not of central importance .
'</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The use of the word 'marginal' needs to be disambiguated too.
It means 'not of central importance.
'</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30940656</id>
	<title>For me, two problems...</title>
	<author>rickb928</author>
	<datestamp>1264671840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. Load-balancing doesn't belong in the DNS spec, and neither does location awareness.  If you want to handle me differently based on my location, do it after I've found you.  Tacking this onto DNS risks unexpected consequences beyond the political.</p><p>2. From the article:</p><p>"providing enough information to the authoritative nameserver to determine your network location, without affecting your privacy."</p><p>Um, maybe I consider my location private.  Would you mind asking me if I do first, ok?  Thanks.  And I do, so don't add this to DNS.</p><p>And if this isn't reason enough, refer to problem #1 above.</p><p>I get it. An idea to let DNS help you do something UNRELATED to DNS.  Don't</p><p>Where oh where is John Postel when you need him?  May his spirit move us away from this...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Load-balancing does n't belong in the DNS spec , and neither does location awareness .
If you want to handle me differently based on my location , do it after I 've found you .
Tacking this onto DNS risks unexpected consequences beyond the political.2 .
From the article : " providing enough information to the authoritative nameserver to determine your network location , without affecting your privacy .
" Um , maybe I consider my location private .
Would you mind asking me if I do first , ok ?
Thanks. And I do , so do n't add this to DNS.And if this is n't reason enough , refer to problem # 1 above.I get it .
An idea to let DNS help you do something UNRELATED to DNS .
Don'tWhere oh where is John Postel when you need him ?
May his spirit move us away from this.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Load-balancing doesn't belong in the DNS spec, and neither does location awareness.
If you want to handle me differently based on my location, do it after I've found you.
Tacking this onto DNS risks unexpected consequences beyond the political.2.
From the article:"providing enough information to the authoritative nameserver to determine your network location, without affecting your privacy.
"Um, maybe I consider my location private.
Would you mind asking me if I do first, ok?
Thanks.  And I do, so don't add this to DNS.And if this isn't reason enough, refer to problem #1 above.I get it.
An idea to let DNS help you do something UNRELATED to DNS.
Don'tWhere oh where is John Postel when you need him?
May his spirit move us away from this...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30942506</id>
	<title>Re:True face of google</title>
	<author>tyrione</author>
	<datestamp>1264677780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is horrible. This is so GOOG can monitor ALL of your web activity, all the time.</p><p>If you ever use Google, or see adwords anywhere, they already have your ip--all 4 octets.</p><p>With this DNS extension, they can see what sites buckets of people are visiting when they're NOT on google sites or where goog ads are being served. It's not resolved down to the user, but it's bucketed, and over time, they can guess what's happening.</p><p>This proposal is absolutely about google getting more data about your internet habits, and more data about the market spaces they don't (yet) control.</p></div><p>This approach they are taking reminds me of grocery stores ala Albertsons, Safeway and much more which give you "discounts" for your personal shopping habits. Then you start getting targeted for specific deals. The only reason anyone signs up for those cards is the fact they want the discount that no longer exists since these stores and brands yanked Coupons from the market.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is horrible .
This is so GOOG can monitor ALL of your web activity , all the time.If you ever use Google , or see adwords anywhere , they already have your ip--all 4 octets.With this DNS extension , they can see what sites buckets of people are visiting when they 're NOT on google sites or where goog ads are being served .
It 's not resolved down to the user , but it 's bucketed , and over time , they can guess what 's happening.This proposal is absolutely about google getting more data about your internet habits , and more data about the market spaces they do n't ( yet ) control.This approach they are taking reminds me of grocery stores ala Albertsons , Safeway and much more which give you " discounts " for your personal shopping habits .
Then you start getting targeted for specific deals .
The only reason anyone signs up for those cards is the fact they want the discount that no longer exists since these stores and brands yanked Coupons from the market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is horrible.
This is so GOOG can monitor ALL of your web activity, all the time.If you ever use Google, or see adwords anywhere, they already have your ip--all 4 octets.With this DNS extension, they can see what sites buckets of people are visiting when they're NOT on google sites or where goog ads are being served.
It's not resolved down to the user, but it's bucketed, and over time, they can guess what's happening.This proposal is absolutely about google getting more data about your internet habits, and more data about the market spaces they don't (yet) control.This approach they are taking reminds me of grocery stores ala Albertsons, Safeway and much more which give you "discounts" for your personal shopping habits.
Then you start getting targeted for specific deals.
The only reason anyone signs up for those cards is the fact they want the discount that no longer exists since these stores and brands yanked Coupons from the market.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937092</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937776</id>
	<title>Missing part of the "do no evil" statement</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264707240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Do no evil, just do the good ones in the ass."</p><p>They just don't mention the 2nd part because they assUme everyone knows it by now. How's your ass, need some lube?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Do no evil , just do the good ones in the ass .
" They just do n't mention the 2nd part because they assUme everyone knows it by now .
How 's your ass , need some lube ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Do no evil, just do the good ones in the ass.
"They just don't mention the 2nd part because they assUme everyone knows it by now.
How's your ass, need some lube?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30939392</id>
	<title>What's with the irrational Google hate?</title>
	<author>Mashdar</author>
	<datestamp>1264711260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What's with the irrational Google hating?<br>
Can we at least find legitimate reasons to get upset?<br> <br>
I feel like every day on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.has turned into April 1st. I never know which stories are terrifically blown out of proportion, terribly written, or just straight up lies (ie this article). Maybe we should actually read TFA before ranting about it? Or putting it on the front page...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:( CmdrTaco....<br>
As others have said, the proposed change is not even to add your entire IP, just the bit that gives your general area. And they have your IP as soon as you use TCP anyway. Welcome to Internet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's with the irrational Google hating ?
Can we at least find legitimate reasons to get upset ?
I feel like every day on /.has turned into April 1st .
I never know which stories are terrifically blown out of proportion , terribly written , or just straight up lies ( ie this article ) .
Maybe we should actually read TFA before ranting about it ?
Or putting it on the front page... : ( CmdrTaco... . As others have said , the proposed change is not even to add your entire IP , just the bit that gives your general area .
And they have your IP as soon as you use TCP anyway .
Welcome to Internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's with the irrational Google hating?
Can we at least find legitimate reasons to get upset?
I feel like every day on /.has turned into April 1st.
I never know which stories are terrifically blown out of proportion, terribly written, or just straight up lies (ie this article).
Maybe we should actually read TFA before ranting about it?
Or putting it on the front page... :( CmdrTaco....
As others have said, the proposed change is not even to add your entire IP, just the bit that gives your general area.
And they have your IP as soon as you use TCP anyway.
Welcome to Internet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937092</id>
	<title>True face of google</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264705800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is horrible. This is so GOOG can monitor ALL of your web activity, all the time.</p><p>If you ever use Google, or see adwords anywhere, they already have your ip--all 4 octets.</p><p>With this DNS extension, they can see what sites buckets of people are visiting when they're NOT on google sites or where goog ads are being served. It's not resolved down to the user, but it's bucketed, and over time, they can guess what's happening.</p><p>This proposal is absolutely about google getting more data about your internet habits, and more data about the market spaces they don't (yet) control.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is horrible .
This is so GOOG can monitor ALL of your web activity , all the time.If you ever use Google , or see adwords anywhere , they already have your ip--all 4 octets.With this DNS extension , they can see what sites buckets of people are visiting when they 're NOT on google sites or where goog ads are being served .
It 's not resolved down to the user , but it 's bucketed , and over time , they can guess what 's happening.This proposal is absolutely about google getting more data about your internet habits , and more data about the market spaces they do n't ( yet ) control .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is horrible.
This is so GOOG can monitor ALL of your web activity, all the time.If you ever use Google, or see adwords anywhere, they already have your ip--all 4 octets.With this DNS extension, they can see what sites buckets of people are visiting when they're NOT on google sites or where goog ads are being served.
It's not resolved down to the user, but it's bucketed, and over time, they can guess what's happening.This proposal is absolutely about google getting more data about your internet habits, and more data about the market spaces they don't (yet) control.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30946252</id>
	<title>Re:What about IPv6</title>
	<author>paul248</author>
	<datestamp>1264706100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It seems IPv6 will be in use soon; so why tinker with DNS requests on IPv4?</p></div><p>Of course the extension supports IPv6.  You'd have to be pretty dense to propose a new standard that doesn't.<br><a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vandergaast-edns-client-ip-00" title="ietf.org">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vandergaast-edns-client-ip-00</a> [ietf.org] </p><p><div class="quote"><p>Also, does anybody know how GEO locating an IP will be done on IPv6 (at least down to country level) ?</p></div><p>IPv6 geolocation will be done the exact same way as IPv4 geolocation: wild guesses and black magic.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems IPv6 will be in use soon ; so why tinker with DNS requests on IPv4 ? Of course the extension supports IPv6 .
You 'd have to be pretty dense to propose a new standard that does n't.http : //tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vandergaast-edns-client-ip-00 [ ietf.org ] Also , does anybody know how GEO locating an IP will be done on IPv6 ( at least down to country level ) ? IPv6 geolocation will be done the exact same way as IPv4 geolocation : wild guesses and black magic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems IPv6 will be in use soon; so why tinker with DNS requests on IPv4?Of course the extension supports IPv6.
You'd have to be pretty dense to propose a new standard that doesn't.http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vandergaast-edns-client-ip-00 [ietf.org] Also, does anybody know how GEO locating an IP will be done on IPv6 (at least down to country level) ?IPv6 geolocation will be done the exact same way as IPv4 geolocation: wild guesses and black magic.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937438</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30939436</id>
	<title>Two edged swords cut both ways.</title>
	<author>almondo</author>
	<datestamp>1264711380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And I see this as one.  It does possess the potential and near certainty of improving the results of CDN targeting for users who use non-local DNS servers for resolution.  Many of these third party non local DNS providers are thriving because so many 'service providers' are so utterly inept at delivering the net keystone component, DNS resolution.  I don't now, and have not for many years rely on provider DNS servers for exactly this reason.  This will help the third party DNS providers enable CDNs to do a better job.  It will allow a better hit rate for sites that try to geotarget (we do).  It has some very interesting potential side effects in the war on spam, botnets, hijacked IP blocks, etc which I won't get into or forget.  Does it reduce fundamental anonymity somewhere? Maybe, but really I think that impact is lost if you actually make the connection to the A record you are given, I mean really, if your DNS request was tagged from 172.16.254.0/24, and then you connect to my server from 172.16.254.5, ah where is the foul? (RFC 1918 example IP addresses used to protect the innocent IP addresses).  It does mean that I can tell you 'piss off mate' at the DNS level rather that doing it at the network service level which has some potential usefulness/humor value/abuseability but really only if you actually use a DNS server that has the extensions.  Could some genius ISP think, "oh, we will railroad you into using this" ?  Perhaps, but that will only captivate those who choose to be captivated, PAT, vpns, tunneling, anybody who wants to will drill a walk right through sized hole in that in short order.  So, at the end of the day, personally, while I am a bit miffed about some of Google's other recent activity (the broken on off switch on the toolbar tracking and other BigBroMo activity comes to mind) I think this does have some strong technical merits and it's ability to be used in an evil manner is very limited in my opinion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And I see this as one .
It does possess the potential and near certainty of improving the results of CDN targeting for users who use non-local DNS servers for resolution .
Many of these third party non local DNS providers are thriving because so many 'service providers ' are so utterly inept at delivering the net keystone component , DNS resolution .
I do n't now , and have not for many years rely on provider DNS servers for exactly this reason .
This will help the third party DNS providers enable CDNs to do a better job .
It will allow a better hit rate for sites that try to geotarget ( we do ) .
It has some very interesting potential side effects in the war on spam , botnets , hijacked IP blocks , etc which I wo n't get into or forget .
Does it reduce fundamental anonymity somewhere ?
Maybe , but really I think that impact is lost if you actually make the connection to the A record you are given , I mean really , if your DNS request was tagged from 172.16.254.0/24 , and then you connect to my server from 172.16.254.5 , ah where is the foul ?
( RFC 1918 example IP addresses used to protect the innocent IP addresses ) .
It does mean that I can tell you 'piss off mate ' at the DNS level rather that doing it at the network service level which has some potential usefulness/humor value/abuseability but really only if you actually use a DNS server that has the extensions .
Could some genius ISP think , " oh , we will railroad you into using this " ?
Perhaps , but that will only captivate those who choose to be captivated , PAT , vpns , tunneling , anybody who wants to will drill a walk right through sized hole in that in short order .
So , at the end of the day , personally , while I am a bit miffed about some of Google 's other recent activity ( the broken on off switch on the toolbar tracking and other BigBroMo activity comes to mind ) I think this does have some strong technical merits and it 's ability to be used in an evil manner is very limited in my opinion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And I see this as one.
It does possess the potential and near certainty of improving the results of CDN targeting for users who use non-local DNS servers for resolution.
Many of these third party non local DNS providers are thriving because so many 'service providers' are so utterly inept at delivering the net keystone component, DNS resolution.
I don't now, and have not for many years rely on provider DNS servers for exactly this reason.
This will help the third party DNS providers enable CDNs to do a better job.
It will allow a better hit rate for sites that try to geotarget (we do).
It has some very interesting potential side effects in the war on spam, botnets, hijacked IP blocks, etc which I won't get into or forget.
Does it reduce fundamental anonymity somewhere?
Maybe, but really I think that impact is lost if you actually make the connection to the A record you are given, I mean really, if your DNS request was tagged from 172.16.254.0/24, and then you connect to my server from 172.16.254.5, ah where is the foul?
(RFC 1918 example IP addresses used to protect the innocent IP addresses).
It does mean that I can tell you 'piss off mate' at the DNS level rather that doing it at the network service level which has some potential usefulness/humor value/abuseability but really only if you actually use a DNS server that has the extensions.
Could some genius ISP think, "oh, we will railroad you into using this" ?
Perhaps, but that will only captivate those who choose to be captivated, PAT, vpns, tunneling, anybody who wants to will drill a walk right through sized hole in that in short order.
So, at the end of the day, personally, while I am a bit miffed about some of Google's other recent activity (the broken on off switch on the toolbar tracking and other BigBroMo activity comes to mind) I think this does have some strong technical merits and it's ability to be used in an evil manner is very limited in my opinion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30939146</id>
	<title>Re:How's that evil?</title>
	<author>umonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1264710600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Isn't there <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anycast" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">anycast</a> [wikipedia.org] already, which solves exactly this problem, and which Google already uses for its own <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google\_Public\_DNS#Servers" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">public DNS service</a> [wikipedia.org]?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't there anycast [ wikipedia.org ] already , which solves exactly this problem , and which Google already uses for its own public DNS service [ wikipedia.org ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't there anycast [wikipedia.org] already, which solves exactly this problem, and which Google already uses for its own public DNS service [wikipedia.org]?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30939182</id>
	<title>What DNS Is Not</title>
	<author>Rysc</author>
	<datestamp>1264710720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This all sounds totally crazy if you're Paul Vixie and have written a little article titled <a href="http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1647302" title="acm.org">What DNS Is Not</a> [acm.org] which specifically mentions that it shouldn't be used for this.</p><p>How quickly we <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/11/07/199256" title="slashdot.org">forget</a> [slashdot.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This all sounds totally crazy if you 're Paul Vixie and have written a little article titled What DNS Is Not [ acm.org ] which specifically mentions that it should n't be used for this.How quickly we forget [ slashdot.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This all sounds totally crazy if you're Paul Vixie and have written a little article titled What DNS Is Not [acm.org] which specifically mentions that it shouldn't be used for this.How quickly we forget [slashdot.org].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937700</id>
	<title>Re:Not as evil as suggested</title>
	<author>poetmatt</author>
	<datestamp>1264707120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>even the first 2 octets can be enough to reliably identify with some digging. what do you think 3 is gonna do?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>even the first 2 octets can be enough to reliably identify with some digging .
what do you think 3 is gon na do ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>even the first 2 octets can be enough to reliably identify with some digging.
what do you think 3 is gonna do?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937164</id>
	<title>Do no evil, at first anyway.</title>
	<author>gimmebeer</author>
	<datestamp>1264705920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Absolute power corrupts absolutly.  There comes a point when attempting to control everything about the Internet is evil by default.  Google is approaching critical mass.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Absolute power corrupts absolutly .
There comes a point when attempting to control everything about the Internet is evil by default .
Google is approaching critical mass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Absolute power corrupts absolutly.
There comes a point when attempting to control everything about the Internet is evil by default.
Google is approaching critical mass.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30939412</id>
	<title>IP Rotation</title>
	<author>Aladrin</author>
	<datestamp>1264711320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This will completely destroy IP rotation aka load balancing.  I hope they aren't allowed to do it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This will completely destroy IP rotation aka load balancing .
I hope they are n't allowed to do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This will completely destroy IP rotation aka load balancing.
I hope they aren't allowed to do it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937508</id>
	<title>Needed, not evil...</title>
	<author>nweaver</author>
	<datestamp>1264706760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are already many uses where the IP address of the resolver is used to determine service, basically every CDN etc uses this technique.</p><p>This extension is needed if you want OpenDNS and the like to Not Suck when fetching Akamai sourced content, youtube videos, etc.</p><p>And its not like the owner of the DNS authority won't find out who you are anyway, after all, you then CONTACT THEM DIRECTLY WITH YOUR IP ADDRESS!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are already many uses where the IP address of the resolver is used to determine service , basically every CDN etc uses this technique.This extension is needed if you want OpenDNS and the like to Not Suck when fetching Akamai sourced content , youtube videos , etc.And its not like the owner of the DNS authority wo n't find out who you are anyway , after all , you then CONTACT THEM DIRECTLY WITH YOUR IP ADDRESS !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are already many uses where the IP address of the resolver is used to determine service, basically every CDN etc uses this technique.This extension is needed if you want OpenDNS and the like to Not Suck when fetching Akamai sourced content, youtube videos, etc.And its not like the owner of the DNS authority won't find out who you are anyway, after all, you then CONTACT THEM DIRECTLY WITH YOUR IP ADDRESS!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937082</id>
	<title>Re:Do no evil, eh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264705800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Indeed, this could very well be abused as much as it could be useful.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed , this could very well be abused as much as it could be useful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed, this could very well be abused as much as it could be useful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30936986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937140</id>
	<title>Not as evil as suggested</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264705920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you read the entire post by google, you'll notice they are suggesting only the first 3 octects of the IP address are transmitted. Now while this could theoretically be used to censor regions of users, it could not be used to expose you (since it isn't the complete IP address)</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you read the entire post by google , you 'll notice they are suggesting only the first 3 octects of the IP address are transmitted .
Now while this could theoretically be used to censor regions of users , it could not be used to expose you ( since it is n't the complete IP address )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you read the entire post by google, you'll notice they are suggesting only the first 3 octects of the IP address are transmitted.
Now while this could theoretically be used to censor regions of users, it could not be used to expose you (since it isn't the complete IP address)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30943928</id>
	<title>Re:Needed, not evil...</title>
	<author>Liquidscript</author>
	<datestamp>1264684680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I heard that the ACTA Treaty has already passed and ISPs have conspired to encode everyone's personal information into the IP addresses they give you.
This means your IP address likely has your credit card information, your social security number, and your mother's maiden name, along with your bank account balances encoded into all 4 bytes!

-- ***** ******, you're all a bunch of ****tards.

The proposed addition to the DNS spec doesn't give anybody any new information that you aren't already giving them.  The only logical difference between the old standard and the proposed standard is a lower average latency (meaning higher average speed) for EVERYONE on the entire internet when they visit ANY website, not just Google.  This reduces the need for HTTP redirects or complicated server-side logic to forward your requests to collocated servers.  "Collocated" means closer-to-you, it means faster internet, it means less waiting for pages to load, it means less wasted time for everyone, and it means more money for everyone that does commerce online.  It means reduced engineering effort for EVERY internet business that hires software engineers, because they don't have to think about solving this problem because the DNS backbone of the internet will already solve it for them.

I frankly find it baffling that 80\% of the commenters are appalled that a website that they willingly visit might know who they are.  Just as in real life, when you make transactions, when you interact with others, you put yourself out there and you reveal who you are.  It's a fact of life.  If you are appalled, don't use the internet, but don't be so ignorant that you **** up the internet for everyone else that's okay with using it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I heard that the ACTA Treaty has already passed and ISPs have conspired to encode everyone 's personal information into the IP addresses they give you .
This means your IP address likely has your credit card information , your social security number , and your mother 's maiden name , along with your bank account balances encoded into all 4 bytes !
-- * * * * * * * * * * * , you 're all a bunch of * * * * tards .
The proposed addition to the DNS spec does n't give anybody any new information that you are n't already giving them .
The only logical difference between the old standard and the proposed standard is a lower average latency ( meaning higher average speed ) for EVERYONE on the entire internet when they visit ANY website , not just Google .
This reduces the need for HTTP redirects or complicated server-side logic to forward your requests to collocated servers .
" Collocated " means closer-to-you , it means faster internet , it means less waiting for pages to load , it means less wasted time for everyone , and it means more money for everyone that does commerce online .
It means reduced engineering effort for EVERY internet business that hires software engineers , because they do n't have to think about solving this problem because the DNS backbone of the internet will already solve it for them .
I frankly find it baffling that 80 \ % of the commenters are appalled that a website that they willingly visit might know who they are .
Just as in real life , when you make transactions , when you interact with others , you put yourself out there and you reveal who you are .
It 's a fact of life .
If you are appalled , do n't use the internet , but do n't be so ignorant that you * * * * up the internet for everyone else that 's okay with using it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I heard that the ACTA Treaty has already passed and ISPs have conspired to encode everyone's personal information into the IP addresses they give you.
This means your IP address likely has your credit card information, your social security number, and your mother's maiden name, along with your bank account balances encoded into all 4 bytes!
-- ***** ******, you're all a bunch of ****tards.
The proposed addition to the DNS spec doesn't give anybody any new information that you aren't already giving them.
The only logical difference between the old standard and the proposed standard is a lower average latency (meaning higher average speed) for EVERYONE on the entire internet when they visit ANY website, not just Google.
This reduces the need for HTTP redirects or complicated server-side logic to forward your requests to collocated servers.
"Collocated" means closer-to-you, it means faster internet, it means less waiting for pages to load, it means less wasted time for everyone, and it means more money for everyone that does commerce online.
It means reduced engineering effort for EVERY internet business that hires software engineers, because they don't have to think about solving this problem because the DNS backbone of the internet will already solve it for them.
I frankly find it baffling that 80\% of the commenters are appalled that a website that they willingly visit might know who they are.
Just as in real life, when you make transactions, when you interact with others, you put yourself out there and you reveal who you are.
It's a fact of life.
If you are appalled, don't use the internet, but don't be so ignorant that you **** up the internet for everyone else that's okay with using it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937508</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30942714</id>
	<title>life imitates art</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264678440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If sketchy porn sites can figure out within 50 miles where I am based off my ip I bet google and akamai can do it to figure it out too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If sketchy porn sites can figure out within 50 miles where I am based off my ip I bet google and akamai can do it to figure it out too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If sketchy porn sites can figure out within 50 miles where I am based off my ip I bet google and akamai can do it to figure it out too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30945558</id>
	<title>Re:This is important!</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1264698960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Considering DNS servers are generally close to the user outside of the geek circle who has a relatively small group of people that use non-local servers its not really an issue.</p><p>My DNS server is less than 20 feet away from this machine, and they share the same address as far as the Internet is concerned.</p><p>Likewise, my ISP's name server is 1 hop away, and directly between me and the rest of the Internet, so once again, using my providers DNS server IP for geolocation is as good as using my IP for geolocation, the result should always be EXACTLY the same.</p><p>This is true for 99.99\% of the world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Considering DNS servers are generally close to the user outside of the geek circle who has a relatively small group of people that use non-local servers its not really an issue.My DNS server is less than 20 feet away from this machine , and they share the same address as far as the Internet is concerned.Likewise , my ISP 's name server is 1 hop away , and directly between me and the rest of the Internet , so once again , using my providers DNS server IP for geolocation is as good as using my IP for geolocation , the result should always be EXACTLY the same.This is true for 99.99 \ % of the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Considering DNS servers are generally close to the user outside of the geek circle who has a relatively small group of people that use non-local servers its not really an issue.My DNS server is less than 20 feet away from this machine, and they share the same address as far as the Internet is concerned.Likewise, my ISP's name server is 1 hop away, and directly between me and the rest of the Internet, so once again, using my providers DNS server IP for geolocation is as good as using my IP for geolocation, the result should always be EXACTLY the same.This is true for 99.99\% of the world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937338</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30942540</id>
	<title>Re:Do no evil, eh?</title>
	<author>Antiocheian</author>
	<datestamp>1264677960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>At least you could avoid MSFT by going Linux or Apple.</p></div><p>You can also avoid gmail and use hushmail or simply run your own mailserver. But that address next to your name... it seems like gmail to me!?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>At least you could avoid MSFT by going Linux or Apple.You can also avoid gmail and use hushmail or simply run your own mailserver .
But that address next to your name... it seems like gmail to me !
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least you could avoid MSFT by going Linux or Apple.You can also avoid gmail and use hushmail or simply run your own mailserver.
But that address next to your name... it seems like gmail to me!
?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30938276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30939706</id>
	<title>How will it work for large internationalcompanies?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264712220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The company I work for has a Class A IP network and is not based on the US.</p><p>I'm physically located in Atlanta, but all of the existing geolocation services which I am aware of that use my exposed IP address seem to want to place me in the center of Europe somewhere.</p><p>Will this be smart enough to do better?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The company I work for has a Class A IP network and is not based on the US.I 'm physically located in Atlanta , but all of the existing geolocation services which I am aware of that use my exposed IP address seem to want to place me in the center of Europe somewhere.Will this be smart enough to do better ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The company I work for has a Class A IP network and is not based on the US.I'm physically located in Atlanta, but all of the existing geolocation services which I am aware of that use my exposed IP address seem to want to place me in the center of Europe somewhere.Will this be smart enough to do better?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937528</id>
	<title>Re:Not as evil as suggested</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1264706760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The first three octets limit you to a maximum of 256 machines.  In practice, most addresses are assigned in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/24s, so you end up with two of these used for the router and broadcast addresses.  Most broadband ISPs don't recycle addresses often, so you end up with the same IP for weeks, if not months, at a time.  Of the other 200 people on your<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/24, how many are online at the same time as you?  Maybe 10-20?  Of these, how many have sufficiently similar surfing patterns that, when you combine the DNS results with tracking data from all sites that use Google analytics, they can't be distinguished from you?</p><p>
If Google can't track your Internet usage from the first three octets of your IP address and DNS results then they haven't got nearly as much expertise in data mining as you'd need to operate a successful search engine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The first three octets limit you to a maximum of 256 machines .
In practice , most addresses are assigned in /24s , so you end up with two of these used for the router and broadcast addresses .
Most broadband ISPs do n't recycle addresses often , so you end up with the same IP for weeks , if not months , at a time .
Of the other 200 people on your /24 , how many are online at the same time as you ?
Maybe 10-20 ?
Of these , how many have sufficiently similar surfing patterns that , when you combine the DNS results with tracking data from all sites that use Google analytics , they ca n't be distinguished from you ?
If Google ca n't track your Internet usage from the first three octets of your IP address and DNS results then they have n't got nearly as much expertise in data mining as you 'd need to operate a successful search engine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The first three octets limit you to a maximum of 256 machines.
In practice, most addresses are assigned in /24s, so you end up with two of these used for the router and broadcast addresses.
Most broadband ISPs don't recycle addresses often, so you end up with the same IP for weeks, if not months, at a time.
Of the other 200 people on your /24, how many are online at the same time as you?
Maybe 10-20?
Of these, how many have sufficiently similar surfing patterns that, when you combine the DNS results with tracking data from all sites that use Google analytics, they can't be distinguished from you?
If Google can't track your Internet usage from the first three octets of your IP address and DNS results then they haven't got nearly as much expertise in data mining as you'd need to operate a successful search engine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30941082</id>
	<title>Googles answer to the China problem?</title>
	<author>tlambert</author>
	<datestamp>1264672980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Googles answer to the China problem?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The proposal says they would only use the first three octets. And users could just use a different DNS server if they had a restrictive servers that blacklisted Iran or whatever.</p></div><p>Or as someone upstream, I could redirect all the requests in a 252 machine block to force them through a transparent proxy server so that I can monitor them.  It sure makes it easier on my monitoring servers to not have to monitor everything, and on my network infrastructure, if I can monitor things with a high locality, instead of doubling or tripling my traffic to proxy things non-locally.</p><p>This seems to be Googles answer to the China problem; by making it an infrastructure issue rather than a source-filtering issue, they get to be the "do no evil" people once again, offloading the nefarious actions onto the Chinese government, so that they can have a "clean conscience", without losing access to the Chinese market.</p><p>-- Terry</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Googles answer to the China problem ? The proposal says they would only use the first three octets .
And users could just use a different DNS server if they had a restrictive servers that blacklisted Iran or whatever.Or as someone upstream , I could redirect all the requests in a 252 machine block to force them through a transparent proxy server so that I can monitor them .
It sure makes it easier on my monitoring servers to not have to monitor everything , and on my network infrastructure , if I can monitor things with a high locality , instead of doubling or tripling my traffic to proxy things non-locally.This seems to be Googles answer to the China problem ; by making it an infrastructure issue rather than a source-filtering issue , they get to be the " do no evil " people once again , offloading the nefarious actions onto the Chinese government , so that they can have a " clean conscience " , without losing access to the Chinese market.-- Terry</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Googles answer to the China problem?The proposal says they would only use the first three octets.
And users could just use a different DNS server if they had a restrictive servers that blacklisted Iran or whatever.Or as someone upstream, I could redirect all the requests in a 252 machine block to force them through a transparent proxy server so that I can monitor them.
It sure makes it easier on my monitoring servers to not have to monitor everything, and on my network infrastructure, if I can monitor things with a high locality, instead of doubling or tripling my traffic to proxy things non-locally.This seems to be Googles answer to the China problem; by making it an infrastructure issue rather than a source-filtering issue, they get to be the "do no evil" people once again, offloading the nefarious actions onto the Chinese government, so that they can have a "clean conscience", without losing access to the Chinese market.-- Terry
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937032</id>
	<title>NO</title>
	<author>CHRONOSS2008</author>
	<datestamp>1264705620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>get off my lawn google<br>i have my own dns thank you<br>stupid americans</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>get off my lawn googlei have my own dns thank youstupid americans</tokentext>
<sentencetext>get off my lawn googlei have my own dns thank youstupid americans</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30943884</id>
	<title>Re:Google, you are wrong here.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264684440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It seems this balancing is already possible withouth the need to propagate that data.</p></div><p>Explain how.  The people proposing this are not stupid, and demonstrating that this solution is wrong requires a solid argument with evidence.</p><p><div class="quote"><p> I choose here safety/privacy, over a potential speed gain.  Also the risk is for everyone, but the gain is just for a few ones (the people that has lots of servers and need a balancing solution)... hence, is unfair.</p></div><p>The gain is for every user of the servers that are load balanced using this scheme.  The set of people who will benefit includes all users of Google.  I don't understand why you think the set of people using Google is "a few ones".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems this balancing is already possible withouth the need to propagate that data.Explain how .
The people proposing this are not stupid , and demonstrating that this solution is wrong requires a solid argument with evidence .
I choose here safety/privacy , over a potential speed gain .
Also the risk is for everyone , but the gain is just for a few ones ( the people that has lots of servers and need a balancing solution ) ... hence , is unfair.The gain is for every user of the servers that are load balanced using this scheme .
The set of people who will benefit includes all users of Google .
I do n't understand why you think the set of people using Google is " a few ones " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems this balancing is already possible withouth the need to propagate that data.Explain how.
The people proposing this are not stupid, and demonstrating that this solution is wrong requires a solid argument with evidence.
I choose here safety/privacy, over a potential speed gain.
Also the risk is for everyone, but the gain is just for a few ones (the people that has lots of servers and need a balancing solution)... hence, is unfair.The gain is for every user of the servers that are load balanced using this scheme.
The set of people who will benefit includes all users of Google.
I don't understand why you think the set of people using Google is "a few ones".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30940568</id>
	<title>Re:Google is further away than your ISP</title>
	<author>nedlohs</author>
	<datestamp>1264671540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because their ISP plays stupid games with DNS and setting the DNS numbers on the computer is a tad easier than setting up and running a DNS server.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because their ISP plays stupid games with DNS and setting the DNS numbers on the computer is a tad easier than setting up and running a DNS server .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because their ISP plays stupid games with DNS and setting the DNS numbers on the computer is a tad easier than setting up and running a DNS server.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30938722</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30945524</id>
	<title>Re:Do no evil, my ass.</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1264698420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you're that afraid of your government, you should probably work on fixing it more than hiding from it.  That IS your responsibility as a citizen and a human being.</p><p>I'm so sick of 'the government is evil so I'm going to go hide from it instead of do something about it!'</p><p>Grow some balls, pussy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're that afraid of your government , you should probably work on fixing it more than hiding from it .
That IS your responsibility as a citizen and a human being.I 'm so sick of 'the government is evil so I 'm going to go hide from it instead of do something about it !
'Grow some balls , pussy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're that afraid of your government, you should probably work on fixing it more than hiding from it.
That IS your responsibility as a citizen and a human being.I'm so sick of 'the government is evil so I'm going to go hide from it instead of do something about it!
'Grow some balls, pussy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30944100</id>
	<title>Counter-argument by Vixie in ACM Queue</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264685880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The argument against this proposal appeared in Paul Vixie's "What DNS Is Not" published in ACM Queue. See<br><a href="http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1647302" title="acm.org" rel="nofollow">http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1647302</a> [acm.org]<br>The section heading "Stupid DNS tricks" sums up the article.<br>Paul is the long-time maintainer of BIND, the most popular DNS server.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The argument against this proposal appeared in Paul Vixie 's " What DNS Is Not " published in ACM Queue .
Seehttp : //queue.acm.org/detail.cfm ? id = 1647302 [ acm.org ] The section heading " Stupid DNS tricks " sums up the article.Paul is the long-time maintainer of BIND , the most popular DNS server .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The argument against this proposal appeared in Paul Vixie's "What DNS Is Not" published in ACM Queue.
Seehttp://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1647302 [acm.org]The section heading "Stupid DNS tricks" sums up the article.Paul is the long-time maintainer of BIND, the most popular DNS server.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30938618</id>
	<title>Re:Google, you are wrong here.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264709340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree.  If Google wants my computer to use an IP nearer to my physical location they will move to extend DNS to include the geographic data in the replies.  That way they send me a list of IPs + geography data for each and I get to choose to honor or ignore it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree .
If Google wants my computer to use an IP nearer to my physical location they will move to extend DNS to include the geographic data in the replies .
That way they send me a list of IPs + geography data for each and I get to choose to honor or ignore it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.
If Google wants my computer to use an IP nearer to my physical location they will move to extend DNS to include the geographic data in the replies.
That way they send me a list of IPs + geography data for each and I get to choose to honor or ignore it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30939466</id>
	<title>So, no caching?</title>
	<author>AnotherBlackHat</author>
	<datestamp>1264711440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds like a terrible idea to me.</p><p>If a caching DNS server that serves multiple users in multiple countries, then suddenly, it's not caching anymore.<br>If there are multiple possible IP addresses that I can be directed to, why not just send all of them to me, and let me (my DNS server) decide which one is best?<br>What if have more than one IP?  Which one should I use?<br>How often is it, really, that the route to the DNS server isn't the best route anyway?  I.e. is the tiny benefit of a slightly better route for a handful of people really worth making a change to something as basic as the DNS protocol?</p><p>I'd rather see a way to redirect the connection - cut out the DNS middleman.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like a terrible idea to me.If a caching DNS server that serves multiple users in multiple countries , then suddenly , it 's not caching anymore.If there are multiple possible IP addresses that I can be directed to , why not just send all of them to me , and let me ( my DNS server ) decide which one is best ? What if have more than one IP ?
Which one should I use ? How often is it , really , that the route to the DNS server is n't the best route anyway ?
I.e. is the tiny benefit of a slightly better route for a handful of people really worth making a change to something as basic as the DNS protocol ? I 'd rather see a way to redirect the connection - cut out the DNS middleman .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like a terrible idea to me.If a caching DNS server that serves multiple users in multiple countries, then suddenly, it's not caching anymore.If there are multiple possible IP addresses that I can be directed to, why not just send all of them to me, and let me (my DNS server) decide which one is best?What if have more than one IP?
Which one should I use?How often is it, really, that the route to the DNS server isn't the best route anyway?
I.e. is the tiny benefit of a slightly better route for a handful of people really worth making a change to something as basic as the DNS protocol?I'd rather see a way to redirect the connection - cut out the DNS middleman.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30938276</id>
	<title>Re:Do no evil, eh?</title>
	<author>hairyfeet</author>
	<datestamp>1264708440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And considering how much Google loooooooves datamining, is anyone actually surprised? They already have all your mail, your searches, your docs, etc if you use their services, why not your DNS as well? This is why I have been avoiding Google like the clap and only using Gmail as a spamdump. They just seem to want their fingers in waaaaay too many pies for me to trust that "do no evil" BS.</p><p> NO company should be able to amass that much data on you, I don't care who they are or if they have a catchy slogan or not. Considering how easily this could be abused and used for censorship I think one would have to be nuts or a serious Google fanboi to want this. I wonder how much of this data they are already keeping if you use <a href="http://www.webmonkey.com/blog/Google\_Launches\_a\_Public\_DNS\_Service" title="webmonkey.com">their DNS service</a> [webmonkey.com]?</p><p>

Everyone used to talk about how scary MSFT was with their "embrace, extend" bullshit, but frankly ever since Darth Gates left the company to the sweaty monkey they have flailed around like a drunken elephant from one idea to another. With the sheer amount of data Google is gathering on everybody I would say they are MUCH scarier now than MSFT ever was. At least you could avoid MSFT by going Linux or Apple. What happens if Google gets the ISPs to jump on board with this? Much scarier than the sweaty monkey IMHO.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And considering how much Google loooooooves datamining , is anyone actually surprised ?
They already have all your mail , your searches , your docs , etc if you use their services , why not your DNS as well ?
This is why I have been avoiding Google like the clap and only using Gmail as a spamdump .
They just seem to want their fingers in waaaaay too many pies for me to trust that " do no evil " BS .
NO company should be able to amass that much data on you , I do n't care who they are or if they have a catchy slogan or not .
Considering how easily this could be abused and used for censorship I think one would have to be nuts or a serious Google fanboi to want this .
I wonder how much of this data they are already keeping if you use their DNS service [ webmonkey.com ] ?
Everyone used to talk about how scary MSFT was with their " embrace , extend " bullshit , but frankly ever since Darth Gates left the company to the sweaty monkey they have flailed around like a drunken elephant from one idea to another .
With the sheer amount of data Google is gathering on everybody I would say they are MUCH scarier now than MSFT ever was .
At least you could avoid MSFT by going Linux or Apple .
What happens if Google gets the ISPs to jump on board with this ?
Much scarier than the sweaty monkey IMHO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And considering how much Google loooooooves datamining, is anyone actually surprised?
They already have all your mail, your searches, your docs, etc if you use their services, why not your DNS as well?
This is why I have been avoiding Google like the clap and only using Gmail as a spamdump.
They just seem to want their fingers in waaaaay too many pies for me to trust that "do no evil" BS.
NO company should be able to amass that much data on you, I don't care who they are or if they have a catchy slogan or not.
Considering how easily this could be abused and used for censorship I think one would have to be nuts or a serious Google fanboi to want this.
I wonder how much of this data they are already keeping if you use their DNS service [webmonkey.com]?
Everyone used to talk about how scary MSFT was with their "embrace, extend" bullshit, but frankly ever since Darth Gates left the company to the sweaty monkey they have flailed around like a drunken elephant from one idea to another.
With the sheer amount of data Google is gathering on everybody I would say they are MUCH scarier now than MSFT ever was.
At least you could avoid MSFT by going Linux or Apple.
What happens if Google gets the ISPs to jump on board with this?
Much scarier than the sweaty monkey IMHO.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30938580</id>
	<title>Re:Not as evil as suggested</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264709220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Its 254, assuming that its not being natted in any way.  And the IP addresses change randomly for most users, at random intervals.<br> <br>

Somehow all these people are super concerned with THIS idea, but have no qualms about everything they do online being logged in weblogs.  But then, its google (or microsoft, or apple), so we have to bash them; theyre too successful to be allowed to have good, non-evil ideas!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Its 254 , assuming that its not being natted in any way .
And the IP addresses change randomly for most users , at random intervals .
Somehow all these people are super concerned with THIS idea , but have no qualms about everything they do online being logged in weblogs .
But then , its google ( or microsoft , or apple ) , so we have to bash them ; theyre too successful to be allowed to have good , non-evil ideas !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its 254, assuming that its not being natted in any way.
And the IP addresses change randomly for most users, at random intervals.
Somehow all these people are super concerned with THIS idea, but have no qualms about everything they do online being logged in weblogs.
But then, its google (or microsoft, or apple), so we have to bash them; theyre too successful to be allowed to have good, non-evil ideas!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30939620</id>
	<title>Re:Do no evil, eh?</title>
	<author>insnprsn</author>
	<datestamp>1264711920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just because evil could be done with this does not mean evil will be done.
People are entirely to paranoid</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because evil could be done with this does not mean evil will be done .
People are entirely to paranoid</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because evil could be done with this does not mean evil will be done.
People are entirely to paranoid</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30936986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30938538</id>
	<title>Censoring the Axis of evil</title>
	<author>stimpleton</author>
	<datestamp>1264709100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"<i> Or it would send a user from Iran or Libya to a 'domain name doesn't exist' server."</i> <br> <br>
Why limited to these countries? How about Australia? Remember, this is a country that blocked Wikileaks thru its state sanctioned banlist. Politicians there are <a href="http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/blogs/connector/3267678/Australias-net-censorship-plan" title="stuff.co.nz">on board</a> [stuff.co.nz].<br> <br>Even Linden Labs(makers of Second Life) have set up servers there(only 2-3 countries to have their servers outside the US). Critics theorize this is little to with technical distributed computing reasons but to be in readiness to self censor their content as LL seems to have had the opinion from Ozzie officials that Second Life in its current form would be "offensive". IE: against the law...like Child Porn etc. <br> <br>Google needs the tools to "keep sweet" with local authorities. These DNS changes would help them avoid being like Linden Labs situation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Or it would send a user from Iran or Libya to a 'domain name does n't exist ' server .
" Why limited to these countries ?
How about Australia ?
Remember , this is a country that blocked Wikileaks thru its state sanctioned banlist .
Politicians there are on board [ stuff.co.nz ] .
Even Linden Labs ( makers of Second Life ) have set up servers there ( only 2-3 countries to have their servers outside the US ) .
Critics theorize this is little to with technical distributed computing reasons but to be in readiness to self censor their content as LL seems to have had the opinion from Ozzie officials that Second Life in its current form would be " offensive " .
IE : against the law...like Child Porn etc .
Google needs the tools to " keep sweet " with local authorities .
These DNS changes would help them avoid being like Linden Labs situation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>" Or it would send a user from Iran or Libya to a 'domain name doesn't exist' server.
"  
Why limited to these countries?
How about Australia?
Remember, this is a country that blocked Wikileaks thru its state sanctioned banlist.
Politicians there are on board [stuff.co.nz].
Even Linden Labs(makers of Second Life) have set up servers there(only 2-3 countries to have their servers outside the US).
Critics theorize this is little to with technical distributed computing reasons but to be in readiness to self censor their content as LL seems to have had the opinion from Ozzie officials that Second Life in its current form would be "offensive".
IE: against the law...like Child Porn etc.
Google needs the tools to "keep sweet" with local authorities.
These DNS changes would help them avoid being like Linden Labs situation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30938136</id>
	<title>Re:Not as evil as suggested</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264708140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't ever switch to IPv6 then.... (says the Anonymous Coward)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't ever switch to IPv6 then.... ( says the Anonymous Coward )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't ever switch to IPv6 then.... (says the Anonymous Coward)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30938682</id>
	<title>Re:Google, you are wrong here.</title>
	<author>LordLimecat</author>
	<datestamp>1264709460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Then choose a dns server that doesnt use these extensions, or choose one you trust.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Then choose a dns server that doesnt use these extensions , or choose one you trust .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then choose a dns server that doesnt use these extensions, or choose one you trust.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937964</id>
	<title>Re:This is important!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264707780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I *so* would love this DNS extension for our F5 BigIP GTMs. We already use DNS response time for load balancing metrics, this would just be awesome.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I * so * would love this DNS extension for our F5 BigIP GTMs .
We already use DNS response time for load balancing metrics , this would just be awesome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I *so* would love this DNS extension for our F5 BigIP GTMs.
We already use DNS response time for load balancing metrics, this would just be awesome.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937338</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30941968</id>
	<title>Sure it could expose me.</title>
	<author>Ungrounded Lightning</author>
	<datestamp>1264675860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Now while this could theoretically be used to censor regions of users, it could not be used to expose you (since it isn't the complete IP address)</i></p><p>Sure it could expose me.  I have my own Class-Cs - two of 'em.  When I'm on one the first three octets point straight to me.</p><p>When I'm running from my DSL I have an eight-IP address block (broadcast / broken-broadcast / modem / five-usable) so first three octets point to a group of 32 of which I'm one.  For DSL users with one-usable it points to a group of 64 users of which they're one.  For unfettered PPP (such as dialup), where the IP addresses can be arbitrary, it's still one-in-256.</p><p>Sorry, guys.  One-in-64 (or even one-in-256) is too close to home for me.</p><p>Doubly so because, once it's down to one-in-256, some governments will be willing to bust up to 255 innocents to get one guy they REALLY don't like.  I don't like the idea, when I'm on the road, of being one of the innocent up-to-255 when some terrorist, spy, or whatever uses a dialup and we "win the lottery" and end up with the same first-three-octets.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now while this could theoretically be used to censor regions of users , it could not be used to expose you ( since it is n't the complete IP address ) Sure it could expose me .
I have my own Class-Cs - two of 'em .
When I 'm on one the first three octets point straight to me.When I 'm running from my DSL I have an eight-IP address block ( broadcast / broken-broadcast / modem / five-usable ) so first three octets point to a group of 32 of which I 'm one .
For DSL users with one-usable it points to a group of 64 users of which they 're one .
For unfettered PPP ( such as dialup ) , where the IP addresses can be arbitrary , it 's still one-in-256.Sorry , guys .
One-in-64 ( or even one-in-256 ) is too close to home for me.Doubly so because , once it 's down to one-in-256 , some governments will be willing to bust up to 255 innocents to get one guy they REALLY do n't like .
I do n't like the idea , when I 'm on the road , of being one of the innocent up-to-255 when some terrorist , spy , or whatever uses a dialup and we " win the lottery " and end up with the same first-three-octets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now while this could theoretically be used to censor regions of users, it could not be used to expose you (since it isn't the complete IP address)Sure it could expose me.
I have my own Class-Cs - two of 'em.
When I'm on one the first three octets point straight to me.When I'm running from my DSL I have an eight-IP address block (broadcast / broken-broadcast / modem / five-usable) so first three octets point to a group of 32 of which I'm one.
For DSL users with one-usable it points to a group of 64 users of which they're one.
For unfettered PPP (such as dialup), where the IP addresses can be arbitrary, it's still one-in-256.Sorry, guys.
One-in-64 (or even one-in-256) is too close to home for me.Doubly so because, once it's down to one-in-256, some governments will be willing to bust up to 255 innocents to get one guy they REALLY don't like.
I don't like the idea, when I'm on the road, of being one of the innocent up-to-255 when some terrorist, spy, or whatever uses a dialup and we "win the lottery" and end up with the same first-three-octets.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30938626</id>
	<title>This is bad</title>
	<author>BhaKi</author>
	<datestamp>1264709340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is crap. You don't need user's IP address for load balancing. The only motives behind this are propaganda and psyops. For instance, this move will allow US to block traffic to certain sites from certain countries and then claim that access failures are due to censorship imposed by that country's government.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is crap .
You do n't need user 's IP address for load balancing .
The only motives behind this are propaganda and psyops .
For instance , this move will allow US to block traffic to certain sites from certain countries and then claim that access failures are due to censorship imposed by that country 's government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is crap.
You don't need user's IP address for load balancing.
The only motives behind this are propaganda and psyops.
For instance, this move will allow US to block traffic to certain sites from certain countries and then claim that access failures are due to censorship imposed by that country's government.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30938662</id>
	<title>Re:Do no evil, eh?</title>
	<author>ajs</author>
	<datestamp>1264709400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What on Earth have you been smoking?!</p><p>Google is proposing that DNS be improved for geolocating content. That's it.</p><p>This is a good thing and would drastically improve the technology and remove arbitrary limitations that exist today. What's more you certainly have the option of running your own DNS server and anonymizing your requests if you want, but it's not like Google gets to see your requests anyway. The request will be sent to the DNS server responsible for the site you were actually asking about, so if you're looking up bombmakingparts.example.com, then only you, your immediate recursive DNS provider and example.com will be privy to the exchange of information where today, your recursive DNS provider is the only one who gets to know.... I don't really see how letting the site you're about to contact in on the communication helps or hurts the user except by imrpoving geolocation.</p><p>PS: People have brought up the idea that nations that censor the internet will use this to improve censoring. This is wrong. They don't censor based on DNS, they filter traffic, providing man-in-the-middle proxies that you can't opt out of. This won't change their technology at all, and even if they used DNS for such purposes, this wouldn't change how they would do it (which would be to control what your ISP tells you in response to the initial request).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What on Earth have you been smoking ?
! Google is proposing that DNS be improved for geolocating content .
That 's it.This is a good thing and would drastically improve the technology and remove arbitrary limitations that exist today .
What 's more you certainly have the option of running your own DNS server and anonymizing your requests if you want , but it 's not like Google gets to see your requests anyway .
The request will be sent to the DNS server responsible for the site you were actually asking about , so if you 're looking up bombmakingparts.example.com , then only you , your immediate recursive DNS provider and example.com will be privy to the exchange of information where today , your recursive DNS provider is the only one who gets to know.... I do n't really see how letting the site you 're about to contact in on the communication helps or hurts the user except by imrpoving geolocation.PS : People have brought up the idea that nations that censor the internet will use this to improve censoring .
This is wrong .
They do n't censor based on DNS , they filter traffic , providing man-in-the-middle proxies that you ca n't opt out of .
This wo n't change their technology at all , and even if they used DNS for such purposes , this would n't change how they would do it ( which would be to control what your ISP tells you in response to the initial request ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What on Earth have you been smoking?
!Google is proposing that DNS be improved for geolocating content.
That's it.This is a good thing and would drastically improve the technology and remove arbitrary limitations that exist today.
What's more you certainly have the option of running your own DNS server and anonymizing your requests if you want, but it's not like Google gets to see your requests anyway.
The request will be sent to the DNS server responsible for the site you were actually asking about, so if you're looking up bombmakingparts.example.com, then only you, your immediate recursive DNS provider and example.com will be privy to the exchange of information where today, your recursive DNS provider is the only one who gets to know.... I don't really see how letting the site you're about to contact in on the communication helps or hurts the user except by imrpoving geolocation.PS: People have brought up the idea that nations that censor the internet will use this to improve censoring.
This is wrong.
They don't censor based on DNS, they filter traffic, providing man-in-the-middle proxies that you can't opt out of.
This won't change their technology at all, and even if they used DNS for such purposes, this wouldn't change how they would do it (which would be to control what your ISP tells you in response to the initial request).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30936986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30939876</id>
	<title>Re:Not as evil as suggested</title>
	<author>natehoy</author>
	<datestamp>1264669740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course, since this is only to give them enough information so you can access a Google server nearby as opposed to one somewhere else, they'll have your FULL IP ADDRESS about 1/100 of a second later.</p><p>Google doesn't need this to track you.  In fact, this information is less useful than what they already have.  This is about Google (and anyone else who has distributed datacenters) being able to make better decisions about which datacenter to send you to.  This saves them bandwidth charges, which adds up to BIG money.  That alone is plenty of reason why Google wants this, and everyone who manages multiple distributed datacenters should too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , since this is only to give them enough information so you can access a Google server nearby as opposed to one somewhere else , they 'll have your FULL IP ADDRESS about 1/100 of a second later.Google does n't need this to track you .
In fact , this information is less useful than what they already have .
This is about Google ( and anyone else who has distributed datacenters ) being able to make better decisions about which datacenter to send you to .
This saves them bandwidth charges , which adds up to BIG money .
That alone is plenty of reason why Google wants this , and everyone who manages multiple distributed datacenters should too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, since this is only to give them enough information so you can access a Google server nearby as opposed to one somewhere else, they'll have your FULL IP ADDRESS about 1/100 of a second later.Google doesn't need this to track you.
In fact, this information is less useful than what they already have.
This is about Google (and anyone else who has distributed datacenters) being able to make better decisions about which datacenter to send you to.
This saves them bandwidth charges, which adds up to BIG money.
That alone is plenty of reason why Google wants this, and everyone who manages multiple distributed datacenters should too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937594</id>
	<title>Re:Not as evil as suggested</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264706940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If that were true, it should be the CIDR netmask, not some fixed number of bits.  But still, it is just an attempt to subvert local control.  If an organization is running DNS caching, it is specifically because they do not want their local hosts filling the WAN link with redundant queries, but want to CACHE and REUSE the same binding for all of the local hosts.  Such an organization is not interested in redirecting their clients to make individual queries that bypass the caching proxy, or they would not have deployed such a cache in the first place.</p><p>This will only lead to more use of transparent DNS proxies, which are a substantial headache for all involved.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If that were true , it should be the CIDR netmask , not some fixed number of bits .
But still , it is just an attempt to subvert local control .
If an organization is running DNS caching , it is specifically because they do not want their local hosts filling the WAN link with redundant queries , but want to CACHE and REUSE the same binding for all of the local hosts .
Such an organization is not interested in redirecting their clients to make individual queries that bypass the caching proxy , or they would not have deployed such a cache in the first place.This will only lead to more use of transparent DNS proxies , which are a substantial headache for all involved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If that were true, it should be the CIDR netmask, not some fixed number of bits.
But still, it is just an attempt to subvert local control.
If an organization is running DNS caching, it is specifically because they do not want their local hosts filling the WAN link with redundant queries, but want to CACHE and REUSE the same binding for all of the local hosts.
Such an organization is not interested in redirecting their clients to make individual queries that bypass the caching proxy, or they would not have deployed such a cache in the first place.This will only lead to more use of transparent DNS proxies, which are a substantial headache for all involved.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30942342</id>
	<title>Could actually give us Swedes more privacy!</title>
	<author>Dreadrik</author>
	<datestamp>1264677060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since all Swedish internet traffic that crosses our borders is nowadays monitored by FRA (roughly NSA to you Americans), this could give companies an option to route traffic from Sweden directly to Swedish servers, without needing a redirect from the foreign servers. Of course, FRA could still see the request from the local DNS to the authorative DNS, but assuming this traffic is encrypted, it would make the FRA law look increasingly stupid and ineffective.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since all Swedish internet traffic that crosses our borders is nowadays monitored by FRA ( roughly NSA to you Americans ) , this could give companies an option to route traffic from Sweden directly to Swedish servers , without needing a redirect from the foreign servers .
Of course , FRA could still see the request from the local DNS to the authorative DNS , but assuming this traffic is encrypted , it would make the FRA law look increasingly stupid and ineffective .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since all Swedish internet traffic that crosses our borders is nowadays monitored by FRA (roughly NSA to you Americans), this could give companies an option to route traffic from Sweden directly to Swedish servers, without needing a redirect from the foreign servers.
Of course, FRA could still see the request from the local DNS to the authorative DNS, but assuming this traffic is encrypted, it would make the FRA law look increasingly stupid and ineffective.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30946308</id>
	<title>Re:yah but they are already close</title>
	<author>paul248</author>
	<datestamp>1264706640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can't anycast HTTP, because TCP is stateful.  If one of the endpoints starts routing to a different location, your connection craps out.</p><p>Lots of secondary DNS servers do use anycast, but that's not relevant here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't anycast HTTP , because TCP is stateful .
If one of the endpoints starts routing to a different location , your connection craps out.Lots of secondary DNS servers do use anycast , but that 's not relevant here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't anycast HTTP, because TCP is stateful.
If one of the endpoints starts routing to a different location, your connection craps out.Lots of secondary DNS servers do use anycast, but that's not relevant here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937420</id>
	<title>Re:Not as evil as suggested</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264706580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If you read the entire post by google, you'll notice they are suggesting only the first 3 octects of the IP address are transmitted. Now while this could theoretically be used to censor regions of users, it could not be used to expose you (since it isn't the complete IP address)</p></div></blockquote><p>No, but given that only an additional 255 (or is it 254?) users besides you can be coming from that range, it's not like over time someone can't correlate this to you.</p><p>I'm not convinced this doesn't have privacy implications, or that we're not better off with our requesting DNS being the one who is shown.  I don't necessarily <em>want</em> web sites to know where I'm coming from.</p><p>Cheers</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you read the entire post by google , you 'll notice they are suggesting only the first 3 octects of the IP address are transmitted .
Now while this could theoretically be used to censor regions of users , it could not be used to expose you ( since it is n't the complete IP address ) No , but given that only an additional 255 ( or is it 254 ?
) users besides you can be coming from that range , it 's not like over time someone ca n't correlate this to you.I 'm not convinced this does n't have privacy implications , or that we 're not better off with our requesting DNS being the one who is shown .
I do n't necessarily want web sites to know where I 'm coming from.Cheers</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you read the entire post by google, you'll notice they are suggesting only the first 3 octects of the IP address are transmitted.
Now while this could theoretically be used to censor regions of users, it could not be used to expose you (since it isn't the complete IP address)No, but given that only an additional 255 (or is it 254?
) users besides you can be coming from that range, it's not like over time someone can't correlate this to you.I'm not convinced this doesn't have privacy implications, or that we're not better off with our requesting DNS being the one who is shown.
I don't necessarily want web sites to know where I'm coming from.Cheers
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937044</id>
	<title>The Extinction of DNS?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264705680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whacome? Goodgle, Whacome?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whacome ?
Goodgle , Whacome ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whacome?
Goodgle, Whacome?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937148</id>
	<title>Bad summary</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264705920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The proposal says they would only use the first three octets. And users could just use a different DNS server if they had a restrictive servers that blacklisted Iran or whatever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The proposal says they would only use the first three octets .
And users could just use a different DNS server if they had a restrictive servers that blacklisted Iran or whatever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The proposal says they would only use the first three octets.
And users could just use a different DNS server if they had a restrictive servers that blacklisted Iran or whatever.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30950202</id>
	<title>So, fixing problems that do not exist we are?</title>
	<author>Kartu</author>
	<datestamp>1264784040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are so many caches around:

<ul>
<li>my ISP is caching dns names</li>
<li>my router is caching dns names</li>
<li>my PC is caching dns names</li>
<li>heck, I suspect even my browser is caching dns names</li>
</ul><p>

So why, on planet Earth, do I need some "performance improvements" from google? Maybe because they aren't happy with how "popular" the <a href="http://code.google.com/speed/public-dns" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">http://code.google.com/speed/public-dns</a> [google.com] is?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are so many caches around : my ISP is caching dns names my router is caching dns names my PC is caching dns names heck , I suspect even my browser is caching dns names So why , on planet Earth , do I need some " performance improvements " from google ?
Maybe because they are n't happy with how " popular " the http : //code.google.com/speed/public-dns [ google.com ] is ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are so many caches around:


my ISP is caching dns names
my router is caching dns names
my PC is caching dns names
heck, I suspect even my browser is caching dns names


So why, on planet Earth, do I need some "performance improvements" from google?
Maybe because they aren't happy with how "popular" the http://code.google.com/speed/public-dns [google.com] is?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30944948</id>
	<title>Intermediate DNS servers are the problem...</title>
	<author>Eskarel</author>
	<datestamp>1264692300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, your local resolver knows your IP address. Yes, the final site knows your IP address, and yes the authoritative DNS server is probably associated with the site which will know your IP address.</p><p>However, unless DNS has drastically changed, it's not a two hop journey. Your local DNS server doesn't go straight to the authoritative server for a domain to get the ip address of the site(at least it's not supposed to). As I remember it, if you get a cache miss, the request goes to the root DNS server for that TLD, which then passes it down the chain until each segment of the dns name has been resolved. It doesn't go straight from your dns server to www.slashdot.com it goes through the root server for<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.com first.</p><p>That would mean that under this change the folks running the Christmas Island TLD would be able to tell within a reasonable distance exactly where the people looking at goatse live whereas before they'd only know what dns resolver they were using.</p><p>That may or may not be a big deal, but it is a concern, and could potentially allow blacklisting at a level we haven't seen before. China could block people from the west from using google.cn regardless of which dns resolver they use and with no concern for what google themselves might think. It's actually much more interesting to block people who know what the uncensored content looks like from seeing the censored version than you might think.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , your local resolver knows your IP address .
Yes , the final site knows your IP address , and yes the authoritative DNS server is probably associated with the site which will know your IP address.However , unless DNS has drastically changed , it 's not a two hop journey .
Your local DNS server does n't go straight to the authoritative server for a domain to get the ip address of the site ( at least it 's not supposed to ) .
As I remember it , if you get a cache miss , the request goes to the root DNS server for that TLD , which then passes it down the chain until each segment of the dns name has been resolved .
It does n't go straight from your dns server to www.slashdot.com it goes through the root server for .com first.That would mean that under this change the folks running the Christmas Island TLD would be able to tell within a reasonable distance exactly where the people looking at goatse live whereas before they 'd only know what dns resolver they were using.That may or may not be a big deal , but it is a concern , and could potentially allow blacklisting at a level we have n't seen before .
China could block people from the west from using google.cn regardless of which dns resolver they use and with no concern for what google themselves might think .
It 's actually much more interesting to block people who know what the uncensored content looks like from seeing the censored version than you might think .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, your local resolver knows your IP address.
Yes, the final site knows your IP address, and yes the authoritative DNS server is probably associated with the site which will know your IP address.However, unless DNS has drastically changed, it's not a two hop journey.
Your local DNS server doesn't go straight to the authoritative server for a domain to get the ip address of the site(at least it's not supposed to).
As I remember it, if you get a cache miss, the request goes to the root DNS server for that TLD, which then passes it down the chain until each segment of the dns name has been resolved.
It doesn't go straight from your dns server to www.slashdot.com it goes through the root server for .com first.That would mean that under this change the folks running the Christmas Island TLD would be able to tell within a reasonable distance exactly where the people looking at goatse live whereas before they'd only know what dns resolver they were using.That may or may not be a big deal, but it is a concern, and could potentially allow blacklisting at a level we haven't seen before.
China could block people from the west from using google.cn regardless of which dns resolver they use and with no concern for what google themselves might think.
It's actually much more interesting to block people who know what the uncensored content looks like from seeing the censored version than you might think.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937906</id>
	<title>Re:Wow, Slashdot editors hate Google</title>
	<author>NerveGas</author>
	<datestamp>1264707660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does accuracy matter?  They got you to surf and comment, didn't they?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does accuracy matter ?
They got you to surf and comment , did n't they ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does accuracy matter?
They got you to surf and comment, didn't they?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937150</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937794</id>
	<title>Re:Not as evil as suggested</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264707300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not worried about the "evil" aspect of it. This just doesn't sound like what DNS should be used for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not worried about the " evil " aspect of it .
This just does n't sound like what DNS should be used for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not worried about the "evil" aspect of it.
This just doesn't sound like what DNS should be used for.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937066</id>
	<title>Their motto might be 'do no evil'</title>
	<author>Adult film producer</author>
	<datestamp>1264705740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>but the consequences could be..</htmltext>
<tokenext>but the consequences could be. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but the consequences could be..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937650</id>
	<title>I can't se how this give google any more data</title>
	<author>TheSunborn</author>
	<datestamp>1264707060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't se how this does give any more information to Google or other users.</p><p>Example: If i do a lookup on www.slashdot.org then this query should newer hit any dns server controlled by Google.</p><p>The only way a query would end up on a google controlled dns server, would be if the domain i looked up were owned by google, and in that case I don't care, because then I am about to visit the site anyway which mean they will have my entire ip.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't se how this does give any more information to Google or other users.Example : If i do a lookup on www.slashdot.org then this query should newer hit any dns server controlled by Google.The only way a query would end up on a google controlled dns server , would be if the domain i looked up were owned by google , and in that case I do n't care , because then I am about to visit the site anyway which mean they will have my entire ip .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't se how this does give any more information to Google or other users.Example: If i do a lookup on www.slashdot.org then this query should newer hit any dns server controlled by Google.The only way a query would end up on a google controlled dns server, would be if the domain i looked up were owned by google, and in that case I don't care, because then I am about to visit the site anyway which mean they will have my entire ip.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_183208_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30936986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30939620
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_183208_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937508
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30939010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_183208_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30945524
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_183208_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30940466
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_183208_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30939540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_183208_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30939914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_183208_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30940932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_183208_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30936986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30938220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_183208_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30942506
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_183208_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_183208_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937508
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30943928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_183208_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30943724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_183208_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30944314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_183208_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937508
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30938624
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_183208_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30941968
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_183208_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30938136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_183208_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30936986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937082
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_183208_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30942258
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_183208_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30936986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30938662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_183208_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_183208_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30936986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937206
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_183208_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30945538
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_183208_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30945528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_183208_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30939876
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_183208_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30943284
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_183208_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30940084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_183208_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30936986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937768
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_183208_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937508
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30938894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_183208_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30941010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_183208_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_183208_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937700
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_183208_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30938036
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_183208_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30940756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_183208_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30936986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30939572
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_183208_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30939182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30945456
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_183208_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30936986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30938276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30942540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_183208_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30938570
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_183208_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30938722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30941510
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_183208_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30945558
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_183208_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30939264
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_183208_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30939182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30941616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_183208_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30938580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_183208_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30946252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_183208_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30936986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30939154
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_183208_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30947188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_183208_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30938682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_183208_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30938722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30940568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_183208_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30938688
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_183208_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30938296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_183208_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30940346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_183208_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30941634
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_183208_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30939146
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_183208_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30941082
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_183208_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30938812
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_183208_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_183208_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30946308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_183208_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30943884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_183208_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30938180
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_183208_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30938618
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_183208_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937968
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_183208_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30942330
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_183208_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30938740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_183208_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30944728
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_183208_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30945822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_28_183208_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_183208.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937624
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_183208.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937150
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30941634
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30938036
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937968
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30938812
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30940084
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937906
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30940932
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30945538
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30939264
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_183208.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937092
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30942506
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_183208.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937364
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30938682
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30943284
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30938618
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30938740
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30944314
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30939540
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30947188
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30940346
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30943884
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30942258
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30938180
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_183208.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30939874
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_183208.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937148
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30941082
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_183208.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30939706
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_183208.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937324
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30942330
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30939146
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30944728
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_183208.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30939392
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_183208.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30938538
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_183208.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937338
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937964
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30938296
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30945558
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_183208.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937452
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30946308
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_183208.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30936986
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30939620
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937104
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30938220
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937768
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30939572
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30938276
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30942540
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937082
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30939154
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30938662
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937206
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_183208.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30943724
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_183208.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937820
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_183208.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30939182
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30941616
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30945456
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_183208.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937790
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_183208.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30938722
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30941510
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30940568
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_183208.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937058
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937294
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30945524
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937300
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937936
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30945528
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_183208.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937438
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30940466
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30946252
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_183208.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937650
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_183208.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937508
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30938624
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30943928
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30939010
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30938894
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_183208.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937140
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30940756
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30941968
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937420
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30938580
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30938136
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30938570
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937594
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30945822
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30938688
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937458
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937528
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30939876
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937794
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30941010
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30939914
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30937700
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_183208.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30938626
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_28_183208.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_28_183208.30938948
</commentlist>
</conversation>
