<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_02_0132210</id>
	<title>"No Scan, No Fly" At Heathrow and Manchester</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1265105940000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"It is now <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk\_news/8490860.stm">compulsory for people selected for a full body scan</a> to take part, or they will not be allowed to fly from Heathrow or Manchester airports. There is no optional pat down. Also, a rule which meant that people under 18 were not allowed to participate in the body scanner trial has been overturned by the government. There is no mention of blurring out the genitals, however reports a few years back said <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1077800/Airport-admits-strip-search-body-scanners-WILL-people-naked.html">X-ray backscatter devices aren't effective</a> unless the genitals of people going through them are visible."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " It is now compulsory for people selected for a full body scan to take part , or they will not be allowed to fly from Heathrow or Manchester airports .
There is no optional pat down .
Also , a rule which meant that people under 18 were not allowed to participate in the body scanner trial has been overturned by the government .
There is no mention of blurring out the genitals , however reports a few years back said X-ray backscatter devices are n't effective unless the genitals of people going through them are visible .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "It is now compulsory for people selected for a full body scan to take part, or they will not be allowed to fly from Heathrow or Manchester airports.
There is no optional pat down.
Also, a rule which meant that people under 18 were not allowed to participate in the body scanner trial has been overturned by the government.
There is no mention of blurring out the genitals, however reports a few years back said X-ray backscatter devices aren't effective unless the genitals of people going through them are visible.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993688</id>
	<title>This is ridiculous</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265116980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thank you Mohammed, stupid pedophile, for this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank you Mohammed , stupid pedophile , for this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank you Mohammed, stupid pedophile, for this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993898</id>
	<title>Re:Read the article, please.</title>
	<author>jellyfrog</author>
	<datestamp>1265118780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What will make EVERYONE happy? Nothing.</p> </div><p>Ah, clearly we already have the solution, then! And bonus, too, because doing nothing costs almost nothing as well!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What will make EVERYONE happy ?
Nothing. Ah , clearly we already have the solution , then !
And bonus , too , because doing nothing costs almost nothing as well !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What will make EVERYONE happy?
Nothing. Ah, clearly we already have the solution, then!
And bonus, too, because doing nothing costs almost nothing as well!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993048</id>
	<title>System integration</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265110740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I do not know of Heathrow, but at least in some airports the computer that has your photo sits next to the one that just got the data of your machine-readable passport. Hopefully these data are not merged anytime soon. How could I know ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do not know of Heathrow , but at least in some airports the computer that has your photo sits next to the one that just got the data of your machine-readable passport .
Hopefully these data are not merged anytime soon .
How could I know ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do not know of Heathrow, but at least in some airports the computer that has your photo sits next to the one that just got the data of your machine-readable passport.
Hopefully these data are not merged anytime soon.
How could I know ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.31007316</id>
	<title>Re:Pictures not stored or captured FAIL</title>
	<author>glaucomys</author>
	<datestamp>1264930920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sorry, but they can, actually...

<a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/12/tsa\_body\_scanners/" title="theregister.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/12/tsa\_body\_scanners/</a> [theregister.co.uk]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , but they can , actually.. . http : //www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/12/tsa \ _body \ _scanners/ [ theregister.co.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, but they can, actually...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/12/tsa\_body\_scanners/ [theregister.co.uk]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993200</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30998104</id>
	<title>Re:Better way to beat the scanner...</title>
	<author>harl</author>
	<datestamp>1265135700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's a really good question.  Leather jackets are very common.  I would think someone has thought of this before.</p><p>Live skin and dead skin are substantially different.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's a really good question .
Leather jackets are very common .
I would think someone has thought of this before.Live skin and dead skin are substantially different .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's a really good question.
Leather jackets are very common.
I would think someone has thought of this before.Live skin and dead skin are substantially different.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993950</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265119260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why isn't "a quick, less-intrusive scan and other, less-indecent security measures" an option? It's not that hard to secure a plane without basically taking nude pictures of people. Place an armed guard or two on every plane (and create some jobs doing so, yay!), use conventional scanners to ensure people don't bring along explosives, and enable the pilot to seal the cockpit from the inside so that in case of an extremely unlikely, but possible terrorist take-over he can still land safely.<br> <br>Actually, after 9/11, I'm not even sure if the armed guards would be necessary. 9/11 "worked" because people thought that cooperation with the hijackers would allow them to make it out alive. Now, things have changed - I'm pretty sure the passengers of a plane won't just sit by and wait until they crash into the Pentagon in case of another hijack.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is n't " a quick , less-intrusive scan and other , less-indecent security measures " an option ?
It 's not that hard to secure a plane without basically taking nude pictures of people .
Place an armed guard or two on every plane ( and create some jobs doing so , yay !
) , use conventional scanners to ensure people do n't bring along explosives , and enable the pilot to seal the cockpit from the inside so that in case of an extremely unlikely , but possible terrorist take-over he can still land safely .
Actually , after 9/11 , I 'm not even sure if the armed guards would be necessary .
9/11 " worked " because people thought that cooperation with the hijackers would allow them to make it out alive .
Now , things have changed - I 'm pretty sure the passengers of a plane wo n't just sit by and wait until they crash into the Pentagon in case of another hijack .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why isn't "a quick, less-intrusive scan and other, less-indecent security measures" an option?
It's not that hard to secure a plane without basically taking nude pictures of people.
Place an armed guard or two on every plane (and create some jobs doing so, yay!
), use conventional scanners to ensure people don't bring along explosives, and enable the pilot to seal the cockpit from the inside so that in case of an extremely unlikely, but possible terrorist take-over he can still land safely.
Actually, after 9/11, I'm not even sure if the armed guards would be necessary.
9/11 "worked" because people thought that cooperation with the hijackers would allow them to make it out alive.
Now, things have changed - I'm pretty sure the passengers of a plane won't just sit by and wait until they crash into the Pentagon in case of another hijack.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993034</id>
	<title>What would you prefer?</title>
	<author>Ma8thew</author>
	<datestamp>1265110680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I find it difficult to reconcile the summary's outrage at 'security theatre', with its outrage at 'naked' photos of children. If we are to use these devices, and assume (possibly a big assumption) that they can detect weapons then we must scan children, otherwise it really is security theatre. To exempt children would be to render the scanners truly useless. Am I happy with these scanners? No, but they've been in use for many years in other countries (like Russia) and they seem to be more effective at detecting suspicious devices than any other method, short of a pat down. However, I'm not sure why a pat down is not an acceptable alternative. Perhaps because security people are generally afraid of patting down peoples sensitive areas.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it difficult to reconcile the summary 's outrage at 'security theatre ' , with its outrage at 'naked ' photos of children .
If we are to use these devices , and assume ( possibly a big assumption ) that they can detect weapons then we must scan children , otherwise it really is security theatre .
To exempt children would be to render the scanners truly useless .
Am I happy with these scanners ?
No , but they 've been in use for many years in other countries ( like Russia ) and they seem to be more effective at detecting suspicious devices than any other method , short of a pat down .
However , I 'm not sure why a pat down is not an acceptable alternative .
Perhaps because security people are generally afraid of patting down peoples sensitive areas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it difficult to reconcile the summary's outrage at 'security theatre', with its outrage at 'naked' photos of children.
If we are to use these devices, and assume (possibly a big assumption) that they can detect weapons then we must scan children, otherwise it really is security theatre.
To exempt children would be to render the scanners truly useless.
Am I happy with these scanners?
No, but they've been in use for many years in other countries (like Russia) and they seem to be more effective at detecting suspicious devices than any other method, short of a pat down.
However, I'm not sure why a pat down is not an acceptable alternative.
Perhaps because security people are generally afraid of patting down peoples sensitive areas.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994006</id>
	<title>Re:Honestly</title>
	<author>Joce640k</author>
	<datestamp>1265119740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... you've got to understand that there are plenty of people who WILL be bothered by this and you should be supporting them in their view. It might be your turn to need support next.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But ... you 've got to understand that there are plenty of people who WILL be bothered by this and you should be supporting them in their view .
It might be your turn to need support next .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But ... you've got to understand that there are plenty of people who WILL be bothered by this and you should be supporting them in their view.
It might be your turn to need support next.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30992972</id>
	<title>Another reason not to fly via Heathrow</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265109840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Especially when traveling with small children security on Heathrow was always a show stopper for me. There a plenty of alternative hubs to fly from, unless you want to go to London.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Especially when traveling with small children security on Heathrow was always a show stopper for me .
There a plenty of alternative hubs to fly from , unless you want to go to London .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Especially when traveling with small children security on Heathrow was always a show stopper for me.
There a plenty of alternative hubs to fly from, unless you want to go to London.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994346</id>
	<title>XRAYS are unsafe and cause cancer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265122020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Add the third lie - Ionising radiation is not much.<br>Probably there is a extra high gain switch to kickdown to when x-raying someone of middle eastern appearance.<br>But that pregnant mothers must get a 'dose' , and no  alternative - what a crock of shit.<br>The cancers and caused by all this new radiation likely exceeds the 'b' word threat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Add the third lie - Ionising radiation is not much.Probably there is a extra high gain switch to kickdown to when x-raying someone of middle eastern appearance.But that pregnant mothers must get a 'dose ' , and no alternative - what a crock of shit.The cancers and caused by all this new radiation likely exceeds the 'b ' word threat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Add the third lie - Ionising radiation is not much.Probably there is a extra high gain switch to kickdown to when x-raying someone of middle eastern appearance.But that pregnant mothers must get a 'dose' , and no  alternative - what a crock of shit.The cancers and caused by all this new radiation likely exceeds the 'b' word threat.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.31002076</id>
	<title>people get upset over the wrong thing</title>
	<author>vanyel</author>
	<datestamp>1265109960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It really boggles my mind how people get upset over body parts, I mean just exactly how does it hurt anyone for the security people (or anyone else for that matter) to see you bare?</p><p>And yet none of the hoorah is over the trend towards police states everywhere.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It really boggles my mind how people get upset over body parts , I mean just exactly how does it hurt anyone for the security people ( or anyone else for that matter ) to see you bare ? And yet none of the hoorah is over the trend towards police states everywhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It really boggles my mind how people get upset over body parts, I mean just exactly how does it hurt anyone for the security people (or anyone else for that matter) to see you bare?And yet none of the hoorah is over the trend towards police states everywhere.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993204</id>
	<title>Superman Time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265112540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The time has come once again... to wear the Superman-inspired lead undergarments.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The time has come once again... to wear the Superman-inspired lead undergarments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The time has come once again... to wear the Superman-inspired lead undergarments.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993058</id>
	<title>X-Ray exposure?</title>
	<author>MichaelSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1265110980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.radiologyinfo.org/en/pdf/sfty\_xray.pdf" title="radiologyinfo.org">This PDF</a> [radiologyinfo.org] has a table which tries to put radiation exposure from X Rays into context. For example: <i>Computed Tomography (CT)-Body</i> is comparable to three years exposure to background radiation. So how much radiation do I get from one of these scanners? I am a bit worried about it because I have had a lot of X Rays and one CT in the last six months.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This PDF [ radiologyinfo.org ] has a table which tries to put radiation exposure from X Rays into context .
For example : Computed Tomography ( CT ) -Body is comparable to three years exposure to background radiation .
So how much radiation do I get from one of these scanners ?
I am a bit worried about it because I have had a lot of X Rays and one CT in the last six months .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This PDF [radiologyinfo.org] has a table which tries to put radiation exposure from X Rays into context.
For example: Computed Tomography (CT)-Body is comparable to three years exposure to background radiation.
So how much radiation do I get from one of these scanners?
I am a bit worried about it because I have had a lot of X Rays and one CT in the last six months.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30999500</id>
	<title>Re:Ways around it:</title>
	<author>martas</author>
	<datestamp>1265141040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>or the more old-fashioned, 90's version of mythbusters - scientists.</htmltext>
<tokenext>or the more old-fashioned , 90 's version of mythbusters - scientists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>or the more old-fashioned, 90's version of mythbusters - scientists.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993304</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994150</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>Alcoholist</author>
	<datestamp>1265120880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm starting to think that George Orwell wasn't that far off the mark.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm starting to think that George Orwell was n't that far off the mark .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm starting to think that George Orwell wasn't that far off the mark.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994776</id>
	<title>Metallic Underwear</title>
	<author>DeanFox</author>
	<datestamp>1265124240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><br>
I see a possibility of couple solutions maybe more.  On Amazon if you search for "Intimo Men's Liquid Metallic Boxers"  I won't put a link as who knows what's in mine (Browser ID, etc.).  These or something similar must do something to screw with the backscatter making it useless.  Wasn't there military underwear with silver/copper threads or something that kills bacteria?
<br> <br>
I travel once every five years or so I won't be able to try these any time soon.  But I'm going to search around for something like these have them handy and try them when I do.  I won't know if they work until I get scanned and then pulled over after for questioning.  If/when I do I'll let the world know the results so everybody else can do the same thing.  I believe there must be a simple way with a products like these to give the bird to the government and demand our privacy.
<br> <br>
With all the metal it may be tough to get through security but if the wand starts screaming a pat down should solve it.  If they're after my junk I don't want some guy in another room - I have the right to look them in the eye and see their look of envy.
<br> <br>
-[d]-</htmltext>
<tokenext>I see a possibility of couple solutions maybe more .
On Amazon if you search for " Intimo Men 's Liquid Metallic Boxers " I wo n't put a link as who knows what 's in mine ( Browser ID , etc. ) .
These or something similar must do something to screw with the backscatter making it useless .
Was n't there military underwear with silver/copper threads or something that kills bacteria ?
I travel once every five years or so I wo n't be able to try these any time soon .
But I 'm going to search around for something like these have them handy and try them when I do .
I wo n't know if they work until I get scanned and then pulled over after for questioning .
If/when I do I 'll let the world know the results so everybody else can do the same thing .
I believe there must be a simple way with a products like these to give the bird to the government and demand our privacy .
With all the metal it may be tough to get through security but if the wand starts screaming a pat down should solve it .
If they 're after my junk I do n't want some guy in another room - I have the right to look them in the eye and see their look of envy .
- [ d ] -</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I see a possibility of couple solutions maybe more.
On Amazon if you search for "Intimo Men's Liquid Metallic Boxers"  I won't put a link as who knows what's in mine (Browser ID, etc.).
These or something similar must do something to screw with the backscatter making it useless.
Wasn't there military underwear with silver/copper threads or something that kills bacteria?
I travel once every five years or so I won't be able to try these any time soon.
But I'm going to search around for something like these have them handy and try them when I do.
I won't know if they work until I get scanned and then pulled over after for questioning.
If/when I do I'll let the world know the results so everybody else can do the same thing.
I believe there must be a simple way with a products like these to give the bird to the government and demand our privacy.
With all the metal it may be tough to get through security but if the wand starts screaming a pat down should solve it.
If they're after my junk I don't want some guy in another room - I have the right to look them in the eye and see their look of envy.
-[d]-</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30995576</id>
	<title>Don't Trust The Government</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265127540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I take matters into my own hands when flying and blurr my own genitals before I go through.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I take matters into my own hands when flying and blurr my own genitals before I go through .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I take matters into my own hands when flying and blurr my own genitals before I go through.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993214</id>
	<title>No Fly = Refun?</title>
	<author>ePlus</author>
	<datestamp>1265112600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>So if I am one of the unlucky ones and get "randomly" picked for a scan... And if I refuse, do I get a refund? Do I get put on a terror watch list?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So if I am one of the unlucky ones and get " randomly " picked for a scan... And if I refuse , do I get a refund ?
Do I get put on a terror watch list ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So if I am one of the unlucky ones and get "randomly" picked for a scan... And if I refuse, do I get a refund?
Do I get put on a terror watch list?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.31003600</id>
	<title>Re:Health effects of millimeter waves</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265118300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Parent isn't a troll - the points made are coherent and sensible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Parent is n't a troll - the points made are coherent and sensible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Parent isn't a troll - the points made are coherent and sensible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994222</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993786</id>
	<title>why bother with airplanes</title>
	<author>mooglez</author>
	<datestamp>1265117880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All that these new security measures are doing, is moving the target from the "protected" airplane, to the unprotected queues of people at the airports.</p><p>Looking from an attacker PoV, which "mission" sounds better:<br>A) a high risk bomb smuggling operation to blow up ~200 people in an airplane with minimal explosives.</p><p>B) fit as much explosives as you can to your luggage and queue to the airport security check line at the most active time.</p><p>Scenario B has almost no chance of you getting caught before you can blow things up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All that these new security measures are doing , is moving the target from the " protected " airplane , to the unprotected queues of people at the airports.Looking from an attacker PoV , which " mission " sounds better : A ) a high risk bomb smuggling operation to blow up ~ 200 people in an airplane with minimal explosives.B ) fit as much explosives as you can to your luggage and queue to the airport security check line at the most active time.Scenario B has almost no chance of you getting caught before you can blow things up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All that these new security measures are doing, is moving the target from the "protected" airplane, to the unprotected queues of people at the airports.Looking from an attacker PoV, which "mission" sounds better:A) a high risk bomb smuggling operation to blow up ~200 people in an airplane with minimal explosives.B) fit as much explosives as you can to your luggage and queue to the airport security check line at the most active time.Scenario B has almost no chance of you getting caught before you can blow things up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993726</id>
	<title>No Scan? Then I won't fly!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265117220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Being that I am an expositionist, I'll be sorely disappointed if I'm not scanned on my next flight. NO SCAN, NO FLY!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Being that I am an expositionist , I 'll be sorely disappointed if I 'm not scanned on my next flight .
NO SCAN , NO FLY !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Being that I am an expositionist, I'll be sorely disappointed if I'm not scanned on my next flight.
NO SCAN, NO FLY!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994198</id>
	<title>The capitalist opportunity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265121120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who's going to start making the t-shirts (to be worn under) that will have lettering or designs that will show up on the scanner?  I'm thinking small shirts that clearly say "kiddie porn" on the front and back.  Or some underwear that reflect "If you can read this, you better have bought me dinner"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who 's going to start making the t-shirts ( to be worn under ) that will have lettering or designs that will show up on the scanner ?
I 'm thinking small shirts that clearly say " kiddie porn " on the front and back .
Or some underwear that reflect " If you can read this , you better have bought me dinner " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who's going to start making the t-shirts (to be worn under) that will have lettering or designs that will show up on the scanner?
I'm thinking small shirts that clearly say "kiddie porn" on the front and back.
Or some underwear that reflect "If you can read this, you better have bought me dinner"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993636</id>
	<title>Re:Read the article, please.</title>
	<author>mikechant</author>
	<datestamp>1265116500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>So, I say do <b>whatever</b> needs to be done to make us all even the <b>slightest bit</b> safer.</i></p><p>Really? So you'd be happy to fly in a paper jumpsuit, strapped to your seat and heavily sedated?<br>To submit to a full cavity search every time you fly?</p><p>You're the model obediant citizen for the forthcoming police state!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , I say do whatever needs to be done to make us all even the slightest bit safer.Really ?
So you 'd be happy to fly in a paper jumpsuit , strapped to your seat and heavily sedated ? To submit to a full cavity search every time you fly ? You 're the model obediant citizen for the forthcoming police state !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, I say do whatever needs to be done to make us all even the slightest bit safer.Really?
So you'd be happy to fly in a paper jumpsuit, strapped to your seat and heavily sedated?To submit to a full cavity search every time you fly?You're the model obediant citizen for the forthcoming police state!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30995332</id>
	<title>I've got my defense ready</title>
	<author>mrjb</author>
	<datestamp>1265126580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm gonna sell tinfoil underwear and become rich!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm gon na sell tinfoil underwear and become rich !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm gonna sell tinfoil underwear and become rich!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30999476</id>
	<title>Re:When will it end</title>
	<author>martas</author>
	<datestamp>1265140980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>i, personally, see this as a terrible treath.</htmltext>
<tokenext>i , personally , see this as a terrible treath .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i, personally, see this as a terrible treath.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993140</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>Grismar</author>
	<datestamp>1265111940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Both sides of this arguments have entered Ridiculousland a long time ago.</p><p>If we assume that these body scanners actually help in preventing terrorist attacks on airplanes, it's silly to exclude children. Pictures of naked kids are only a problem if there's a reasonable possibility that they will end up in the wrong hands. Also, I doubt these scans have any erotic effect on even the most desperate pedophile except for those with some freaky scanner fetish.</p><p>Surely you don't think x-rays of children in hospitals should be banned? Or pictures of naked kids for medical purposes in files of pediatricians?</p><p>But the other side of the argument is the one making that assumption, that these body scanners will do any good in preventing terrorism. Sure, they may help a bit to prevent all sorts of smuggling and they will prevent people from bringing most weaponry on board. But what's to stop me from implanting some C4, or putting a balloon of liquid explosive in my bladder? Does that mean we'll start x-raying everyone next? Fine, I'll have the bone marrow in my legs replaced with high explosive, don't need it where I'm going anyway, right?</p><p>Terrorists will always find a way to get explosives on planes if they feel they need to. The only thing we can do is remove their reasons for wanting to do so in the first place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Both sides of this arguments have entered Ridiculousland a long time ago.If we assume that these body scanners actually help in preventing terrorist attacks on airplanes , it 's silly to exclude children .
Pictures of naked kids are only a problem if there 's a reasonable possibility that they will end up in the wrong hands .
Also , I doubt these scans have any erotic effect on even the most desperate pedophile except for those with some freaky scanner fetish.Surely you do n't think x-rays of children in hospitals should be banned ?
Or pictures of naked kids for medical purposes in files of pediatricians ? But the other side of the argument is the one making that assumption , that these body scanners will do any good in preventing terrorism .
Sure , they may help a bit to prevent all sorts of smuggling and they will prevent people from bringing most weaponry on board .
But what 's to stop me from implanting some C4 , or putting a balloon of liquid explosive in my bladder ?
Does that mean we 'll start x-raying everyone next ?
Fine , I 'll have the bone marrow in my legs replaced with high explosive , do n't need it where I 'm going anyway , right ? Terrorists will always find a way to get explosives on planes if they feel they need to .
The only thing we can do is remove their reasons for wanting to do so in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Both sides of this arguments have entered Ridiculousland a long time ago.If we assume that these body scanners actually help in preventing terrorist attacks on airplanes, it's silly to exclude children.
Pictures of naked kids are only a problem if there's a reasonable possibility that they will end up in the wrong hands.
Also, I doubt these scans have any erotic effect on even the most desperate pedophile except for those with some freaky scanner fetish.Surely you don't think x-rays of children in hospitals should be banned?
Or pictures of naked kids for medical purposes in files of pediatricians?But the other side of the argument is the one making that assumption, that these body scanners will do any good in preventing terrorism.
Sure, they may help a bit to prevent all sorts of smuggling and they will prevent people from bringing most weaponry on board.
But what's to stop me from implanting some C4, or putting a balloon of liquid explosive in my bladder?
Does that mean we'll start x-raying everyone next?
Fine, I'll have the bone marrow in my legs replaced with high explosive, don't need it where I'm going anyway, right?Terrorists will always find a way to get explosives on planes if they feel they need to.
The only thing we can do is remove their reasons for wanting to do so in the first place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30992974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993334</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>addsalt</author>
	<datestamp>1265113620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Surely you don't think x-rays of children in hospitals should be banned? Or pictures of naked kids for medical purposes in files of pediatricians?</p></div><p>I think where you went wrong in your argument is when you equated trained and licensed medical doctors to the savvy motivated airport security personnel...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Surely you do n't think x-rays of children in hospitals should be banned ?
Or pictures of naked kids for medical purposes in files of pediatricians ? I think where you went wrong in your argument is when you equated trained and licensed medical doctors to the savvy motivated airport security personnel.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Surely you don't think x-rays of children in hospitals should be banned?
Or pictures of naked kids for medical purposes in files of pediatricians?I think where you went wrong in your argument is when you equated trained and licensed medical doctors to the savvy motivated airport security personnel...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30995442</id>
	<title>Totalitarian control!</title>
	<author>aepervius</author>
	<datestamp>1265127000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Totalitarian control?" Yes it is the goal. First you get the people to be habituated to get scanned at airport. Then at the next occasion, you get them habits of being scanned at official government building, sometimes this is already in place. Then you get them to be scanned at major public transportation hub. Then you add camera everywhere, you make deep inspection of their packet compulsory, and sharing of their bank detail. The final step is to declare war on eurasia. And there you are winston Smith ! <br> <br>And you know the worst ? I am seeing it <b>happening right now, and nobody is even reacting</b></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Totalitarian control ?
" Yes it is the goal .
First you get the people to be habituated to get scanned at airport .
Then at the next occasion , you get them habits of being scanned at official government building , sometimes this is already in place .
Then you get them to be scanned at major public transportation hub .
Then you add camera everywhere , you make deep inspection of their packet compulsory , and sharing of their bank detail .
The final step is to declare war on eurasia .
And there you are winston Smith !
And you know the worst ?
I am seeing it happening right now , and nobody is even reacting</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Totalitarian control?
" Yes it is the goal.
First you get the people to be habituated to get scanned at airport.
Then at the next occasion, you get them habits of being scanned at official government building, sometimes this is already in place.
Then you get them to be scanned at major public transportation hub.
Then you add camera everywhere, you make deep inspection of their packet compulsory, and sharing of their bank detail.
The final step is to declare war on eurasia.
And there you are winston Smith !
And you know the worst ?
I am seeing it happening right now, and nobody is even reacting</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.31006932</id>
	<title>Why don't they just ask me?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264970280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>As an ex commando I have no issues with getting my kit off gettting naked instead of scanning me. Want to see my cock or arse fine. Goosey Goosey Gander!</htmltext>
<tokenext>As an ex commando I have no issues with getting my kit off gettting naked instead of scanning me .
Want to see my cock or arse fine .
Goosey Goosey Gander !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As an ex commando I have no issues with getting my kit off gettting naked instead of scanning me.
Want to see my cock or arse fine.
Goosey Goosey Gander!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994338</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1265121960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you don't like scannerless airports, don't fly on holiday. It really is as simple as that.</p><p>(And because waiting in a crowded airport queuing with a terr0rist is much better?)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you do n't like scannerless airports , do n't fly on holiday .
It really is as simple as that .
( And because waiting in a crowded airport queuing with a terr0rist is much better ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you don't like scannerless airports, don't fly on holiday.
It really is as simple as that.
(And because waiting in a crowded airport queuing with a terr0rist is much better?
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993550</id>
	<title>Best solution: Government implants</title>
	<author>Jackie\_Chan\_Fan</author>
	<datestamp>1265115900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its now time to be given government implants. All babies born from now on should have microchip implants with RFID and GPS tracking capability.</p><p>Its the best we can do. Its good for the people, and best of all... its good for the government.</p><p>Please report to your local police departments to have your chips installed and please remember to watch what you say.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its now time to be given government implants .
All babies born from now on should have microchip implants with RFID and GPS tracking capability.Its the best we can do .
Its good for the people , and best of all... its good for the government.Please report to your local police departments to have your chips installed and please remember to watch what you say .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its now time to be given government implants.
All babies born from now on should have microchip implants with RFID and GPS tracking capability.Its the best we can do.
Its good for the people, and best of all... its good for the government.Please report to your local police departments to have your chips installed and please remember to watch what you say.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993942</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265119200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Pictures of naked kids are only a problem if there's a reasonable possibility that they will end up in the wrong hands</p> </div><p>
&nbsp; <br>I dare you to say that in front of a school while parents are picking up their kids or a local PTA meeting (Parent Teacher's Association).</p><p>captcha = venture</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Pictures of naked kids are only a problem if there 's a reasonable possibility that they will end up in the wrong hands   I dare you to say that in front of a school while parents are picking up their kids or a local PTA meeting ( Parent Teacher 's Association ) .captcha = venture</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Pictures of naked kids are only a problem if there's a reasonable possibility that they will end up in the wrong hands 
  I dare you to say that in front of a school while parents are picking up their kids or a local PTA meeting (Parent Teacher's Association).captcha = venture
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.31000938</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>centuren</author>
	<datestamp>1265103960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If they need to take an x-ray of your hip (or, heaven forbid, a child's hip) for medical reasons, do you complain that genitals will show up as a silhouette in that as well?</p></div><p>In this situation, I am well aware of patients privacy laws, and authorised the x-ray after accepting the recommendation that it will be useful to treat what which ails me. I have yet to see comprehensive (and by nature, international) laws concerning rights while travelling, and I don't for a minute accept the claim that body scanners are beneficial to me in the slightest way. As you say, they don't actually make a difference. If I suspect my hip might be broken, I an x-ray will be useful.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they need to take an x-ray of your hip ( or , heaven forbid , a child 's hip ) for medical reasons , do you complain that genitals will show up as a silhouette in that as well ? In this situation , I am well aware of patients privacy laws , and authorised the x-ray after accepting the recommendation that it will be useful to treat what which ails me .
I have yet to see comprehensive ( and by nature , international ) laws concerning rights while travelling , and I do n't for a minute accept the claim that body scanners are beneficial to me in the slightest way .
As you say , they do n't actually make a difference .
If I suspect my hip might be broken , I an x-ray will be useful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they need to take an x-ray of your hip (or, heaven forbid, a child's hip) for medical reasons, do you complain that genitals will show up as a silhouette in that as well?In this situation, I am well aware of patients privacy laws, and authorised the x-ray after accepting the recommendation that it will be useful to treat what which ails me.
I have yet to see comprehensive (and by nature, international) laws concerning rights while travelling, and I don't for a minute accept the claim that body scanners are beneficial to me in the slightest way.
As you say, they don't actually make a difference.
If I suspect my hip might be broken, I an x-ray will be useful.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993426</id>
	<title>A little photoshop and voila</title>
	<author>Shivetya</author>
	<datestamp>1265114520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I bet someone can come up with a process to "restore" pictures back to form.  I am also quite sure there is a lot of data that we don't see that would be usable to do that restore.  Its going to have enough detail for 3D modeling.</p><p>I still do not see why they cannot extrapolate the images and present them "Total Recall" style <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CX9Agzeh-c" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CX9Agzeh-c</a> [youtube.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I bet someone can come up with a process to " restore " pictures back to form .
I am also quite sure there is a lot of data that we do n't see that would be usable to do that restore .
Its going to have enough detail for 3D modeling.I still do not see why they can not extrapolate the images and present them " Total Recall " style http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = 7CX9Agzeh-c [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I bet someone can come up with a process to "restore" pictures back to form.
I am also quite sure there is a lot of data that we don't see that would be usable to do that restore.
Its going to have enough detail for 3D modeling.I still do not see why they cannot extrapolate the images and present them "Total Recall" style http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CX9Agzeh-c [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993344</id>
	<title>Somebody has to see you naked before you fly...</title>
	<author>quarkoid</author>
	<datestamp>1265113680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...I can't help but think that the terrorists have won.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...I ca n't help but think that the terrorists have won .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...I can't help but think that the terrorists have won.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994984</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>Remus Shepherd</author>
	<datestamp>1265125140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Surely you don't think x-rays of children in hospitals should be banned?</i></p><p>Just a point:  X-rays in hospitals look at children's bones.  Nothing scandalous to see there.  The millimeter wave scanners in airports look through clothes to see children's skin.</p><p>You're comparing apples to toothpicks, here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Surely you do n't think x-rays of children in hospitals should be banned ? Just a point : X-rays in hospitals look at children 's bones .
Nothing scandalous to see there .
The millimeter wave scanners in airports look through clothes to see children 's skin.You 're comparing apples to toothpicks , here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Surely you don't think x-rays of children in hospitals should be banned?Just a point:  X-rays in hospitals look at children's bones.
Nothing scandalous to see there.
The millimeter wave scanners in airports look through clothes to see children's skin.You're comparing apples to toothpicks, here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30996750</id>
	<title>Does leather foil it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265131320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does leather foil it?</p><p>If not, what does?  I mean, clearly it stops at flesh, so we just need something that is basically like flesh to wear over our nads.</p><p>Now, I'm not saying that makes it ok or anything, I just want to know if there are any valid workarounds until we can actually solve these problems for real.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does leather foil it ? If not , what does ?
I mean , clearly it stops at flesh , so we just need something that is basically like flesh to wear over our nads.Now , I 'm not saying that makes it ok or anything , I just want to know if there are any valid workarounds until we can actually solve these problems for real .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does leather foil it?If not, what does?
I mean, clearly it stops at flesh, so we just need something that is basically like flesh to wear over our nads.Now, I'm not saying that makes it ok or anything, I just want to know if there are any valid workarounds until we can actually solve these problems for real.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994004</id>
	<title>Re:Pictures not stored or captured FAIL</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1265119740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The manufacturer can put the devices into a Diagnostic mode. This is a hardware operation, as best as I can recall, not a software switch. I can't find where I heard that information, but I did.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The manufacturer can put the devices into a Diagnostic mode .
This is a hardware operation , as best as I can recall , not a software switch .
I ca n't find where I heard that information , but I did .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The manufacturer can put the devices into a Diagnostic mode.
This is a hardware operation, as best as I can recall, not a software switch.
I can't find where I heard that information, but I did.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993200</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30998440</id>
	<title>Sicherheitstheater macht frei</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265136900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sicherheitstheater macht frei</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sicherheitstheater macht frei</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sicherheitstheater macht frei</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993594</id>
	<title>Boycott</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265116140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I often travel to London for business (from France).<br>I just informed my travel assistant that she can exclude LHR from any of my travels with immediate effect, and that I will do the same with any additional airport coming into this madness.</p><p>If that means taking a train to Le Havre, then a boat then another train, I'm perfectly fine with this and the business will have to cope with that until big companies like mine decide to boycott such airports - then we'll see who is the customer and who should offer the best conditions for personal &amp; business travel rather than transforming a 300 miles trip into a trans-saharian adventure.</p><p>(might also help LHR 3rd runway opponents, just thinking<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-))</p><p>Safety is important but come on people, this goes too far!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I often travel to London for business ( from France ) .I just informed my travel assistant that she can exclude LHR from any of my travels with immediate effect , and that I will do the same with any additional airport coming into this madness.If that means taking a train to Le Havre , then a boat then another train , I 'm perfectly fine with this and the business will have to cope with that until big companies like mine decide to boycott such airports - then we 'll see who is the customer and who should offer the best conditions for personal &amp; business travel rather than transforming a 300 miles trip into a trans-saharian adventure .
( might also help LHR 3rd runway opponents , just thinking ; - ) ) Safety is important but come on people , this goes too far !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I often travel to London for business (from France).I just informed my travel assistant that she can exclude LHR from any of my travels with immediate effect, and that I will do the same with any additional airport coming into this madness.If that means taking a train to Le Havre, then a boat then another train, I'm perfectly fine with this and the business will have to cope with that until big companies like mine decide to boycott such airports - then we'll see who is the customer and who should offer the best conditions for personal &amp; business travel rather than transforming a 300 miles trip into a trans-saharian adventure.
(might also help LHR 3rd runway opponents, just thinking ;-))Safety is important but come on people, this goes too far!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993916</id>
	<title>Machines not hard to defeat</title>
	<author>ugen</author>
	<datestamp>1265118960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These X-ray backscatter machines are fairly easy to defeat, imho. All the bad guy needs is a pouch (say, a fake belly) on his body made from material that scatters Xray just like human body does (say, animal leather with a backing of some foil - I am sure smarter people can come up with a better idea), nicely fitted to body contour. Think one of those "fat suits" they use for make-up in movies.</p><p>Put anything you need inside and go right in. Then who cares if your genitalia is or isn't blurred.</p><p>In fact, I am quite curious what the next step would be once these machines are so defeated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These X-ray backscatter machines are fairly easy to defeat , imho .
All the bad guy needs is a pouch ( say , a fake belly ) on his body made from material that scatters Xray just like human body does ( say , animal leather with a backing of some foil - I am sure smarter people can come up with a better idea ) , nicely fitted to body contour .
Think one of those " fat suits " they use for make-up in movies.Put anything you need inside and go right in .
Then who cares if your genitalia is or is n't blurred.In fact , I am quite curious what the next step would be once these machines are so defeated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These X-ray backscatter machines are fairly easy to defeat, imho.
All the bad guy needs is a pouch (say, a fake belly) on his body made from material that scatters Xray just like human body does (say, animal leather with a backing of some foil - I am sure smarter people can come up with a better idea), nicely fitted to body contour.
Think one of those "fat suits" they use for make-up in movies.Put anything you need inside and go right in.
Then who cares if your genitalia is or isn't blurred.In fact, I am quite curious what the next step would be once these machines are so defeated.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993524</id>
	<title>Muslim Cultural Modesty</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265115540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Say, I wonder if Muslims (good or bad) will simply refuse to fly because of this?</p><p>I don't know. It would seem to be a direct violation of something culturally.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Say , I wonder if Muslims ( good or bad ) will simply refuse to fly because of this ? I do n't know .
It would seem to be a direct violation of something culturally .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Say, I wonder if Muslims (good or bad) will simply refuse to fly because of this?I don't know.
It would seem to be a direct violation of something culturally.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993100</id>
	<title>From the article</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265111340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Transport Secretary Lord Adonis said in the immediate future only a small proportion of airline passengers would be selected for scanning. </i></p><p>Lord <b>Adonis</b>, maybe he is just having Snow White problems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Transport Secretary Lord Adonis said in the immediate future only a small proportion of airline passengers would be selected for scanning .
Lord Adonis , maybe he is just having Snow White problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Transport Secretary Lord Adonis said in the immediate future only a small proportion of airline passengers would be selected for scanning.
Lord Adonis, maybe he is just having Snow White problems.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993600</id>
	<title>Honestly</title>
	<author>Dunbal</author>
	<datestamp>1265116200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I really don't think the person who has to screen thousands of people per shift is going to be paying any special attention to MY (aor anyone else's) genitals. Although I am not a fan of intrusive security (especially when there are STILL so many other ways of smuggling a weapon or explosive on board), I'm not shocked by the concept that some security employee can see my penis.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I really do n't think the person who has to screen thousands of people per shift is going to be paying any special attention to MY ( aor anyone else 's ) genitals .
Although I am not a fan of intrusive security ( especially when there are STILL so many other ways of smuggling a weapon or explosive on board ) , I 'm not shocked by the concept that some security employee can see my penis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really don't think the person who has to screen thousands of people per shift is going to be paying any special attention to MY (aor anyone else's) genitals.
Although I am not a fan of intrusive security (especially when there are STILL so many other ways of smuggling a weapon or explosive on board), I'm not shocked by the concept that some security employee can see my penis.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30995484</id>
	<title>No more Heathrow...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265127120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I live in the USA. A quick check on orbitz.com, and I can fly into Gatwick just as easily as Heathrow...in fact, here's a flight on Virgin from nearby Orlando to Gatwick. The Gatwick Express train to London Victoria: 16.90 GBP one-way, 28.70 GBP round trip. The train runs 20 hours a day, every 15 minutes, and it's a 30-minute ride.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I live in the USA .
A quick check on orbitz.com , and I can fly into Gatwick just as easily as Heathrow...in fact , here 's a flight on Virgin from nearby Orlando to Gatwick .
The Gatwick Express train to London Victoria : 16.90 GBP one-way , 28.70 GBP round trip .
The train runs 20 hours a day , every 15 minutes , and it 's a 30-minute ride .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I live in the USA.
A quick check on orbitz.com, and I can fly into Gatwick just as easily as Heathrow...in fact, here's a flight on Virgin from nearby Orlando to Gatwick.
The Gatwick Express train to London Victoria: 16.90 GBP one-way, 28.70 GBP round trip.
The train runs 20 hours a day, every 15 minutes, and it's a 30-minute ride.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30998642</id>
	<title>They need to make up their minds!</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1265137680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's see if I have this right. I do not have the option to not be seen naked in this scanner. If I try to bypass it, I get arrested. They say there's absolutely nothing wrong with being seen naked. However, if I decide to get it over with and just go to the airport naked they'll arrest me for indecent exposure?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's see if I have this right .
I do not have the option to not be seen naked in this scanner .
If I try to bypass it , I get arrested .
They say there 's absolutely nothing wrong with being seen naked .
However , if I decide to get it over with and just go to the airport naked they 'll arrest me for indecent exposure ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's see if I have this right.
I do not have the option to not be seen naked in this scanner.
If I try to bypass it, I get arrested.
They say there's absolutely nothing wrong with being seen naked.
However, if I decide to get it over with and just go to the airport naked they'll arrest me for indecent exposure?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993200</id>
	<title>Pictures not stored or captured FAIL</title>
	<author>larjon</author>
	<datestamp>1265112480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The image generated by the body scanner cannot be stored or captured [...]</i></p><p>So... how did they get the pictures into the article?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The image generated by the body scanner can not be stored or captured [ ... ] So... how did they get the pictures into the article ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The image generated by the body scanner cannot be stored or captured [...]So... how did they get the pictures into the article?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993970</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265119440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're right, there's only one solution.  Everyone needs to be naked all the time.  It's the only way to be sure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're right , there 's only one solution .
Everyone needs to be naked all the time .
It 's the only way to be sure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're right, there's only one solution.
Everyone needs to be naked all the time.
It's the only way to be sure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993440</id>
	<title>Read the article, please.</title>
	<author>neoprimal</author>
	<datestamp>1265114580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Terrorists blow people up. You complain.
Governments try out all these devices to curb terrorists blowing people up. You complain.

What will make EVERYONE happy? Nothing. So, I say do whatever needs to be done to make us all even the slightest bit safer.
Our freedoms and rights aren't affected detrimentally by something like this. Sure, it would be another story if these things took full color
shots and stored the digital images in some name searchable database, but guess what? It doesn't....so what's the ruckus about?
1. the person viewing the scans are in another room. 2. the images aren't saved at all, they're viewed by the device for weapons, visually ok'd by personnel and then gone into cyber oblivion.
3. kids are people too, and terrorists will use ANYONE to make their point. 4. those of you thinking about cell phone snaps etc. - very difficult task because generally cells aren't allowed into
those kinds of areas and it would be very, very easy to trace the image leaked back to the person on duty at the time, so they'd have to be pretty stupid to do that.

Frisking/Patting down may be able to detect certain weapons, etc. Pad scanning (with the handheld devices) also detects weapons and such.
What though, stops the person who swallows something/inserts something anally or vaginally from recovering it in the lavatory and then blowing up or taking the plane hostage? Perhaps these scanners, that's what.

So before you discharge your very loud opinion on how wrong, invasive/pervasive this is, especially because they want to scan kids....first of all, rtfa and second of all, think about a scenario in which
a terrorist decides to blow a plane up with either something he can poop out, or his/someone else's chosen "martyred" child.

War on Privacy? Are you serious? What exactly do you have to hide or protect that would make you so paranoid?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Terrorists blow people up .
You complain .
Governments try out all these devices to curb terrorists blowing people up .
You complain .
What will make EVERYONE happy ?
Nothing. So , I say do whatever needs to be done to make us all even the slightest bit safer .
Our freedoms and rights are n't affected detrimentally by something like this .
Sure , it would be another story if these things took full color shots and stored the digital images in some name searchable database , but guess what ?
It does n't....so what 's the ruckus about ?
1. the person viewing the scans are in another room .
2. the images are n't saved at all , they 're viewed by the device for weapons , visually ok 'd by personnel and then gone into cyber oblivion .
3. kids are people too , and terrorists will use ANYONE to make their point .
4. those of you thinking about cell phone snaps etc .
- very difficult task because generally cells are n't allowed into those kinds of areas and it would be very , very easy to trace the image leaked back to the person on duty at the time , so they 'd have to be pretty stupid to do that .
Frisking/Patting down may be able to detect certain weapons , etc .
Pad scanning ( with the handheld devices ) also detects weapons and such .
What though , stops the person who swallows something/inserts something anally or vaginally from recovering it in the lavatory and then blowing up or taking the plane hostage ?
Perhaps these scanners , that 's what .
So before you discharge your very loud opinion on how wrong , invasive/pervasive this is , especially because they want to scan kids....first of all , rtfa and second of all , think about a scenario in which a terrorist decides to blow a plane up with either something he can poop out , or his/someone else 's chosen " martyred " child .
War on Privacy ?
Are you serious ?
What exactly do you have to hide or protect that would make you so paranoid ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Terrorists blow people up.
You complain.
Governments try out all these devices to curb terrorists blowing people up.
You complain.
What will make EVERYONE happy?
Nothing. So, I say do whatever needs to be done to make us all even the slightest bit safer.
Our freedoms and rights aren't affected detrimentally by something like this.
Sure, it would be another story if these things took full color
shots and stored the digital images in some name searchable database, but guess what?
It doesn't....so what's the ruckus about?
1. the person viewing the scans are in another room.
2. the images aren't saved at all, they're viewed by the device for weapons, visually ok'd by personnel and then gone into cyber oblivion.
3. kids are people too, and terrorists will use ANYONE to make their point.
4. those of you thinking about cell phone snaps etc.
- very difficult task because generally cells aren't allowed into
those kinds of areas and it would be very, very easy to trace the image leaked back to the person on duty at the time, so they'd have to be pretty stupid to do that.
Frisking/Patting down may be able to detect certain weapons, etc.
Pad scanning (with the handheld devices) also detects weapons and such.
What though, stops the person who swallows something/inserts something anally or vaginally from recovering it in the lavatory and then blowing up or taking the plane hostage?
Perhaps these scanners, that's what.
So before you discharge your very loud opinion on how wrong, invasive/pervasive this is, especially because they want to scan kids....first of all, rtfa and second of all, think about a scenario in which
a terrorist decides to blow a plane up with either something he can poop out, or his/someone else's chosen "martyred" child.
War on Privacy?
Are you serious?
What exactly do you have to hide or protect that would make you so paranoid?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994184</id>
	<title>no more flying through the UK for me then</title>
	<author>darkeye</author>
	<datestamp>1265121060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>as I don't live there, I don't have to either.</p><p>I guess this will mean this islander nation is more of an islaneder by now. any UK person I'll meet, I can be sure they conceded in having their genitals exposed to some underpaid 'security' asshole</p><p>what a bunch of perverts...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>as I do n't live there , I do n't have to either.I guess this will mean this islander nation is more of an islaneder by now .
any UK person I 'll meet , I can be sure they conceded in having their genitals exposed to some underpaid 'security ' assholewhat a bunch of perverts.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>as I don't live there, I don't have to either.I guess this will mean this islander nation is more of an islaneder by now.
any UK person I'll meet, I can be sure they conceded in having their genitals exposed to some underpaid 'security' assholewhat a bunch of perverts...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994022</id>
	<title>What reflects these waves?</title>
	<author>garg0yle</author>
	<datestamp>1265119980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Personally, I'm looking for some sort of reflective material that I can make into paint and paint rude messages to the security people on my body.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , I 'm looking for some sort of reflective material that I can make into paint and paint rude messages to the security people on my body .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, I'm looking for some sort of reflective material that I can make into paint and paint rude messages to the security people on my body.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993224</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>ghjm</author>
	<datestamp>1265112660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's not the choice. The choice is a "quick" scan of their kids genitals and a 0.000001\% chance of flying with terrorists, or no scan and a 0.00001\% chance of flying with terrorists. It's really a no-brainer.</p><p>Seriously, we've never had genital scanners before and airplanes have been remarkably safe. In 2001, including all the 9/11 casualties both on the planes and on the ground and also the unrelated AA 587 crash, the rate was one death per 250 million passenger-miles.</p><p>According to the NTSB, the US fatal highway accident rate is 1.3 deaths per 100 million vehicle-miles, with an average of 1.6 occupants. By my math this comes to about two deaths per 250 million passenger-miles, double the risk of flying in 2001, which was already eight times higher than the risk of flying in a typical year. (I don't have equivalent figures for the UK.)</p><p>Should we install genital scanners at highway entrances?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's not the choice .
The choice is a " quick " scan of their kids genitals and a 0.000001 \ % chance of flying with terrorists , or no scan and a 0.00001 \ % chance of flying with terrorists .
It 's really a no-brainer.Seriously , we 've never had genital scanners before and airplanes have been remarkably safe .
In 2001 , including all the 9/11 casualties both on the planes and on the ground and also the unrelated AA 587 crash , the rate was one death per 250 million passenger-miles.According to the NTSB , the US fatal highway accident rate is 1.3 deaths per 100 million vehicle-miles , with an average of 1.6 occupants .
By my math this comes to about two deaths per 250 million passenger-miles , double the risk of flying in 2001 , which was already eight times higher than the risk of flying in a typical year .
( I do n't have equivalent figures for the UK .
) Should we install genital scanners at highway entrances ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's not the choice.
The choice is a "quick" scan of their kids genitals and a 0.000001\% chance of flying with terrorists, or no scan and a 0.00001\% chance of flying with terrorists.
It's really a no-brainer.Seriously, we've never had genital scanners before and airplanes have been remarkably safe.
In 2001, including all the 9/11 casualties both on the planes and on the ground and also the unrelated AA 587 crash, the rate was one death per 250 million passenger-miles.According to the NTSB, the US fatal highway accident rate is 1.3 deaths per 100 million vehicle-miles, with an average of 1.6 occupants.
By my math this comes to about two deaths per 250 million passenger-miles, double the risk of flying in 2001, which was already eight times higher than the risk of flying in a typical year.
(I don't have equivalent figures for the UK.
)Should we install genital scanners at highway entrances?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993386</id>
	<title>So soon after being shown not to work?</title>
	<author>Jane Q. Public</author>
	<datestamp>1265114100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Interesting that they would do this so soon after the German TV show that demonstrated a person on whom exactly this kind of scanner found things like headphones, ball-point pen, cell phone, and so on, but <b>completely missed all the bomb components</b> deliberately concealed on his body:
<br> <br>
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrKvweNugnQ&amp;feature=player\_embedded" title="youtube.com">German Body Scanner Demo</a> [youtube.com]
<br> <br>
Even though it is in German, most of it is easy to follow. Just watch.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting that they would do this so soon after the German TV show that demonstrated a person on whom exactly this kind of scanner found things like headphones , ball-point pen , cell phone , and so on , but completely missed all the bomb components deliberately concealed on his body : German Body Scanner Demo [ youtube.com ] Even though it is in German , most of it is easy to follow .
Just watch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting that they would do this so soon after the German TV show that demonstrated a person on whom exactly this kind of scanner found things like headphones, ball-point pen, cell phone, and so on, but completely missed all the bomb components deliberately concealed on his body:
 
German Body Scanner Demo [youtube.com]
 
Even though it is in German, most of it is easy to follow.
Just watch.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993634</id>
	<title>Write to your MP</title>
	<author>Manic Miner</author>
	<datestamp>1265116500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If are not happy with the way this is being handled. And you live in the UK. You can always write to your MP.</p><p>there is a great website:</p><p><a href="http://www.writetothem.com/" title="writetothem.com">http://www.writetothem.com/</a> [writetothem.com]</p><p>Which makes it really easy. Simply enter your post code, select your MP, then write them an email.</p><p>I've had positive results doing this in the past. If enough people agree then your MP will take notice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If are not happy with the way this is being handled .
And you live in the UK .
You can always write to your MP.there is a great website : http : //www.writetothem.com/ [ writetothem.com ] Which makes it really easy .
Simply enter your post code , select your MP , then write them an email.I 've had positive results doing this in the past .
If enough people agree then your MP will take notice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If are not happy with the way this is being handled.
And you live in the UK.
You can always write to your MP.there is a great website:http://www.writetothem.com/ [writetothem.com]Which makes it really easy.
Simply enter your post code, select your MP, then write them an email.I've had positive results doing this in the past.
If enough people agree then your MP will take notice.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994100</id>
	<title>Fucking great</title>
	<author>BlueParrot</author>
	<datestamp>1265120520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm transsexual. Based on how border guards tend to react from seeing a big fat "male" stamped in my passport I can't wait to have them able to scan my genitals... Fucktards...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm transsexual .
Based on how border guards tend to react from seeing a big fat " male " stamped in my passport I ca n't wait to have them able to scan my genitals... Fucktards.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm transsexual.
Based on how border guards tend to react from seeing a big fat "male" stamped in my passport I can't wait to have them able to scan my genitals... Fucktards...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30998508</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1265137080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Doctors are highly trained and dedicated professionals who have spent the better part of a decade (and vast sums of cash) just becoming qualified enough to be allowed to see a patient at all.</p><p>OTOH, it's fairly trivial to get a job as an airport security goon. Any pervert can easily self-select for that otherwise undesirable job. The demographics for that job will include a tiny minority who actually wanted to be security guards in the airport (rather than police officers) with the vast majority being split between perverts and people who couldn't do any better.</p><p>Remember, there are people out there who find popping balloons to be erotic! The self selection is the problem. There may not be many people who will get a perverse thrill looking at scanner images, but 100\% of them will seek out the position and with the low standards, they'll likely get it.</p><p>Meanwhile, as you point out, there's way too many ways around it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Doctors are highly trained and dedicated professionals who have spent the better part of a decade ( and vast sums of cash ) just becoming qualified enough to be allowed to see a patient at all.OTOH , it 's fairly trivial to get a job as an airport security goon .
Any pervert can easily self-select for that otherwise undesirable job .
The demographics for that job will include a tiny minority who actually wanted to be security guards in the airport ( rather than police officers ) with the vast majority being split between perverts and people who could n't do any better.Remember , there are people out there who find popping balloons to be erotic !
The self selection is the problem .
There may not be many people who will get a perverse thrill looking at scanner images , but 100 \ % of them will seek out the position and with the low standards , they 'll likely get it.Meanwhile , as you point out , there 's way too many ways around it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doctors are highly trained and dedicated professionals who have spent the better part of a decade (and vast sums of cash) just becoming qualified enough to be allowed to see a patient at all.OTOH, it's fairly trivial to get a job as an airport security goon.
Any pervert can easily self-select for that otherwise undesirable job.
The demographics for that job will include a tiny minority who actually wanted to be security guards in the airport (rather than police officers) with the vast majority being split between perverts and people who couldn't do any better.Remember, there are people out there who find popping balloons to be erotic!
The self selection is the problem.
There may not be many people who will get a perverse thrill looking at scanner images, but 100\% of them will seek out the position and with the low standards, they'll likely get it.Meanwhile, as you point out, there's way too many ways around it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993556</id>
	<title>Where can we complain?</title>
	<author>foolserrend1975</author>
	<datestamp>1265115900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Shooting out the question.....Does anyone know where we can complain?

I am not a citizen of the UK, but I need to travel there. And well to be honest, this is another example of Government going TOO FAR!
So, where can I complain?

I can not vote there, but I can sure as hell make sure that I reduce/eliminate my travel plans to that country. At the end of the day, they will not understand anything untill they see tourists/travellers numbers decline, revenues plummet....then they will maybe begin to think....err maybe we went a tad too far on this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Shooting out the question.....Does anyone know where we can complain ?
I am not a citizen of the UK , but I need to travel there .
And well to be honest , this is another example of Government going TOO FAR !
So , where can I complain ?
I can not vote there , but I can sure as hell make sure that I reduce/eliminate my travel plans to that country .
At the end of the day , they will not understand anything untill they see tourists/travellers numbers decline , revenues plummet....then they will maybe begin to think....err maybe we went a tad too far on this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shooting out the question.....Does anyone know where we can complain?
I am not a citizen of the UK, but I need to travel there.
And well to be honest, this is another example of Government going TOO FAR!
So, where can I complain?
I can not vote there, but I can sure as hell make sure that I reduce/eliminate my travel plans to that country.
At the end of the day, they will not understand anything untill they see tourists/travellers numbers decline, revenues plummet....then they will maybe begin to think....err maybe we went a tad too far on this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994194</id>
	<title>Better way to beat the scanner...</title>
	<author>nacturation</author>
	<datestamp>1265121060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wear leather underwear.  Backscatter doesn't penetrate skin?  Try penetrating this cow skin!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wear leather underwear .
Backscatter does n't penetrate skin ?
Try penetrating this cow skin !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wear leather underwear.
Backscatter doesn't penetrate skin?
Try penetrating this cow skin!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993222</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30996058</id>
	<title>I'll prefer Heathrow then - it will be safer</title>
	<author>peter303</author>
	<datestamp>1265128980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Only if scanning doesnt make the lines longer and slower.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Only if scanning doesnt make the lines longer and slower .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only if scanning doesnt make the lines longer and slower.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30997218</id>
	<title>Lord Adonis?</title>
	<author>Mothinator</author>
	<datestamp>1265132880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From TFA:

"Transport Secretary Lord Adonis said in the immediate future only a small proportion of airline passengers would be selected for scanning."
<br> <br>
Well I'm sure <b>Lord Adonis</b> has no problem showing off his perfect greco-roman body, but what about the rest of us?</htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFA : " Transport Secretary Lord Adonis said in the immediate future only a small proportion of airline passengers would be selected for scanning .
" Well I 'm sure Lord Adonis has no problem showing off his perfect greco-roman body , but what about the rest of us ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFA:

"Transport Secretary Lord Adonis said in the immediate future only a small proportion of airline passengers would be selected for scanning.
"
 
Well I'm sure Lord Adonis has no problem showing off his perfect greco-roman body, but what about the rest of us?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994372</id>
	<title>Dam, now i will have to get a semi-on</title>
	<author>Roenax</author>
	<datestamp>1265122200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>To avoid looking like an underachiever i will now have to get a semi-on so i don't get laughed at by the security guards.</htmltext>
<tokenext>To avoid looking like an underachiever i will now have to get a semi-on so i do n't get laughed at by the security guards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To avoid looking like an underachiever i will now have to get a semi-on so i don't get laughed at by the security guards.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30996736</id>
	<title>Re:Really?  Think of the Children!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265131260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obligatory "Think of the Children" comment.</p><p>My disagreement is much more strongly against the abuse of tax revenue and generic privacy infringement.  Children are only modest because we tell them to be.  The only people they're not supposed to be modest in front of are parents and doctors.  The problem then becomes "how are security Professionals like doctors?"  Other than being defined as human, they aren't.</p><p>The other thing that bothers me about the security screening is that it's another radiation passed through the body.  It wasn't until lung cancer deaths went up that people started seriously thinking about smoking as a real problem.  The Romans used lead glaze in their cookware.  We use lead sheilds to guard our genitals when getting x-rayed for broken bones, how could it be safer when done by TSA?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obligatory " Think of the Children " comment.My disagreement is much more strongly against the abuse of tax revenue and generic privacy infringement .
Children are only modest because we tell them to be .
The only people they 're not supposed to be modest in front of are parents and doctors .
The problem then becomes " how are security Professionals like doctors ?
" Other than being defined as human , they are n't.The other thing that bothers me about the security screening is that it 's another radiation passed through the body .
It was n't until lung cancer deaths went up that people started seriously thinking about smoking as a real problem .
The Romans used lead glaze in their cookware .
We use lead sheilds to guard our genitals when getting x-rayed for broken bones , how could it be safer when done by TSA ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obligatory "Think of the Children" comment.My disagreement is much more strongly against the abuse of tax revenue and generic privacy infringement.
Children are only modest because we tell them to be.
The only people they're not supposed to be modest in front of are parents and doctors.
The problem then becomes "how are security Professionals like doctors?
"  Other than being defined as human, they aren't.The other thing that bothers me about the security screening is that it's another radiation passed through the body.
It wasn't until lung cancer deaths went up that people started seriously thinking about smoking as a real problem.
The Romans used lead glaze in their cookware.
We use lead sheilds to guard our genitals when getting x-rayed for broken bones, how could it be safer when done by TSA?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30995852</id>
	<title>Just you wait....</title>
	<author>mark-t</author>
	<datestamp>1265128380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>After scanning more than a couple of people who are shaped like me, they'll have security quitting in droves.   The images will scar them for life.</htmltext>
<tokenext>After scanning more than a couple of people who are shaped like me , they 'll have security quitting in droves .
The images will scar them for life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After scanning more than a couple of people who are shaped like me, they'll have security quitting in droves.
The images will scar them for life.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993710</id>
	<title>No optional pat-down?  I have a solution.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265117100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fine.  I'll take the full strip search in front of the security personnel.  If I'm going to do this theatre at all, I may as well do the whole thing, and inconvenience and make the security personnel as uncomfortable about the situation as possible.</p><p>I still think the personnel manning these scanners should be forced to do it in the nude -- it's only fair.  Plus it would ensure they don't have any cell phone cameras or other devices on their persons to record the images.  Safety first.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fine .
I 'll take the full strip search in front of the security personnel .
If I 'm going to do this theatre at all , I may as well do the whole thing , and inconvenience and make the security personnel as uncomfortable about the situation as possible.I still think the personnel manning these scanners should be forced to do it in the nude -- it 's only fair .
Plus it would ensure they do n't have any cell phone cameras or other devices on their persons to record the images .
Safety first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fine.
I'll take the full strip search in front of the security personnel.
If I'm going to do this theatre at all, I may as well do the whole thing, and inconvenience and make the security personnel as uncomfortable about the situation as possible.I still think the personnel manning these scanners should be forced to do it in the nude -- it's only fair.
Plus it would ensure they don't have any cell phone cameras or other devices on their persons to record the images.
Safety first.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994874</id>
	<title>There's always the anal option</title>
	<author>digitalgimpus</author>
	<datestamp>1265124660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Take a tip from drug smuggers.

Oh wait, <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/28/eveningnews/main5347847.shtml" title="cbsnews.com">Al Queda already did</a> [cbsnews.com].  Why is money being wasted on things that terrorists have already worked around?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/people advocating these stupid machines should be liable.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Take a tip from drug smuggers .
Oh wait , Al Queda already did [ cbsnews.com ] .
Why is money being wasted on things that terrorists have already worked around ?
/people advocating these stupid machines should be liable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Take a tip from drug smuggers.
Oh wait, Al Queda already did [cbsnews.com].
Why is money being wasted on things that terrorists have already worked around?
/people advocating these stupid machines should be liable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993566</id>
	<title>Tinfoil underwear?</title>
	<author>jamesh</author>
	<datestamp>1265115960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Money to be main in tinfoil underwear i think...<br>(with artificial genitals on the outside so as not to disappoint the security guards!)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Money to be main in tinfoil underwear i think... ( with artificial genitals on the outside so as not to disappoint the security guards !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Money to be main in tinfoil underwear i think...(with artificial genitals on the outside so as not to disappoint the security guards!
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994906</id>
	<title>PSA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265124840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think they made a video about this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqXi8WmQ\_WM</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think they made a video about this : http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = qqXi8WmQ \ _WM</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think they made a video about this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqXi8WmQ\_WM</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994816</id>
	<title>Nudity can be "indecent" under UK law</title>
	<author>Brian Ribbon</author>
	<datestamp>1265124480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"<i>The law covers indecent images of children. They must be engaged in, or appearing to suggest, a sexual act.</i>"</p><p>That is not true at all. An indecent image of a child is a photograph or pseudo-photograph which <i>offends against the recognised standards of propriety</i>*. Figures collected by Garda, the Irish police, showed that 44\% of convictions for indecent images did not involve images depicting any suggestion of sexual activity**. Some people have even been successfully prosecuted for possessing images of children which contained no erotic posing; just nudity*.</p><p>Don't believe the claim that UK law only criminalises images of child abuse. CEOP, the IWF, the NSPCC and others make a lot of money by untruthfully claiming that they require significant funding to fight a massive industry which systematically abuses children.</p><p>The images produced by airport scanners are likely to offend against the recognised standards of propriety and will therefore be illegal under UK law.</p><p>*  <a href="http://newgon.com/wiki/Indecent\_images\_of\_children#Indecency" title="newgon.com">http://newgon.com/wiki/Indecent\_images\_of\_children#Indecency</a> [newgon.com]<br>** <a href="http://newgon.com/wiki/Research:\_Child\_Pornography#The\_Nature\_of\_Child\_Pornography" title="newgon.com">http://newgon.com/wiki/Research:\_Child\_Pornography#The\_Nature\_of\_Child\_Pornography</a> [newgon.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The law covers indecent images of children .
They must be engaged in , or appearing to suggest , a sexual act .
" That is not true at all .
An indecent image of a child is a photograph or pseudo-photograph which offends against the recognised standards of propriety * .
Figures collected by Garda , the Irish police , showed that 44 \ % of convictions for indecent images did not involve images depicting any suggestion of sexual activity * * .
Some people have even been successfully prosecuted for possessing images of children which contained no erotic posing ; just nudity * .Do n't believe the claim that UK law only criminalises images of child abuse .
CEOP , the IWF , the NSPCC and others make a lot of money by untruthfully claiming that they require significant funding to fight a massive industry which systematically abuses children.The images produced by airport scanners are likely to offend against the recognised standards of propriety and will therefore be illegal under UK law .
* http : //newgon.com/wiki/Indecent \ _images \ _of \ _children # Indecency [ newgon.com ] * * http : //newgon.com/wiki/Research : \ _Child \ _Pornography # The \ _Nature \ _of \ _Child \ _Pornography [ newgon.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The law covers indecent images of children.
They must be engaged in, or appearing to suggest, a sexual act.
"That is not true at all.
An indecent image of a child is a photograph or pseudo-photograph which offends against the recognised standards of propriety*.
Figures collected by Garda, the Irish police, showed that 44\% of convictions for indecent images did not involve images depicting any suggestion of sexual activity**.
Some people have even been successfully prosecuted for possessing images of children which contained no erotic posing; just nudity*.Don't believe the claim that UK law only criminalises images of child abuse.
CEOP, the IWF, the NSPCC and others make a lot of money by untruthfully claiming that they require significant funding to fight a massive industry which systematically abuses children.The images produced by airport scanners are likely to offend against the recognised standards of propriety and will therefore be illegal under UK law.
*  http://newgon.com/wiki/Indecent\_images\_of\_children#Indecency [newgon.com]** http://newgon.com/wiki/Research:\_Child\_Pornography#The\_Nature\_of\_Child\_Pornography [newgon.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30995226</id>
	<title>Invisible genitals</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265126160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"...reports a few years back said X-ray backscatter devices aren't effective unless the genitals of people going through them are visible..."</p><p>If I'm reading this right, people with invisible genitals are ruining the effectiveness of the scanner. The logical conclusion is to ban people with invisible genitals from flying, in name of security. You can't visually present your wang to the examining officer, you don't get to fly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...reports a few years back said X-ray backscatter devices are n't effective unless the genitals of people going through them are visible... " If I 'm reading this right , people with invisible genitals are ruining the effectiveness of the scanner .
The logical conclusion is to ban people with invisible genitals from flying , in name of security .
You ca n't visually present your wang to the examining officer , you do n't get to fly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...reports a few years back said X-ray backscatter devices aren't effective unless the genitals of people going through them are visible..."If I'm reading this right, people with invisible genitals are ruining the effectiveness of the scanner.
The logical conclusion is to ban people with invisible genitals from flying, in name of security.
You can't visually present your wang to the examining officer, you don't get to fly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994976</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>AGMW</author>
	<datestamp>1265125080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>... It's not that hard to secure a plane without basically taking nude pictures of people.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div><p>
Oh come on! Being naked isn't <i>rude</i>! [shakes head]
</p><p>
You may not like the idea of such a body scanner, and I don't really like the idea myself, but I don't object because some joker gets to see my cock and balls, I object because it will cost a bundle, take yet more time, and have <i>little or no effect</i> in actually stopping terrorism!
</p><p>
Hence the phrase <b>Security Theatre</b>.
</p><p>
It's trying to reassure the public that <i>everything that can be done is being done</i> when the media are pretty much trying to convince us all that <i>WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE</i>!
</p><p>
An alternative might be to stop the media from being a bunch of fear-mongers instead!
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... It 's not that hard to secure a plane without basically taking nude pictures of people .
.. . Oh come on !
Being naked is n't rude !
[ shakes head ] You may not like the idea of such a body scanner , and I do n't really like the idea myself , but I do n't object because some joker gets to see my cock and balls , I object because it will cost a bundle , take yet more time , and have little or no effect in actually stopping terrorism !
Hence the phrase Security Theatre .
It 's trying to reassure the public that everything that can be done is being done when the media are pretty much trying to convince us all that WE 'RE ALL GOING TO DIE !
An alternative might be to stop the media from being a bunch of fear-mongers instead !</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... It's not that hard to secure a plane without basically taking nude pictures of people.
...
Oh come on!
Being naked isn't rude!
[shakes head]

You may not like the idea of such a body scanner, and I don't really like the idea myself, but I don't object because some joker gets to see my cock and balls, I object because it will cost a bundle, take yet more time, and have little or no effect in actually stopping terrorism!
Hence the phrase Security Theatre.
It's trying to reassure the public that everything that can be done is being done when the media are pretty much trying to convince us all that WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!
An alternative might be to stop the media from being a bunch of fear-mongers instead!

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993150</id>
	<title>Naked?</title>
	<author>Sobrique</author>
	<datestamp>1265111940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is totally unfair. They get to full body scan me, but still force me to wear clothes? <br>
The flesh wants to be FREE!. <br>
Let me fly naked, waving my bits free in the breeze for all to see. What's good for one is good for all!<br>
*cough*<br>
Might not be entirely serious.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is totally unfair .
They get to full body scan me , but still force me to wear clothes ?
The flesh wants to be FREE ! .
Let me fly naked , waving my bits free in the breeze for all to see .
What 's good for one is good for all !
* cough * Might not be entirely serious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is totally unfair.
They get to full body scan me, but still force me to wear clothes?
The flesh wants to be FREE!.
Let me fly naked, waving my bits free in the breeze for all to see.
What's good for one is good for all!
*cough*
Might not be entirely serious.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994224</id>
	<title>Pat downs are worse</title>
	<author>Punctuated\_Equilibri</author>
	<datestamp>1265121300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Second on the intrusiveness of pat downs.  Most of the people posting must not fly often and have never been through a pat down, I've been patted down multiple times and I find it highly offensive.  The idea that it would include the crotch area boggles the mind.  I'd rather go through 20 full body scanners.<p>

That being said, as someone who flies a lot I'm in favor of keeping people with bombs off planes.  It's like a public health problem, if there were certain people with a rare disease that made them explode on airplanes, I'd favor screening.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Second on the intrusiveness of pat downs .
Most of the people posting must not fly often and have never been through a pat down , I 've been patted down multiple times and I find it highly offensive .
The idea that it would include the crotch area boggles the mind .
I 'd rather go through 20 full body scanners .
That being said , as someone who flies a lot I 'm in favor of keeping people with bombs off planes .
It 's like a public health problem , if there were certain people with a rare disease that made them explode on airplanes , I 'd favor screening .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Second on the intrusiveness of pat downs.
Most of the people posting must not fly often and have never been through a pat down, I've been patted down multiple times and I find it highly offensive.
The idea that it would include the crotch area boggles the mind.
I'd rather go through 20 full body scanners.
That being said, as someone who flies a lot I'm in favor of keeping people with bombs off planes.
It's like a public health problem, if there were certain people with a rare disease that made them explode on airplanes, I'd favor screening.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993978</id>
	<title>Flash forward to 2015</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265119500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Airport security is the #1 profession among perverts and pedophiles.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Airport security is the # 1 profession among perverts and pedophiles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Airport security is the #1 profession among perverts and pedophiles.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30999164</id>
	<title>It is now time</title>
	<author>TheNinja74</author>
	<datestamp>1265139660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Throwing politically correctness out the window and taking in the facts and considering how many rights this is violating alone what is wrong with racial / age profiling in the situation?  How many Caucasian Christians (or Asian Buddhists, etc..)attempted to blow up an airplane with him/her self on it in the last 10 years??
Racial profiling is the most effective use of security personal time and efforts.  Why waste time scanning an old lady or child??</htmltext>
<tokenext>Throwing politically correctness out the window and taking in the facts and considering how many rights this is violating alone what is wrong with racial / age profiling in the situation ?
How many Caucasian Christians ( or Asian Buddhists , etc.. ) attempted to blow up an airplane with him/her self on it in the last 10 years ? ?
Racial profiling is the most effective use of security personal time and efforts .
Why waste time scanning an old lady or child ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Throwing politically correctness out the window and taking in the facts and considering how many rights this is violating alone what is wrong with racial / age profiling in the situation?
How many Caucasian Christians (or Asian Buddhists, etc..)attempted to blow up an airplane with him/her self on it in the last 10 years??
Racial profiling is the most effective use of security personal time and efforts.
Why waste time scanning an old lady or child?
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994310</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1265121780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Indeed, and before anyone points out they are different countries, the UK has recently explicitly brought in a new law that would cover drawings and cartoons (any image, realistic or unrealistic). So the UK Government does have a worrying double standard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed , and before anyone points out they are different countries , the UK has recently explicitly brought in a new law that would cover drawings and cartoons ( any image , realistic or unrealistic ) .
So the UK Government does have a worrying double standard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed, and before anyone points out they are different countries, the UK has recently explicitly brought in a new law that would cover drawings and cartoons (any image, realistic or unrealistic).
So the UK Government does have a worrying double standard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30997544</id>
	<title>Re:Better way to beat the scanner...</title>
	<author>wvmarle</author>
	<datestamp>1265133960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So when you are wearing leather pants, you have to take them off? Now that would be getting interesting. Asking people to strip before going through the scanner.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So when you are wearing leather pants , you have to take them off ?
Now that would be getting interesting .
Asking people to strip before going through the scanner .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So when you are wearing leather pants, you have to take them off?
Now that would be getting interesting.
Asking people to strip before going through the scanner.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993036</id>
	<title>not that bad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265110680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the pictures in the linked articles are true (which is not certain), I find the scan a lot less intrusive than a pat down. I'd rather have someone see a vague picture of my junk than grab it and my ass, while breathing in my face. I can't imagine anyone finding these pictures sexy, or even identify me from them.</p><p>My concern is more about the effectiveness of these scans. Is it more theater, or do they really detect something that a metal detector wouldn't ? The example pictures are showing a gun, which doesn't seem that good to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the pictures in the linked articles are true ( which is not certain ) , I find the scan a lot less intrusive than a pat down .
I 'd rather have someone see a vague picture of my junk than grab it and my ass , while breathing in my face .
I ca n't imagine anyone finding these pictures sexy , or even identify me from them.My concern is more about the effectiveness of these scans .
Is it more theater , or do they really detect something that a metal detector would n't ?
The example pictures are showing a gun , which does n't seem that good to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the pictures in the linked articles are true (which is not certain), I find the scan a lot less intrusive than a pat down.
I'd rather have someone see a vague picture of my junk than grab it and my ass, while breathing in my face.
I can't imagine anyone finding these pictures sexy, or even identify me from them.My concern is more about the effectiveness of these scans.
Is it more theater, or do they really detect something that a metal detector wouldn't ?
The example pictures are showing a gun, which doesn't seem that good to me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30992974</id>
	<title>Really?</title>
	<author>EdIII</author>
	<datestamp>1265109900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Also, a rule which meant that people under 18 were not allowed to participate in the body scanner trial has been overturned by the government. There is no mention of blurring out the genitals, however reports a few years back said X-ray backscatter devices aren't effective unless the genitals of people going through them are visible.</p></div></blockquote><p>Yeahh... That's probably complete bullshit.  I can just see British parents dragging their children through scanners that take pictures of their genitals.</p><p>If it is true, I see a precipitous drop in air travel in that country.  Screwing with adults and their privacy is one thing, <i>photographing naked children is some next level shit</i> to put it bluntly.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , a rule which meant that people under 18 were not allowed to participate in the body scanner trial has been overturned by the government .
There is no mention of blurring out the genitals , however reports a few years back said X-ray backscatter devices are n't effective unless the genitals of people going through them are visible.Yeahh... That 's probably complete bullshit .
I can just see British parents dragging their children through scanners that take pictures of their genitals.If it is true , I see a precipitous drop in air travel in that country .
Screwing with adults and their privacy is one thing , photographing naked children is some next level shit to put it bluntly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, a rule which meant that people under 18 were not allowed to participate in the body scanner trial has been overturned by the government.
There is no mention of blurring out the genitals, however reports a few years back said X-ray backscatter devices aren't effective unless the genitals of people going through them are visible.Yeahh... That's probably complete bullshit.
I can just see British parents dragging their children through scanners that take pictures of their genitals.If it is true, I see a precipitous drop in air travel in that country.
Screwing with adults and their privacy is one thing, photographing naked children is some next level shit to put it bluntly.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30995078</id>
	<title>Easy to predict what happens next.</title>
	<author>evilgraham</author>
	<datestamp>1265125560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In case no-one noticed, the last two attempts to blow anything up in flight, using a shoe, then pants, were utterly inept. Consequently, passengers have to take off their shoes, and now go through naked blob-body scanners. So the bad guys no longer have to actually come up with a viable attack, just persuade some idiot to somehow carry a noxious (of any description) substance onto a plane and fiddle about with it in order to ramp up the hysteria and precautions to a new and invidious level.

We are making ourselves hostages to fortune here, because you just know how the next two attempts (I'm predicting both male and female protagonists) are going to go.

At which point I hope that you've already unloaded any airline stock you happen to own.

Remember, you read it here first!</htmltext>
<tokenext>In case no-one noticed , the last two attempts to blow anything up in flight , using a shoe , then pants , were utterly inept .
Consequently , passengers have to take off their shoes , and now go through naked blob-body scanners .
So the bad guys no longer have to actually come up with a viable attack , just persuade some idiot to somehow carry a noxious ( of any description ) substance onto a plane and fiddle about with it in order to ramp up the hysteria and precautions to a new and invidious level .
We are making ourselves hostages to fortune here , because you just know how the next two attempts ( I 'm predicting both male and female protagonists ) are going to go .
At which point I hope that you 've already unloaded any airline stock you happen to own .
Remember , you read it here first !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In case no-one noticed, the last two attempts to blow anything up in flight, using a shoe, then pants, were utterly inept.
Consequently, passengers have to take off their shoes, and now go through naked blob-body scanners.
So the bad guys no longer have to actually come up with a viable attack, just persuade some idiot to somehow carry a noxious (of any description) substance onto a plane and fiddle about with it in order to ramp up the hysteria and precautions to a new and invidious level.
We are making ourselves hostages to fortune here, because you just know how the next two attempts (I'm predicting both male and female protagonists) are going to go.
At which point I hope that you've already unloaded any airline stock you happen to own.
Remember, you read it here first!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993260</id>
	<title>Re:What would you prefer?</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1265113020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I find it difficult to reconcile the summary's outrage at 'security theatre', with its outrage at 'naked' photos of children.</p></div><p>The truth is that the whole situation is outraaaaggeeeeeous!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it difficult to reconcile the summary 's outrage at 'security theatre ' , with its outrage at 'naked ' photos of children.The truth is that the whole situation is outraaaaggeeeeeous !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it difficult to reconcile the summary's outrage at 'security theatre', with its outrage at 'naked' photos of children.The truth is that the whole situation is outraaaaggeeeeeous!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994074</id>
	<title>Won't last too long</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265120340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It can only last for another 10 or 20 years before fossil fuels are depleted and only the rich and powerful can afford to fly in the biofueled jets. Quit your whining, peasants.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It can only last for another 10 or 20 years before fossil fuels are depleted and only the rich and powerful can afford to fly in the biofueled jets .
Quit your whining , peasants .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It can only last for another 10 or 20 years before fossil fuels are depleted and only the rich and powerful can afford to fly in the biofueled jets.
Quit your whining, peasants.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994166</id>
	<title>Flying is forbidden.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265120940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You all maybe missed the new law now being drafted that forbids any form travel whatsoever out of the city of residence.</p><p>An accompanying text contemplates the build of security walls just outside the cities, with strongly armed security check posts.</p><p>So if you never leave your city or town to go anywhere else, this is entirely a non problem</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You all maybe missed the new law now being drafted that forbids any form travel whatsoever out of the city of residence.An accompanying text contemplates the build of security walls just outside the cities , with strongly armed security check posts.So if you never leave your city or town to go anywhere else , this is entirely a non problem</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You all maybe missed the new law now being drafted that forbids any form travel whatsoever out of the city of residence.An accompanying text contemplates the build of security walls just outside the cities, with strongly armed security check posts.So if you never leave your city or town to go anywhere else, this is entirely a non problem</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.31009008</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264949460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Hell, they can even swallow a complete explosive device and they can't do shit."</p><p>They don't have to "do shit" after the explosive does it's job.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Hell , they can even swallow a complete explosive device and they ca n't do shit .
" They do n't have to " do shit " after the explosive does it 's job .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Hell, they can even swallow a complete explosive device and they can't do shit.
"They don't have to "do shit" after the explosive does it's job.
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993604</id>
	<title>Re:not that bad</title>
	<author>bradley13</author>
	<datestamp>1265116200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The scans can be as detailed as they want. The two scans shown in TFA are almost the only ones you can find in the Internet - precisely because they look pretty harmless. Go to the manufacturers' sites, and you will find no sample images at all.

</p><p>Why? Because the scanners can see the pores on your skin if they want to. The general public won't like that, so they restrict real samples of what the scanners are capable of. It would be a public service if some<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.er could provide real samples of what the scanners can do.

</p><p>They may well start out providing only vague images; there are also efforts to provide some sort of pre-analysis so that the operator only sees a sketch. However, once the scanners are in place, it will be easy to justify increasing the resolution to provide better security. In the end, it's a fair bet that the scanners will display the equivalent of high-resolution, black-and-white photographs.

</p><p>Anyway, it really is all theater. As pointed out in other posts, obese people can hide objects under their fat rolls. Non-obese people can hide objects in bodily orifices (this is already a standard tactic in drug-smuggling - nothing new at all). Anyway, just get an accomplice in the duty-free, and pick up your package after clearing security. These scanners are so entirely irrelevant to the real security issues that one wonders what the real motivations are...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The scans can be as detailed as they want .
The two scans shown in TFA are almost the only ones you can find in the Internet - precisely because they look pretty harmless .
Go to the manufacturers ' sites , and you will find no sample images at all .
Why ? Because the scanners can see the pores on your skin if they want to .
The general public wo n't like that , so they restrict real samples of what the scanners are capable of .
It would be a public service if some /.er could provide real samples of what the scanners can do .
They may well start out providing only vague images ; there are also efforts to provide some sort of pre-analysis so that the operator only sees a sketch .
However , once the scanners are in place , it will be easy to justify increasing the resolution to provide better security .
In the end , it 's a fair bet that the scanners will display the equivalent of high-resolution , black-and-white photographs .
Anyway , it really is all theater .
As pointed out in other posts , obese people can hide objects under their fat rolls .
Non-obese people can hide objects in bodily orifices ( this is already a standard tactic in drug-smuggling - nothing new at all ) .
Anyway , just get an accomplice in the duty-free , and pick up your package after clearing security .
These scanners are so entirely irrelevant to the real security issues that one wonders what the real motivations are.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The scans can be as detailed as they want.
The two scans shown in TFA are almost the only ones you can find in the Internet - precisely because they look pretty harmless.
Go to the manufacturers' sites, and you will find no sample images at all.
Why? Because the scanners can see the pores on your skin if they want to.
The general public won't like that, so they restrict real samples of what the scanners are capable of.
It would be a public service if some /.er could provide real samples of what the scanners can do.
They may well start out providing only vague images; there are also efforts to provide some sort of pre-analysis so that the operator only sees a sketch.
However, once the scanners are in place, it will be easy to justify increasing the resolution to provide better security.
In the end, it's a fair bet that the scanners will display the equivalent of high-resolution, black-and-white photographs.
Anyway, it really is all theater.
As pointed out in other posts, obese people can hide objects under their fat rolls.
Non-obese people can hide objects in bodily orifices (this is already a standard tactic in drug-smuggling - nothing new at all).
Anyway, just get an accomplice in the duty-free, and pick up your package after clearing security.
These scanners are so entirely irrelevant to the real security issues that one wonders what the real motivations are...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30995644</id>
	<title>LOL at all the people with small penises</title>
	<author>Zoidbot</author>
	<datestamp>1265127840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Clearly they have a problem</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Clearly they have a problem</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clearly they have a problem</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993826</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265118180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"If we assume that these body scanners actually help in preventing terrorist attacks on airplanes, it's silly to exclude children."</p><p>Watch ladies and gentlemen, it is happening right before your very eyes: this ignorant point of view is how our rights are eroded. It seems harmless enough at first but eventually this ass backwards paranoid thinking aggregates into something very dangerous; a self destructive social mindset where we operate inside the margins instead of looking at the big picture.  In terror, we are actually asking our governments to limit our freedoms. Instead of looking at situation as 99.99\% safe we are obsessing over that one fluke scenario and wasting resources retooling everything around a 1 in a million event.</p><p>To paraphrase a great man: Those that would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither and will probably lose both.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" If we assume that these body scanners actually help in preventing terrorist attacks on airplanes , it 's silly to exclude children .
" Watch ladies and gentlemen , it is happening right before your very eyes : this ignorant point of view is how our rights are eroded .
It seems harmless enough at first but eventually this ass backwards paranoid thinking aggregates into something very dangerous ; a self destructive social mindset where we operate inside the margins instead of looking at the big picture .
In terror , we are actually asking our governments to limit our freedoms .
Instead of looking at situation as 99.99 \ % safe we are obsessing over that one fluke scenario and wasting resources retooling everything around a 1 in a million event.To paraphrase a great man : Those that would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither and will probably lose both .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"If we assume that these body scanners actually help in preventing terrorist attacks on airplanes, it's silly to exclude children.
"Watch ladies and gentlemen, it is happening right before your very eyes: this ignorant point of view is how our rights are eroded.
It seems harmless enough at first but eventually this ass backwards paranoid thinking aggregates into something very dangerous; a self destructive social mindset where we operate inside the margins instead of looking at the big picture.
In terror, we are actually asking our governments to limit our freedoms.
Instead of looking at situation as 99.99\% safe we are obsessing over that one fluke scenario and wasting resources retooling everything around a 1 in a million event.To paraphrase a great man: Those that would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither and will probably lose both.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30995154</id>
	<title>Re:What would you prefer?</title>
	<author>worf\_mo</author>
	<datestamp>1265125860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>&gt; However, I'm not sure why a pat down is not an acceptable alternative.</i></p><p>Depends on the <a href="http://www.news.at/nw1/gen/slideshows/prod/spezial/deix/2010/2.jpg" title="www.news.at" rel="nofollow">thoroughness</a> [www.news.at] of the pat down...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; However , I 'm not sure why a pat down is not an acceptable alternative.Depends on the thoroughness [ www.news.at ] of the pat down.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; However, I'm not sure why a pat down is not an acceptable alternative.Depends on the thoroughness [www.news.at] of the pat down...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.31001542</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>csartanis</author>
	<datestamp>1265107080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The only thing we can do is remove their reasons for wanting to do so in the first place.</p></div><p>Thank you!  This is the only way to prevent terrorism.  Our current methods of 'war on terror' only serve to create more terrorists.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only thing we can do is remove their reasons for wanting to do so in the first place.Thank you !
This is the only way to prevent terrorism .
Our current methods of 'war on terror ' only serve to create more terrorists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only thing we can do is remove their reasons for wanting to do so in the first place.Thank you!
This is the only way to prevent terrorism.
Our current methods of 'war on terror' only serve to create more terrorists.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.31007086</id>
	<title>Think this through</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264928520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If terrorism were a real problem, none of this stuff would matter, because the terrorists would just attack the security checkpoints instead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If terrorism were a real problem , none of this stuff would matter , because the terrorists would just attack the security checkpoints instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If terrorism were a real problem, none of this stuff would matter, because the terrorists would just attack the security checkpoints instead.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993912</id>
	<title>Re:Read the article, please.</title>
	<author>protodevilin</author>
	<datestamp>1265118960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow, you honestly believe them when they say there's no possible way to store, capture or otherwise duplicate/disseminate the images from these body scanners? How would they prosecute offenders without the photographic evidence? How did they get those pictures into TFA? Why on earth would ANY government-backed organization want to give up this chance to take and store detailed X-ray data on millions of airline passengers per day? You're naive if you think that somebody in power somewhere isn't exploiting this obvious data goldmine.

And the whole "If you don't have something incriminating to hide, why do you need privacy" argument doesn't fly with me, either. I don't know about you, but I'm innocent until proven guilty. Without probable cause or reasonable suspicion, no one has any business X-raying me to probe for contraband.

People like you erode the the concept of civil liberty in support of a government that you expect to shield you from all harm. Man up and stand up, or get slaughtered with the rest of the sheep.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , you honestly believe them when they say there 's no possible way to store , capture or otherwise duplicate/disseminate the images from these body scanners ?
How would they prosecute offenders without the photographic evidence ?
How did they get those pictures into TFA ?
Why on earth would ANY government-backed organization want to give up this chance to take and store detailed X-ray data on millions of airline passengers per day ?
You 're naive if you think that somebody in power somewhere is n't exploiting this obvious data goldmine .
And the whole " If you do n't have something incriminating to hide , why do you need privacy " argument does n't fly with me , either .
I do n't know about you , but I 'm innocent until proven guilty .
Without probable cause or reasonable suspicion , no one has any business X-raying me to probe for contraband .
People like you erode the the concept of civil liberty in support of a government that you expect to shield you from all harm .
Man up and stand up , or get slaughtered with the rest of the sheep .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, you honestly believe them when they say there's no possible way to store, capture or otherwise duplicate/disseminate the images from these body scanners?
How would they prosecute offenders without the photographic evidence?
How did they get those pictures into TFA?
Why on earth would ANY government-backed organization want to give up this chance to take and store detailed X-ray data on millions of airline passengers per day?
You're naive if you think that somebody in power somewhere isn't exploiting this obvious data goldmine.
And the whole "If you don't have something incriminating to hide, why do you need privacy" argument doesn't fly with me, either.
I don't know about you, but I'm innocent until proven guilty.
Without probable cause or reasonable suspicion, no one has any business X-raying me to probe for contraband.
People like you erode the the concept of civil liberty in support of a government that you expect to shield you from all harm.
Man up and stand up, or get slaughtered with the rest of the sheep.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30997098</id>
	<title>Re:why bother with airplanes</title>
	<author>shilly</author>
	<datestamp>1265132520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's always been harder to attack an airplane than to attack an airport, yet terrorists by and large have not done so. That is mostly because attacks on airplanes are higher profile than attacks on airports.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's always been harder to attack an airplane than to attack an airport , yet terrorists by and large have not done so .
That is mostly because attacks on airplanes are higher profile than attacks on airports .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's always been harder to attack an airplane than to attack an airport, yet terrorists by and large have not done so.
That is mostly because attacks on airplanes are higher profile than attacks on airports.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30997588</id>
	<title>Re:Ways around it:</title>
	<author>wvmarle</author>
	<datestamp>1265134080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mythbusters will never get one, or if they get one will never be allowed to show results. It would be too embarrassing... it will be busted, busted and busted again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mythbusters will never get one , or if they get one will never be allowed to show results .
It would be too embarrassing... it will be busted , busted and busted again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mythbusters will never get one, or if they get one will never be allowed to show results.
It would be too embarrassing... it will be busted, busted and busted again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993304</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30996404</id>
	<title>x-rays</title>
	<author>edxwelch</author>
	<datestamp>1265130180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not only privacy an issue, your not ment to submit the general public to ionising radiation unnessarily. Doesn't matter if it's "only a little bit", there should be a good reason to force people to have an x-ray.<br>The Christmas bomber if anything, proved that it's not possible to make a bomb out of liquids. This artical: <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/17/flying\_toilet\_terror\_labs/" title="theregister.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/17/flying\_toilet\_terror\_labs/</a> [theregister.co.uk] correctly predicted that the would be bomber is more likely to start a fire than an explosion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not only privacy an issue , your not ment to submit the general public to ionising radiation unnessarily .
Does n't matter if it 's " only a little bit " , there should be a good reason to force people to have an x-ray.The Christmas bomber if anything , proved that it 's not possible to make a bomb out of liquids .
This artical : http : //www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/17/flying \ _toilet \ _terror \ _labs/ [ theregister.co.uk ] correctly predicted that the would be bomber is more likely to start a fire than an explosion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not only privacy an issue, your not ment to submit the general public to ionising radiation unnessarily.
Doesn't matter if it's "only a little bit", there should be a good reason to force people to have an x-ray.The Christmas bomber if anything, proved that it's not possible to make a bomb out of liquids.
This artical: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/17/flying\_toilet\_terror\_labs/ [theregister.co.uk] correctly predicted that the would be bomber is more likely to start a fire than an explosion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30999812</id>
	<title>Re:Ways around it:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265142420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Easiest way around it: What's to stop them from choosing targets that aren't planes?</p><p>What if they start attacking the people waiting at airport security? Everyone's all bunched up waiting to be scanned..for safety...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Easiest way around it : What 's to stop them from choosing targets that are n't planes ? What if they start attacking the people waiting at airport security ?
Everyone 's all bunched up waiting to be scanned..for safety.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Easiest way around it: What's to stop them from choosing targets that aren't planes?What if they start attacking the people waiting at airport security?
Everyone's all bunched up waiting to be scanned..for safety...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993304</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.31000554</id>
	<title>What'd you expect?</title>
	<author>Workaphobia</author>
	<datestamp>1265102340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What'd you expect, to be treated with dignity?</p><p>Now strip naked and get on the probulator.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 'd you expect , to be treated with dignity ? Now strip naked and get on the probulator .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What'd you expect, to be treated with dignity?Now strip naked and get on the probulator.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993382</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>ubersoldat2k7</author>
	<datestamp>1265113980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Terrorists will always find a way to get explosives on planes if they feel they need to</p></div><p>True, and actually, if someone shoves a C4 capsule up their ass, this stupid machines won't detect it. Hell, they can even swallow a complete explosive device and they can't do shit. So, why all the trouble, all the privacy violation? How many terrorist attacks have actually happened against aircrafts? More people die on the road or in aircraft accidents than on terrorist attacks. All this "air security" is complete bullshit, and people are "fine if we're secure". Come on! Two hours to board an stupid airplane is fine? Naked pictures of your child is fine?</p><p>What I find more intriguing is the real reason behind all of this crap. Distract people from real problems? Collapse the air transportation system? Mess with our minds? Totalitarian control?</p><p>I think the famous quote fits perfect here:</p><p>Don't go to England</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Terrorists will always find a way to get explosives on planes if they feel they need toTrue , and actually , if someone shoves a C4 capsule up their ass , this stupid machines wo n't detect it .
Hell , they can even swallow a complete explosive device and they ca n't do shit .
So , why all the trouble , all the privacy violation ?
How many terrorist attacks have actually happened against aircrafts ?
More people die on the road or in aircraft accidents than on terrorist attacks .
All this " air security " is complete bullshit , and people are " fine if we 're secure " .
Come on !
Two hours to board an stupid airplane is fine ?
Naked pictures of your child is fine ? What I find more intriguing is the real reason behind all of this crap .
Distract people from real problems ?
Collapse the air transportation system ?
Mess with our minds ?
Totalitarian control ? I think the famous quote fits perfect here : Do n't go to England</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Terrorists will always find a way to get explosives on planes if they feel they need toTrue, and actually, if someone shoves a C4 capsule up their ass, this stupid machines won't detect it.
Hell, they can even swallow a complete explosive device and they can't do shit.
So, why all the trouble, all the privacy violation?
How many terrorist attacks have actually happened against aircrafts?
More people die on the road or in aircraft accidents than on terrorist attacks.
All this "air security" is complete bullshit, and people are "fine if we're secure".
Come on!
Two hours to board an stupid airplane is fine?
Naked pictures of your child is fine?What I find more intriguing is the real reason behind all of this crap.
Distract people from real problems?
Collapse the air transportation system?
Mess with our minds?
Totalitarian control?I think the famous quote fits perfect here:Don't go to England
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30997828</id>
	<title>Some people have to be hand scanned.</title>
	<author>cvtan</author>
	<datestamp>1265134800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>My wife has two knee replacements and a pacemaker.  She can't go through the current metal detector and I wonder if she can go through a full body scanner.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My wife has two knee replacements and a pacemaker .
She ca n't go through the current metal detector and I wonder if she can go through a full body scanner .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My wife has two knee replacements and a pacemaker.
She can't go through the current metal detector and I wonder if she can go through a full body scanner.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993418</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>Aladrin</author>
	<datestamp>1265114460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Also, I doubt these scans have any erotic effect on even the most desperate pedophile except for those with some freaky scanner fetish."</p><p>I think you badly underestimate how low even the 'least desperate' pedophile is.</p><p>So, while I get your point, starting out with statements about how non-disgusting pedophiles are won't help your cause at all.  They are even less effective than trying to say these pictures would never get into the wrong hands or that cops and government officials are never corrupt or greedy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Also , I doubt these scans have any erotic effect on even the most desperate pedophile except for those with some freaky scanner fetish .
" I think you badly underestimate how low even the 'least desperate ' pedophile is.So , while I get your point , starting out with statements about how non-disgusting pedophiles are wo n't help your cause at all .
They are even less effective than trying to say these pictures would never get into the wrong hands or that cops and government officials are never corrupt or greedy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Also, I doubt these scans have any erotic effect on even the most desperate pedophile except for those with some freaky scanner fetish.
"I think you badly underestimate how low even the 'least desperate' pedophile is.So, while I get your point, starting out with statements about how non-disgusting pedophiles are won't help your cause at all.
They are even less effective than trying to say these pictures would never get into the wrong hands or that cops and government officials are never corrupt or greedy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993668</id>
	<title>Ok so ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265116860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. I am wary of the cancer risks from ionizing radiation, especially backscatter x-rays since the scattering is caused by x-ray energy being absorbed by the body's cells. No matter what PR bullshit they give out, its bad for the human body.</p><p>2. Unfortunately I have already paid hundreds to book our flights out of Heathrow (I will never consider UK airports for transit).</p><p>3. If all they want is to see me nude, can I simply pull my clothes off and satisfy them?</p><p>4. If I'm forced to do the scan against my will, and develop cancer in 5 years time, do I have the legal right to sue them?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
I am wary of the cancer risks from ionizing radiation , especially backscatter x-rays since the scattering is caused by x-ray energy being absorbed by the body 's cells .
No matter what PR bullshit they give out , its bad for the human body.2 .
Unfortunately I have already paid hundreds to book our flights out of Heathrow ( I will never consider UK airports for transit ) .3 .
If all they want is to see me nude , can I simply pull my clothes off and satisfy them ? 4 .
If I 'm forced to do the scan against my will , and develop cancer in 5 years time , do I have the legal right to sue them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
I am wary of the cancer risks from ionizing radiation, especially backscatter x-rays since the scattering is caused by x-ray energy being absorbed by the body's cells.
No matter what PR bullshit they give out, its bad for the human body.2.
Unfortunately I have already paid hundreds to book our flights out of Heathrow (I will never consider UK airports for transit).3.
If all they want is to see me nude, can I simply pull my clothes off and satisfy them?4.
If I'm forced to do the scan against my will, and develop cancer in 5 years time, do I have the legal right to sue them?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30997298</id>
	<title>Sheeple..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265133180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Man, why is it everyone is so bent out of shape about the "naked" part, and not the "compulsory exposure to radiation" part?</p><p>Is there something in the water, or the fast food, making people just plain fracking retarded?</p><p>Where are the detailed studies showing that repeated exposure to this radiation won't cause health problems?</p><p>Oh, what's that, the screeners are in a different room, yeah, it MUST be safe! (rolls eyes)</p><p>I guess I won't be flying until a pat down option is available, or detailed peer-reviewed studies are published, showing that repeated exposure to these devices does not cause harm to frequent flyers, pregnant women/unborn babies, people w/ stents or pacemakers, etc.. People should refuse to be guinea pigs for GE and the TSA.. I plan to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Man , why is it everyone is so bent out of shape about the " naked " part , and not the " compulsory exposure to radiation " part ? Is there something in the water , or the fast food , making people just plain fracking retarded ? Where are the detailed studies showing that repeated exposure to this radiation wo n't cause health problems ? Oh , what 's that , the screeners are in a different room , yeah , it MUST be safe !
( rolls eyes ) I guess I wo n't be flying until a pat down option is available , or detailed peer-reviewed studies are published , showing that repeated exposure to these devices does not cause harm to frequent flyers , pregnant women/unborn babies , people w/ stents or pacemakers , etc.. People should refuse to be guinea pigs for GE and the TSA.. I plan to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Man, why is it everyone is so bent out of shape about the "naked" part, and not the "compulsory exposure to radiation" part?Is there something in the water, or the fast food, making people just plain fracking retarded?Where are the detailed studies showing that repeated exposure to this radiation won't cause health problems?Oh, what's that, the screeners are in a different room, yeah, it MUST be safe!
(rolls eyes)I guess I won't be flying until a pat down option is available, or detailed peer-reviewed studies are published, showing that repeated exposure to these devices does not cause harm to frequent flyers, pregnant women/unborn babies, people w/ stents or pacemakers, etc.. People should refuse to be guinea pigs for GE and the TSA.. I plan to.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.31008000</id>
	<title>Would they scan....</title>
	<author>dalg</author>
	<datestamp>1264939140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...the naked rambler?

He's threatened with jail time for being nekid, and now they want to make people passing through Heathrow nekid.

Go figure</htmltext>
<tokenext>...the naked rambler ?
He 's threatened with jail time for being nekid , and now they want to make people passing through Heathrow nekid .
Go figure</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...the naked rambler?
He's threatened with jail time for being nekid, and now they want to make people passing through Heathrow nekid.
Go figure</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993266</id>
	<title>Another good reason</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265113140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Another good reason not to go to that country! Vive la libert&#233;!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Another good reason not to go to that country !
Vive la libert   !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another good reason not to go to that country!
Vive la liberté!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993240</id>
	<title>When will it end</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265112840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When will this "War on privacy" end? Most likely only when and if people stand up to it. And they won't as they do not see it as a treath to whatever they have. I rather sit in a plane with a potential terrerist and riks to be blown to smithereens then people taking away my privacy rights because of some bullshit security.</p><p>The drive to the airport is still more dangerous then the flight itself and that includes being killed by terrerists.</p><p>When looking at it now, the stazi of Eastern Germany were boyscouts.</p><p>You should not fear anything but fear itself. But as long as the media is selling news as entertainment, we will be hearing about these outrages dangers that almost never happen. Man bites dog is news and this means that dog bites man isn't and won't be shown. That means that people do not get all the information they need to do some basic risk assesment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When will this " War on privacy " end ?
Most likely only when and if people stand up to it .
And they wo n't as they do not see it as a treath to whatever they have .
I rather sit in a plane with a potential terrerist and riks to be blown to smithereens then people taking away my privacy rights because of some bullshit security.The drive to the airport is still more dangerous then the flight itself and that includes being killed by terrerists.When looking at it now , the stazi of Eastern Germany were boyscouts.You should not fear anything but fear itself .
But as long as the media is selling news as entertainment , we will be hearing about these outrages dangers that almost never happen .
Man bites dog is news and this means that dog bites man is n't and wo n't be shown .
That means that people do not get all the information they need to do some basic risk assesment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When will this "War on privacy" end?
Most likely only when and if people stand up to it.
And they won't as they do not see it as a treath to whatever they have.
I rather sit in a plane with a potential terrerist and riks to be blown to smithereens then people taking away my privacy rights because of some bullshit security.The drive to the airport is still more dangerous then the flight itself and that includes being killed by terrerists.When looking at it now, the stazi of Eastern Germany were boyscouts.You should not fear anything but fear itself.
But as long as the media is selling news as entertainment, we will be hearing about these outrages dangers that almost never happen.
Man bites dog is news and this means that dog bites man isn't and won't be shown.
That means that people do not get all the information they need to do some basic risk assesment.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30996490</id>
	<title>Re:What would you prefer?</title>
	<author>dcollins</author>
	<datestamp>1265130420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Am I happy with these scanners? No, but they've been in use for many years in other countries (like Russia)..."</p><p>I literally snorted at that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Am I happy with these scanners ?
No , but they 've been in use for many years in other countries ( like Russia ) ... " I literally snorted at that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Am I happy with these scanners?
No, but they've been in use for many years in other countries (like Russia)..."I literally snorted at that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993562</id>
	<title>Solution</title>
	<author>Nephrite</author>
	<datestamp>1265115960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just ban all air transport already and be done. I don't know which is worse, diing in a terrorist bombing or being humiliated on boarding.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just ban all air transport already and be done .
I do n't know which is worse , diing in a terrorist bombing or being humiliated on boarding .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just ban all air transport already and be done.
I don't know which is worse, diing in a terrorist bombing or being humiliated on boarding.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.31001088</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>centuren</author>
	<datestamp>1265104740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why isn't "a quick, less-intrusive scan and other, less-indecent security measures" an option? It's not that hard to secure a plane without basically taking nude pictures of people. Place an armed guard or two on every plane (and create some jobs doing so, yay!), use conventional scanners to ensure people don't bring along explosives, and enable the pilot to seal the cockpit from the inside so that in case of an extremely unlikely, but possible terrorist take-over he can still land safely.</p></div><p>Personally, I'm content with checked baggage scanners, going through a metal detector and being wanded, and running carry-on items through the scanner next to the metal detector. So long as the pilots are sealed in the cockpit, and there's proper security around the plane itself while it's on the ground, no one's managed to do anything scary that I can think of. Note that the key security aspects aren't applied to travellers. Ensure there are no explosives in checked baggage, keep the planes on the ground secure from sabotage, and make sure the pilots are safe and secure. Normal security for passengers, like metal detectors, helps to keep the rest safe from obvious things like getting shot or detonating easily detected explosive devices.</p><p>As for someone with a stomach or colon full of C4, that's the sort of thing that just has to be addressed from the other angle: don't let terrorists get C4, or at least catch them when they waddle out from an area known for terrorist training camps and head toward an airport.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is n't " a quick , less-intrusive scan and other , less-indecent security measures " an option ?
It 's not that hard to secure a plane without basically taking nude pictures of people .
Place an armed guard or two on every plane ( and create some jobs doing so , yay !
) , use conventional scanners to ensure people do n't bring along explosives , and enable the pilot to seal the cockpit from the inside so that in case of an extremely unlikely , but possible terrorist take-over he can still land safely.Personally , I 'm content with checked baggage scanners , going through a metal detector and being wanded , and running carry-on items through the scanner next to the metal detector .
So long as the pilots are sealed in the cockpit , and there 's proper security around the plane itself while it 's on the ground , no one 's managed to do anything scary that I can think of .
Note that the key security aspects are n't applied to travellers .
Ensure there are no explosives in checked baggage , keep the planes on the ground secure from sabotage , and make sure the pilots are safe and secure .
Normal security for passengers , like metal detectors , helps to keep the rest safe from obvious things like getting shot or detonating easily detected explosive devices.As for someone with a stomach or colon full of C4 , that 's the sort of thing that just has to be addressed from the other angle : do n't let terrorists get C4 , or at least catch them when they waddle out from an area known for terrorist training camps and head toward an airport .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why isn't "a quick, less-intrusive scan and other, less-indecent security measures" an option?
It's not that hard to secure a plane without basically taking nude pictures of people.
Place an armed guard or two on every plane (and create some jobs doing so, yay!
), use conventional scanners to ensure people don't bring along explosives, and enable the pilot to seal the cockpit from the inside so that in case of an extremely unlikely, but possible terrorist take-over he can still land safely.Personally, I'm content with checked baggage scanners, going through a metal detector and being wanded, and running carry-on items through the scanner next to the metal detector.
So long as the pilots are sealed in the cockpit, and there's proper security around the plane itself while it's on the ground, no one's managed to do anything scary that I can think of.
Note that the key security aspects aren't applied to travellers.
Ensure there are no explosives in checked baggage, keep the planes on the ground secure from sabotage, and make sure the pilots are safe and secure.
Normal security for passengers, like metal detectors, helps to keep the rest safe from obvious things like getting shot or detonating easily detected explosive devices.As for someone with a stomach or colon full of C4, that's the sort of thing that just has to be addressed from the other angle: don't let terrorists get C4, or at least catch them when they waddle out from an area known for terrorist training camps and head toward an airport.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993862</id>
	<title>T-Shirts with foil in</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265118540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I see a great business venture for people making plain t-shirts with foil slogans between the material layers.</p><p>Looks like a normal t-shirt but under the T-ray scanner you can see the "Beware of hidden messages" slogan.</p><p>Might be difficult to explain but fun if you want to poke the bear.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I see a great business venture for people making plain t-shirts with foil slogans between the material layers.Looks like a normal t-shirt but under the T-ray scanner you can see the " Beware of hidden messages " slogan.Might be difficult to explain but fun if you want to poke the bear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see a great business venture for people making plain t-shirts with foil slogans between the material layers.Looks like a normal t-shirt but under the T-ray scanner you can see the "Beware of hidden messages" slogan.Might be difficult to explain but fun if you want to poke the bear.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30998624</id>
	<title>Re:Ways around it:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265137560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;What we really need to do before signing off on anything is give a machine to Mythbusters for a couple of weeks, see what they can come up with.</p><p>Not a bad idea.  Didn't they defeat a biometric lock on camera with a person's thumbprint on cellophane tape?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; What we really need to do before signing off on anything is give a machine to Mythbusters for a couple of weeks , see what they can come up with.Not a bad idea .
Did n't they defeat a biometric lock on camera with a person 's thumbprint on cellophane tape ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;What we really need to do before signing off on anything is give a machine to Mythbusters for a couple of weeks, see what they can come up with.Not a bad idea.
Didn't they defeat a biometric lock on camera with a person's thumbprint on cellophane tape?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993304</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994594</id>
	<title>Re:Pictures not stored or captured FAIL</title>
	<author>Speare</author>
	<datestamp>1265123340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Of course they can capture and store images.  They probably capture and store the past couple days' worth of images as it is.  If an airplane goes down, they will study the tapes.  I can say with certainty that CNN will have a copy of the offender's scans within six hours of an incident.  And somehow, nobody at that point will mind that their images were stored, they will beg the government to require rectal examinations of every passenger from that day forward.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course they can capture and store images .
They probably capture and store the past couple days ' worth of images as it is .
If an airplane goes down , they will study the tapes .
I can say with certainty that CNN will have a copy of the offender 's scans within six hours of an incident .
And somehow , nobody at that point will mind that their images were stored , they will beg the government to require rectal examinations of every passenger from that day forward .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course they can capture and store images.
They probably capture and store the past couple days' worth of images as it is.
If an airplane goes down, they will study the tapes.
I can say with certainty that CNN will have a copy of the offender's scans within six hours of an incident.
And somehow, nobody at that point will mind that their images were stored, they will beg the government to require rectal examinations of every passenger from that day forward.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993200</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993896</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1265118780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The law covers indecent images of children. They must be engaged in, or appearing to suggest, a sexual act. Photos of naked kids are not illegal, otherwise every parent in the country would be on the sex offender's register. That photo of you in the tin bath when you were two will not get your mum in jail, nor the one when you ran around the garden in the buff because you didn't want to wear powder blue swim shorts.<br> <br>The guy you reference was previously convicted of having images which were of children engaged in sexual acts. That is what he was originally convicted for. He was convicted the second time for having cartoons which were of the same type of indecent images of children he had previously been convicted for having. Clearly, this man has a sexual desire to (at least) see children engaged in sexual acts, and was therefore prosecuted.<br> <br>Had the man not been convicted before of a similar offence, I'm fairly certain the outcome (and press coverage) would be considerably different.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The law covers indecent images of children .
They must be engaged in , or appearing to suggest , a sexual act .
Photos of naked kids are not illegal , otherwise every parent in the country would be on the sex offender 's register .
That photo of you in the tin bath when you were two will not get your mum in jail , nor the one when you ran around the garden in the buff because you did n't want to wear powder blue swim shorts .
The guy you reference was previously convicted of having images which were of children engaged in sexual acts .
That is what he was originally convicted for .
He was convicted the second time for having cartoons which were of the same type of indecent images of children he had previously been convicted for having .
Clearly , this man has a sexual desire to ( at least ) see children engaged in sexual acts , and was therefore prosecuted .
Had the man not been convicted before of a similar offence , I 'm fairly certain the outcome ( and press coverage ) would be considerably different .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The law covers indecent images of children.
They must be engaged in, or appearing to suggest, a sexual act.
Photos of naked kids are not illegal, otherwise every parent in the country would be on the sex offender's register.
That photo of you in the tin bath when you were two will not get your mum in jail, nor the one when you ran around the garden in the buff because you didn't want to wear powder blue swim shorts.
The guy you reference was previously convicted of having images which were of children engaged in sexual acts.
That is what he was originally convicted for.
He was convicted the second time for having cartoons which were of the same type of indecent images of children he had previously been convicted for having.
Clearly, this man has a sexual desire to (at least) see children engaged in sexual acts, and was therefore prosecuted.
Had the man not been convicted before of a similar offence, I'm fairly certain the outcome (and press coverage) would be considerably different.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993046</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265110740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Stupid..  I mean what would these pathetic parents rather have, a quick scan of their kids, or be flying with terrorists?</p><p>If they don't like it, don't take your kids on holiday.  It really is simple as that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Stupid.. I mean what would these pathetic parents rather have , a quick scan of their kids , or be flying with terrorists ? If they do n't like it , do n't take your kids on holiday .
It really is simple as that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stupid..  I mean what would these pathetic parents rather have, a quick scan of their kids, or be flying with terrorists?If they don't like it, don't take your kids on holiday.
It really is simple as that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30992974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994254</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>optimus2861</author>
	<datestamp>1265121420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Terrorists will always find a way to get explosives on planes if they feel they need to.</p></div><p>I keep thinking that it's only a matter of time before they figure out they don't need to. Forget defeating the security lineup; just strap on some old-fashioned bombs, walk into said security lineup, and <b>before</b> being searched, blow themselves to hell and take a hundred or so innocents with them. Coordinate that at a few different airports around the world, and watch the entire airline industry collapse overnight.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Terrorists will always find a way to get explosives on planes if they feel they need to.I keep thinking that it 's only a matter of time before they figure out they do n't need to .
Forget defeating the security lineup ; just strap on some old-fashioned bombs , walk into said security lineup , and before being searched , blow themselves to hell and take a hundred or so innocents with them .
Coordinate that at a few different airports around the world , and watch the entire airline industry collapse overnight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Terrorists will always find a way to get explosives on planes if they feel they need to.I keep thinking that it's only a matter of time before they figure out they don't need to.
Forget defeating the security lineup; just strap on some old-fashioned bombs, walk into said security lineup, and before being searched, blow themselves to hell and take a hundred or so innocents with them.
Coordinate that at a few different airports around the world, and watch the entire airline industry collapse overnight.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.31018800</id>
	<title>The First Galactic Empire</title>
	<author>Tony Stark</author>
	<datestamp>1264958220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So this is how liberty dies, with thunderous balls.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So this is how liberty dies , with thunderous balls .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So this is how liberty dies, with thunderous balls.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30998690</id>
	<title>Re:why bother with airplanes</title>
	<author>evil\_aar0n</author>
	<datestamp>1265137920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you recall, it was because the planes, themselves, could be hijacked and turned into very large missiles capable of taking out large, strategic targets.  The people on the plane were largely inconsequential - no offense, and may they rest in peace.</p><p>In fact, in this case, are those benevolent dictators currently in power doing anything to prevent some cash-rich terrorists from buying their own plane and performing kamikaze missions \_without\_ passengers on board?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you recall , it was because the planes , themselves , could be hijacked and turned into very large missiles capable of taking out large , strategic targets .
The people on the plane were largely inconsequential - no offense , and may they rest in peace.In fact , in this case , are those benevolent dictators currently in power doing anything to prevent some cash-rich terrorists from buying their own plane and performing kamikaze missions \ _without \ _ passengers on board ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you recall, it was because the planes, themselves, could be hijacked and turned into very large missiles capable of taking out large, strategic targets.
The people on the plane were largely inconsequential - no offense, and may they rest in peace.In fact, in this case, are those benevolent dictators currently in power doing anything to prevent some cash-rich terrorists from buying their own plane and performing kamikaze missions \_without\_ passengers on board?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994240</id>
	<title>need new carrier: no security checks!</title>
	<author>darkeye</author>
	<datestamp>1265121360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess this is a great market opportunity - we need to establish a new airline, that does \_not\_ do any of the silly security checks. advantages would include:</p><p>- shorter check in time: about 15 mintes tops, vs. 60 minutes<br>- always on time, as there are no long queues to wait<br>- nice, friendly service - no invasion of privacy ever<br>- cheaper, as the retarted 'security' personell don't have to be paid for</p><p>there would be a calculated risk: every 10 years, a plane would be lost to some human activity. this is a lower level of risk than the 'usual' plane crash due to failure - which makes it still the safest way to travel</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess this is a great market opportunity - we need to establish a new airline , that does \ _not \ _ do any of the silly security checks .
advantages would include : - shorter check in time : about 15 mintes tops , vs. 60 minutes- always on time , as there are no long queues to wait- nice , friendly service - no invasion of privacy ever- cheaper , as the retarted 'security ' personell do n't have to be paid forthere would be a calculated risk : every 10 years , a plane would be lost to some human activity .
this is a lower level of risk than the 'usual ' plane crash due to failure - which makes it still the safest way to travel</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess this is a great market opportunity - we need to establish a new airline, that does \_not\_ do any of the silly security checks.
advantages would include:- shorter check in time: about 15 mintes tops, vs. 60 minutes- always on time, as there are no long queues to wait- nice, friendly service - no invasion of privacy ever- cheaper, as the retarted 'security' personell don't have to be paid forthere would be a calculated risk: every 10 years, a plane would be lost to some human activity.
this is a lower level of risk than the 'usual' plane crash due to failure - which makes it still the safest way to travel</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993696</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265116980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt; Pictures of naked kids are only a problem if there's a reasonable possibility that they will end up in the wrong hands.</p><p>I'd say that's a certainty. Not now, but once this technology makes its way into every airport, throughout the US, Europe and beyond... once there are thousands of security people all over the place it will be much easier for someone to sneak out images.</p><p>&gt;&gt; Also, I doubt these scans have any erotic effect on even the most desperate pedophile except for those with some freaky scanner fetish.</p><p>Given that what the media shows are small "thumbnail" samples and the original image is much higher resolution, it shouldn't be too difficult to create a decent monochrome image using photoshop and some custom filters.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; Pictures of naked kids are only a problem if there 's a reasonable possibility that they will end up in the wrong hands.I 'd say that 's a certainty .
Not now , but once this technology makes its way into every airport , throughout the US , Europe and beyond... once there are thousands of security people all over the place it will be much easier for someone to sneak out images. &gt; &gt; Also , I doubt these scans have any erotic effect on even the most desperate pedophile except for those with some freaky scanner fetish.Given that what the media shows are small " thumbnail " samples and the original image is much higher resolution , it should n't be too difficult to create a decent monochrome image using photoshop and some custom filters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt; Pictures of naked kids are only a problem if there's a reasonable possibility that they will end up in the wrong hands.I'd say that's a certainty.
Not now, but once this technology makes its way into every airport, throughout the US, Europe and beyond... once there are thousands of security people all over the place it will be much easier for someone to sneak out images.&gt;&gt; Also, I doubt these scans have any erotic effect on even the most desperate pedophile except for those with some freaky scanner fetish.Given that what the media shows are small "thumbnail" samples and the original image is much higher resolution, it shouldn't be too difficult to create a decent monochrome image using photoshop and some custom filters.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30997946</id>
	<title>Clear message: Children should not fly</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265135220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If people must be scanned like this at an airport then, apparently, flying in an airplane is extremely dangerous.  There must be terrorists trying to get on every other airplane each day. If a reasonable adult chooses to to put themselves in such a dangerous environment then I suppose such screening are reasonable for safety. Still, best to avoid flying since it is so dangerous.</p><p>The requirement to scan children like this should send a clear message. It is irresponsible for parents to put their children on these dangerous airplanes. Children should not be allowed on airplanes at all because it is not safe.</p><p>Now, if you will excuse me, I need to get my kids in the car, drive down a 16-lane interstate surrounded by morons and drunks in multi-ton missiles, and with any luck reach where I need to take them without getting killed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If people must be scanned like this at an airport then , apparently , flying in an airplane is extremely dangerous .
There must be terrorists trying to get on every other airplane each day .
If a reasonable adult chooses to to put themselves in such a dangerous environment then I suppose such screening are reasonable for safety .
Still , best to avoid flying since it is so dangerous.The requirement to scan children like this should send a clear message .
It is irresponsible for parents to put their children on these dangerous airplanes .
Children should not be allowed on airplanes at all because it is not safe.Now , if you will excuse me , I need to get my kids in the car , drive down a 16-lane interstate surrounded by morons and drunks in multi-ton missiles , and with any luck reach where I need to take them without getting killed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If people must be scanned like this at an airport then, apparently, flying in an airplane is extremely dangerous.
There must be terrorists trying to get on every other airplane each day.
If a reasonable adult chooses to to put themselves in such a dangerous environment then I suppose such screening are reasonable for safety.
Still, best to avoid flying since it is so dangerous.The requirement to scan children like this should send a clear message.
It is irresponsible for parents to put their children on these dangerous airplanes.
Children should not be allowed on airplanes at all because it is not safe.Now, if you will excuse me, I need to get my kids in the car, drive down a 16-lane interstate surrounded by morons and drunks in multi-ton missiles, and with any luck reach where I need to take them without getting killed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993810</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>bickerdyke</author>
	<datestamp>1265118060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Also, I doubt these scans have any erotic effect on even the most desperate pedophile except for those with some freaky scanner fetish.</p></div><p>Oh I'm sure the internet will help you to dig up some of them. (worked with every other absurd fetish already)</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armin\_Meiwes" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armin\_Meiwes</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , I doubt these scans have any erotic effect on even the most desperate pedophile except for those with some freaky scanner fetish.Oh I 'm sure the internet will help you to dig up some of them .
( worked with every other absurd fetish already ) http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armin \ _Meiwes [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, I doubt these scans have any erotic effect on even the most desperate pedophile except for those with some freaky scanner fetish.Oh I'm sure the internet will help you to dig up some of them.
(worked with every other absurd fetish already)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armin\_Meiwes [wikipedia.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.31007846</id>
	<title>Airport securithugs</title>
	<author>dugeen</author>
	<datestamp>1264937340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>New Labour have assured us that the images from these scans can't be stored, misused or sold on by corrupt staff. I won't bore you by reminding you once more of all the other assurances New Labour gave that turned out to be 100\% untrue.

Incidentally, what happens to people who 'choose' not to be scanned? Are they allowed to leave the airport unmolested, or is it straight off to the torture camps to explain their 'suspicious' behaviour?</htmltext>
<tokenext>New Labour have assured us that the images from these scans ca n't be stored , misused or sold on by corrupt staff .
I wo n't bore you by reminding you once more of all the other assurances New Labour gave that turned out to be 100 \ % untrue .
Incidentally , what happens to people who 'choose ' not to be scanned ?
Are they allowed to leave the airport unmolested , or is it straight off to the torture camps to explain their 'suspicious ' behaviour ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>New Labour have assured us that the images from these scans can't be stored, misused or sold on by corrupt staff.
I won't bore you by reminding you once more of all the other assurances New Labour gave that turned out to be 100\% untrue.
Incidentally, what happens to people who 'choose' not to be scanned?
Are they allowed to leave the airport unmolested, or is it straight off to the torture camps to explain their 'suspicious' behaviour?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.31002480</id>
	<title>Now it's okay...</title>
	<author>Shabazz Rabbinowitz</author>
	<datestamp>1265112240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>reports a few years back said X-ray backscatter devices aren't effective unless the genitals of people going through them are visible</p></div><p>
Oh, sure. <i>Now</i> all of a sudden it's okay to show your genitals to the airport staff.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>reports a few years back said X-ray backscatter devices are n't effective unless the genitals of people going through them are visible Oh , sure .
Now all of a sudden it 's okay to show your genitals to the airport staff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>reports a few years back said X-ray backscatter devices aren't effective unless the genitals of people going through them are visible
Oh, sure.
Now all of a sudden it's okay to show your genitals to the airport staff.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30999124</id>
	<title>security checkpoint pick-up line</title>
	<author>justcallmejay</author>
	<datestamp>1265139540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I hope they don't charge me extra for an oversized carry-on.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope they do n't charge me extra for an oversized carry-on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope they don't charge me extra for an oversized carry-on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993304</id>
	<title>Ways around it:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265113380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>a) Put the C4 in your intestines.</p><p>b) Wear a latex belly full of explosives/guns.</p><p>c) Be fat and hide stuff in the folds of skin</p><p>What we really need to do before signing off on anything is give a machine to Mythbusters for a couple of weeks, see what they can come up with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>a ) Put the C4 in your intestines.b ) Wear a latex belly full of explosives/guns.c ) Be fat and hide stuff in the folds of skinWhat we really need to do before signing off on anything is give a machine to Mythbusters for a couple of weeks , see what they can come up with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a) Put the C4 in your intestines.b) Wear a latex belly full of explosives/guns.c) Be fat and hide stuff in the folds of skinWhat we really need to do before signing off on anything is give a machine to Mythbusters for a couple of weeks, see what they can come up with.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994172</id>
	<title>Sterilize</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265120940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know, all these X-Ray devices using ionizing radiation, I just wonder if over time they'll sterilize people or at the very last, make conceiving that much harder. Birth rates in the developing World are dropping as it is and in the meantime, in the developing World, which also happens to be predominately Muslim, are continuing to pop out children. One day, they'll have all the young people and we in the West are all sterilized. </p><p>I mean we <i>don't know</i> what this shit will over time. Sure some rat tests, but as we all know, there's <i>always</i> something that wasn't tested for or some condition that the testers never considered.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know , all these X-Ray devices using ionizing radiation , I just wonder if over time they 'll sterilize people or at the very last , make conceiving that much harder .
Birth rates in the developing World are dropping as it is and in the meantime , in the developing World , which also happens to be predominately Muslim , are continuing to pop out children .
One day , they 'll have all the young people and we in the West are all sterilized .
I mean we do n't know what this shit will over time .
Sure some rat tests , but as we all know , there 's always something that was n't tested for or some condition that the testers never considered .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know, all these X-Ray devices using ionizing radiation, I just wonder if over time they'll sterilize people or at the very last, make conceiving that much harder.
Birth rates in the developing World are dropping as it is and in the meantime, in the developing World, which also happens to be predominately Muslim, are continuing to pop out children.
One day, they'll have all the young people and we in the West are all sterilized.
I mean we don't know what this shit will over time.
Sure some rat tests, but as we all know, there's always something that wasn't tested for or some condition that the testers never considered.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30997084</id>
	<title>I'm actually quite proud of my genitals</title>
	<author>mr\_resident</author>
	<datestamp>1265132460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anybody who wants to look is more than welcome to do so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anybody who wants to look is more than welcome to do so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anybody who wants to look is more than welcome to do so.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994102</id>
	<title>Terrorists swallow explosives</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265120520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The next step will be that terrorists swallow the explosives. You know what follows...</p><p>I, for one, welcome our rectal probing overlords...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The next step will be that terrorists swallow the explosives .
You know what follows...I , for one , welcome our rectal probing overlords.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The next step will be that terrorists swallow the explosives.
You know what follows...I, for one, welcome our rectal probing overlords...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993784</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>Snarf You</author>
	<datestamp>1265117880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>they can even swallow a complete explosive device and they can't do shit</p></div><p>I don't know if "can't do shit" is the appropriate term, but certainly anyone who swallows a complete explosive device will have a hell of a time <i>trying</i> to "do shit" if said device has not been detonated within 48 to 72 hours of ingestion.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>they can even swallow a complete explosive device and they ca n't do shitI do n't know if " ca n't do shit " is the appropriate term , but certainly anyone who swallows a complete explosive device will have a hell of a time trying to " do shit " if said device has not been detonated within 48 to 72 hours of ingestion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they can even swallow a complete explosive device and they can't do shitI don't know if "can't do shit" is the appropriate term, but certainly anyone who swallows a complete explosive device will have a hell of a time trying to "do shit" if said device has not been detonated within 48 to 72 hours of ingestion.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993558</id>
	<title>Completely ineffective privacy protection</title>
	<author>shilly</author>
	<datestamp>1265115960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So we are told that privacy is not compromised because the people viewing the images are in another room and cannot tell who they're looking at. Well, they're going to need *someone* to know who they're looking at, or else there's no bloody point in this system. Specifically, they need to be able to say "Bob, the feller in the machine has got a gun on his left calf". And Bob needs to be able to say "OK, I'm on it. Keep me updated with news from the other queues".</p><p>Well, if they can tell Bob that, they can also say, "Hey Bob, this one's got a tiny dick. And that sexy fucking bitch who just went through with the baby had the biggest fucking nipples you've ever seen". And Bob can reply "Alright, I'm pulling her over. I'll find her name and you Google her"</p><p>This system has no meaningful privacy protections. The protection that's most likely to be effective for any one of us, is going to be the large volumes of passengers they are dealing with, which reduces the time available for them to take a prurient interest in one particular passenger.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So we are told that privacy is not compromised because the people viewing the images are in another room and can not tell who they 're looking at .
Well , they 're going to need * someone * to know who they 're looking at , or else there 's no bloody point in this system .
Specifically , they need to be able to say " Bob , the feller in the machine has got a gun on his left calf " .
And Bob needs to be able to say " OK , I 'm on it .
Keep me updated with news from the other queues " .Well , if they can tell Bob that , they can also say , " Hey Bob , this one 's got a tiny dick .
And that sexy fucking bitch who just went through with the baby had the biggest fucking nipples you 've ever seen " .
And Bob can reply " Alright , I 'm pulling her over .
I 'll find her name and you Google her " This system has no meaningful privacy protections .
The protection that 's most likely to be effective for any one of us , is going to be the large volumes of passengers they are dealing with , which reduces the time available for them to take a prurient interest in one particular passenger .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So we are told that privacy is not compromised because the people viewing the images are in another room and cannot tell who they're looking at.
Well, they're going to need *someone* to know who they're looking at, or else there's no bloody point in this system.
Specifically, they need to be able to say "Bob, the feller in the machine has got a gun on his left calf".
And Bob needs to be able to say "OK, I'm on it.
Keep me updated with news from the other queues".Well, if they can tell Bob that, they can also say, "Hey Bob, this one's got a tiny dick.
And that sexy fucking bitch who just went through with the baby had the biggest fucking nipples you've ever seen".
And Bob can reply "Alright, I'm pulling her over.
I'll find her name and you Google her"This system has no meaningful privacy protections.
The protection that's most likely to be effective for any one of us, is going to be the large volumes of passengers they are dealing with, which reduces the time available for them to take a prurient interest in one particular passenger.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993452</id>
	<title>Images CAN be stored and captured.</title>
	<author>Jane Q. Public</author>
	<datestamp>1265114760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The article clearly states <i>"The image generated by the body scanner cannot be stored or captured nor can security officers viewing the images recognise people."</i>
<br> <br>
and
<br> <br>
<i>"The equipment does not allow security staff to see passengers naked, she added."</i>
<br> <br>
And <b>both</b> of those statements are absolute, 100\% bullshit.
<br> <br>
First, when those machines were originally designed, it was a specific requirement that they be able to store a digital representation of the images for later offloading or transmission. It was <b>part of the specification</b>. To say that they can't do it is a complete fabrication. Granted... presumably they have the ability to turn this feature off... but that is very far removed from "cannot"!
<br> <br>
And as far as not being able to "see passengers naked"? Give me an effin' break! The picture accompanying the BBC article clearly shows otherwise. They might be faint, but you can see the guy's scrotum and penis. And I have seen other pictures and videos taken using these scanners, and you can see whatever the hell you want.
<br> <br>
I have come to expect bullshit from government, but such bald-faced and blatant lies take me by surprise.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The article clearly states " The image generated by the body scanner can not be stored or captured nor can security officers viewing the images recognise people .
" and " The equipment does not allow security staff to see passengers naked , she added .
" And both of those statements are absolute , 100 \ % bullshit .
First , when those machines were originally designed , it was a specific requirement that they be able to store a digital representation of the images for later offloading or transmission .
It was part of the specification .
To say that they ca n't do it is a complete fabrication .
Granted... presumably they have the ability to turn this feature off... but that is very far removed from " can not " !
And as far as not being able to " see passengers naked " ?
Give me an effin ' break !
The picture accompanying the BBC article clearly shows otherwise .
They might be faint , but you can see the guy 's scrotum and penis .
And I have seen other pictures and videos taken using these scanners , and you can see whatever the hell you want .
I have come to expect bullshit from government , but such bald-faced and blatant lies take me by surprise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article clearly states "The image generated by the body scanner cannot be stored or captured nor can security officers viewing the images recognise people.
"
 
and
 
"The equipment does not allow security staff to see passengers naked, she added.
"
 
And both of those statements are absolute, 100\% bullshit.
First, when those machines were originally designed, it was a specific requirement that they be able to store a digital representation of the images for later offloading or transmission.
It was part of the specification.
To say that they can't do it is a complete fabrication.
Granted... presumably they have the ability to turn this feature off... but that is very far removed from "cannot"!
And as far as not being able to "see passengers naked"?
Give me an effin' break!
The picture accompanying the BBC article clearly shows otherwise.
They might be faint, but you can see the guy's scrotum and penis.
And I have seen other pictures and videos taken using these scanners, and you can see whatever the hell you want.
I have come to expect bullshit from government, but such bald-faced and blatant lies take me by surprise.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30995730</id>
	<title>Laptops</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265128080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree that these scanners will miss explosives that a reasonably smart person (someone who can use google) can hide.  Just use <a href="http://xkcd.com/651/" title="xkcd.com" rel="nofollow">http://xkcd.com/651/</a> [xkcd.com] as an example.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree that these scanners will miss explosives that a reasonably smart person ( someone who can use google ) can hide .
Just use http : //xkcd.com/651/ [ xkcd.com ] as an example .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree that these scanners will miss explosives that a reasonably smart person (someone who can use google) can hide.
Just use http://xkcd.com/651/ [xkcd.com] as an example.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30995390</id>
	<title>Boggles my mind..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265126820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>they're willing to spend all kinds of money on machines like this and invade people's privacy. Yet, I'm sure it costs a good bit less for some well trained bomb sniffing dogs..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>they 're willing to spend all kinds of money on machines like this and invade people 's privacy .
Yet , I 'm sure it costs a good bit less for some well trained bomb sniffing dogs. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they're willing to spend all kinds of money on machines like this and invade people's privacy.
Yet, I'm sure it costs a good bit less for some well trained bomb sniffing dogs..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.31001204</id>
	<title>Sign a petition...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265105400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://search.petitions.number10.gov.uk/kbroker/number10/petitions/search.lsim?ha=1157&amp;sr=0&amp;sf=&amp;qt=scanners&amp;go=Go&amp;nh=10&amp;cs=&amp;sc=number10&amp;oq=scanner&amp;sb=0&amp;mt=0" title="number10.gov.uk" rel="nofollow">http://search.petitions.number10.gov.uk/kbroker/number10/petitions/search.lsim?ha=1157&amp;sr=0&amp;sf=&amp;qt=scanners&amp;go=Go&amp;nh=10&amp;cs=&amp;sc=number10&amp;oq=scanner&amp;sb=0&amp;mt=0</a> [number10.gov.uk]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //search.petitions.number10.gov.uk/kbroker/number10/petitions/search.lsim ? ha = 1157&amp;sr = 0&amp;sf = &amp;qt = scanners&amp;go = Go&amp;nh = 10&amp;cs = &amp;sc = number10&amp;oq = scanner&amp;sb = 0&amp;mt = 0 [ number10.gov.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://search.petitions.number10.gov.uk/kbroker/number10/petitions/search.lsim?ha=1157&amp;sr=0&amp;sf=&amp;qt=scanners&amp;go=Go&amp;nh=10&amp;cs=&amp;sc=number10&amp;oq=scanner&amp;sb=0&amp;mt=0 [number10.gov.uk]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993568</id>
	<title>No pat-downs?</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1265115960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Effing great, there goes my sex life.</p><p>Well, at least it was replaced with something that caters to my exhibitionist urges.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Effing great , there goes my sex life.Well , at least it was replaced with something that caters to my exhibitionist urges .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Effing great, there goes my sex life.Well, at least it was replaced with something that caters to my exhibitionist urges.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30998904</id>
	<title>The nightclub version</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1265138700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
I'm waiting for Z-backscatter technology to filter down to nightclubs.
</p><p>
At the cooler nightclubs, they'd probably send the images to big-screen monitors so everyone could watch.
</p><p>
Although, really, Z-backscatter images aren't erotic.  If they were, there would be porno sites with X-ray images.
They can be embarrassing, because they show flab very clearly.  But that's usually obvious even with clothing on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm waiting for Z-backscatter technology to filter down to nightclubs .
At the cooler nightclubs , they 'd probably send the images to big-screen monitors so everyone could watch .
Although , really , Z-backscatter images are n't erotic .
If they were , there would be porno sites with X-ray images .
They can be embarrassing , because they show flab very clearly .
But that 's usually obvious even with clothing on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I'm waiting for Z-backscatter technology to filter down to nightclubs.
At the cooler nightclubs, they'd probably send the images to big-screen monitors so everyone could watch.
Although, really, Z-backscatter images aren't erotic.
If they were, there would be porno sites with X-ray images.
They can be embarrassing, because they show flab very clearly.
But that's usually obvious even with clothing on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994862</id>
	<title>X-Ray backscatter blocking clothing</title>
	<author>Uninvited Guest</author>
	<datestamp>1265124660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Back in 2002, Slashdot reported on <a href="http://science.slashdot.org/story/02/11/14/1453249/Lightweight-Radiation-proof-Fabric" title="slashdot.org">Demron</a> [slashdot.org], a lightweight fabric that blocks radiation as well as lead. It's $600 for <a href="http://www.radshield.com/product\_page\_detail.asp?ProductID=989&amp;ProductCatID=28" title="radshield.com">a medical apron</a> [radshield.com] that would effectively cover the torso, but worthwhile for some, perhaps. Such clothing might even become popular and reasonably priced if, say, it was designed to <a href="http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message966672/pg1" title="godlikeproductions.com">include a message or image</a> [godlikeproductions.com] viewable only on an X-Ray backscatter scanner.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Back in 2002 , Slashdot reported on Demron [ slashdot.org ] , a lightweight fabric that blocks radiation as well as lead .
It 's $ 600 for a medical apron [ radshield.com ] that would effectively cover the torso , but worthwhile for some , perhaps .
Such clothing might even become popular and reasonably priced if , say , it was designed to include a message or image [ godlikeproductions.com ] viewable only on an X-Ray backscatter scanner .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back in 2002, Slashdot reported on Demron [slashdot.org], a lightweight fabric that blocks radiation as well as lead.
It's $600 for a medical apron [radshield.com] that would effectively cover the torso, but worthwhile for some, perhaps.
Such clothing might even become popular and reasonably priced if, say, it was designed to include a message or image [godlikeproductions.com] viewable only on an X-Ray backscatter scanner.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994296</id>
	<title>Health Effects</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265121660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey, there also a big concern over health effects, for frequent flyers the large amounts of xray exposure can be cancerous.  It is also dangerous for young children and pregnant women.</p><p>Further more, TSA agents, at least here in the US, are notorious for hitting on good looking young women. Can you imagine what seeing them naked is going to do?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , there also a big concern over health effects , for frequent flyers the large amounts of xray exposure can be cancerous .
It is also dangerous for young children and pregnant women.Further more , TSA agents , at least here in the US , are notorious for hitting on good looking young women .
Can you imagine what seeing them naked is going to do ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, there also a big concern over health effects, for frequent flyers the large amounts of xray exposure can be cancerous.
It is also dangerous for young children and pregnant women.Further more, TSA agents, at least here in the US, are notorious for hitting on good looking young women.
Can you imagine what seeing them naked is going to do?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994460</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>Brian Ribbon</author>
	<datestamp>1265122680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"<i>Pictures of naked kids are only a problem if there's a reasonable possibility that they will end up in the wrong hands.</i>"</p><p>So if somebody masturbates to an image of a child, the child is harmed, but if nobody masturbates to the image, the child is not harmed? In the case of the airport scanners, the feeling of one's privacy being breached will be caused by being forced to walk through the scanner. Harm cannot be caused by the sexual interests of the person who views the scan, which are obviously not known to the child. Photographs of children are only harmful if a child was forced into a situation which made him or her feel uncomfortable, and in such a case, the child will be harmed to the same extent regardless of who views the image.</p><p>The moral panic about paedophiles viewing images of children is an <i>adult</i> concern, not a typical child's concern.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Pictures of naked kids are only a problem if there 's a reasonable possibility that they will end up in the wrong hands .
" So if somebody masturbates to an image of a child , the child is harmed , but if nobody masturbates to the image , the child is not harmed ?
In the case of the airport scanners , the feeling of one 's privacy being breached will be caused by being forced to walk through the scanner .
Harm can not be caused by the sexual interests of the person who views the scan , which are obviously not known to the child .
Photographs of children are only harmful if a child was forced into a situation which made him or her feel uncomfortable , and in such a case , the child will be harmed to the same extent regardless of who views the image.The moral panic about paedophiles viewing images of children is an adult concern , not a typical child 's concern .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Pictures of naked kids are only a problem if there's a reasonable possibility that they will end up in the wrong hands.
"So if somebody masturbates to an image of a child, the child is harmed, but if nobody masturbates to the image, the child is not harmed?
In the case of the airport scanners, the feeling of one's privacy being breached will be caused by being forced to walk through the scanner.
Harm cannot be caused by the sexual interests of the person who views the scan, which are obviously not known to the child.
Photographs of children are only harmful if a child was forced into a situation which made him or her feel uncomfortable, and in such a case, the child will be harmed to the same extent regardless of who views the image.The moral panic about paedophiles viewing images of children is an adult concern, not a typical child's concern.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993722</id>
	<title>Full body scans won't do any good</title>
	<author>ATestR</author>
	<datestamp>1265117220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Implementation of full body scans as described won't do much except harass the traveling public and invade our privacy.  The terrorists will just move <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1247338/Terrorists-plan-attack-Britain-bombs-INSIDE-bodies-foil-new-airport-scanners.html" title="dailymail.co.uk">into a new method of bringing their weapons on the aircraft.</a> [dailymail.co.uk] </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Implementation of full body scans as described wo n't do much except harass the traveling public and invade our privacy .
The terrorists will just move into a new method of bringing their weapons on the aircraft .
[ dailymail.co.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Implementation of full body scans as described won't do much except harass the traveling public and invade our privacy.
The terrorists will just move into a new method of bringing their weapons on the aircraft.
[dailymail.co.uk] </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30996224</id>
	<title>A changing marketplace.</title>
	<author>2obvious4u</author>
	<datestamp>1265129580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thank God for the free market!  At least we can still <a href="http://www.celebrityjet.com/faq\_pricing.asp" title="celebrityjet.com">fly</a> [celebrityjet.com] <a href="http://bluestarjets.com/" title="bluestarjets.com">charter</a> [bluestarjets.com].  It may cost more, but at least you can avoid all the mess.  Flying used to be a luxury, it looks like its moving back in that direction.<br>
<br>
For quick domestic flights check with your local small airport and you might find a pilot willing to fly for just fuel costs.  Most pilots love to fly but it is very expensive maintaining an aircraft, if you help a pilot with their fuel and maintenance costs you may get quality cheap flights with zero security checkpoints!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank God for the free market !
At least we can still fly [ celebrityjet.com ] charter [ bluestarjets.com ] .
It may cost more , but at least you can avoid all the mess .
Flying used to be a luxury , it looks like its moving back in that direction .
For quick domestic flights check with your local small airport and you might find a pilot willing to fly for just fuel costs .
Most pilots love to fly but it is very expensive maintaining an aircraft , if you help a pilot with their fuel and maintenance costs you may get quality cheap flights with zero security checkpoints !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank God for the free market!
At least we can still fly [celebrityjet.com] charter [bluestarjets.com].
It may cost more, but at least you can avoid all the mess.
Flying used to be a luxury, it looks like its moving back in that direction.
For quick domestic flights check with your local small airport and you might find a pilot willing to fly for just fuel costs.
Most pilots love to fly but it is very expensive maintaining an aircraft, if you help a pilot with their fuel and maintenance costs you may get quality cheap flights with zero security checkpoints!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30995368</id>
	<title>No security airline</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265126700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would gladly fly on an airline that did away with all this security nonsense. Secure the door to the cockpit so the plane can't be hijacked, then load everyone up. I'll take the very very small chance that someone will try to bomb the plane for a hundred or so casualties just so I don't have to put up with the hassle.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would gladly fly on an airline that did away with all this security nonsense .
Secure the door to the cockpit so the plane ca n't be hijacked , then load everyone up .
I 'll take the very very small chance that someone will try to bomb the plane for a hundred or so casualties just so I do n't have to put up with the hassle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would gladly fly on an airline that did away with all this security nonsense.
Secure the door to the cockpit so the plane can't be hijacked, then load everyone up.
I'll take the very very small chance that someone will try to bomb the plane for a hundred or so casualties just so I don't have to put up with the hassle.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993540</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1265115720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While generally agreeing with you...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...when you use those stats remember they are a bit deceptive. Yes, airplanes have very good safety when expressed as deaths per mile; but not so great when in deaths per journey, which is a more usable metric especially in case of airplanes (since short or long high altitude cruise doesn't make that much of a difference for safety). Generally, when travel by rail or bus is practical, it's also safer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While generally agreeing with you... ...when you use those stats remember they are a bit deceptive .
Yes , airplanes have very good safety when expressed as deaths per mile ; but not so great when in deaths per journey , which is a more usable metric especially in case of airplanes ( since short or long high altitude cruise does n't make that much of a difference for safety ) .
Generally , when travel by rail or bus is practical , it 's also safer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While generally agreeing with you... ...when you use those stats remember they are a bit deceptive.
Yes, airplanes have very good safety when expressed as deaths per mile; but not so great when in deaths per journey, which is a more usable metric especially in case of airplanes (since short or long high altitude cruise doesn't make that much of a difference for safety).
Generally, when travel by rail or bus is practical, it's also safer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30996960</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>baKanale</author>
	<datestamp>1265132100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the big deal over the naked-child-picture-scanners is that the hypocrite bastards insisting we all go through all this security bullshit are the same fuckers who insist on so many other freedom restricting things to "protect the children" and all that crap.  I agree, it's logically inconsistent to complain about the stuff they do to fight kiddie porn, then turn around and use those same arguments you decried to fight these intrusive scanners.  At the same time, though, it's an even <i>bigger</i> hypocrisy for them to make such a deal about child porn and then, basically, say "It's not child porn if the government does it".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the big deal over the naked-child-picture-scanners is that the hypocrite bastards insisting we all go through all this security bullshit are the same fuckers who insist on so many other freedom restricting things to " protect the children " and all that crap .
I agree , it 's logically inconsistent to complain about the stuff they do to fight kiddie porn , then turn around and use those same arguments you decried to fight these intrusive scanners .
At the same time , though , it 's an even bigger hypocrisy for them to make such a deal about child porn and then , basically , say " It 's not child porn if the government does it " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the big deal over the naked-child-picture-scanners is that the hypocrite bastards insisting we all go through all this security bullshit are the same fuckers who insist on so many other freedom restricting things to "protect the children" and all that crap.
I agree, it's logically inconsistent to complain about the stuff they do to fight kiddie porn, then turn around and use those same arguments you decried to fight these intrusive scanners.
At the same time, though, it's an even bigger hypocrisy for them to make such a deal about child porn and then, basically, say "It's not child porn if the government does it".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993060</id>
	<title>Future screening procedures...</title>
	<author>starbugs</author>
	<datestamp>1265110980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://comics.com/pc\_and\_pixel/2010-01-27/" title="comics.com">http://comics.com/pc\_and\_pixel/2010-01-27</a> [comics.com]</p><p>--<br>Would you be prepared if gravity reversed itself?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //comics.com/pc \ _and \ _pixel/2010-01-27 [ comics.com ] --Would you be prepared if gravity reversed itself ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://comics.com/pc\_and\_pixel/2010-01-27 [comics.com]--Would you be prepared if gravity reversed itself?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993098</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265111280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Screwing with adults and their privacy is one thing, <i>photographing naked children is some next level shit</i> to put it bluntly.</p></div><p>Yeah, some guy in Australia, I believe, got sentenced to jail for pedophilia because he had pornographic pictures of <i>cartoon characters</i>, but it's OK for government employed perverts to be ogling our kids in the name of "safety". Top grade job UK government, fucking A+.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Screwing with adults and their privacy is one thing , photographing naked children is some next level shit to put it bluntly.Yeah , some guy in Australia , I believe , got sentenced to jail for pedophilia because he had pornographic pictures of cartoon characters , but it 's OK for government employed perverts to be ogling our kids in the name of " safety " .
Top grade job UK government , fucking A + .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Screwing with adults and their privacy is one thing, photographing naked children is some next level shit to put it bluntly.Yeah, some guy in Australia, I believe, got sentenced to jail for pedophilia because he had pornographic pictures of cartoon characters, but it's OK for government employed perverts to be ogling our kids in the name of "safety".
Top grade job UK government, fucking A+.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30992974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994226</id>
	<title>Re:Some of think this scanner is pornographic? rea</title>
	<author>IndustrialComplex</author>
	<datestamp>1265121300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Until the technology improves (actually it is already better than what you have seen).</p><p>Sigh...</p><p>Just because something isn't possible now, doesn't mean that it won't be possible later.   I said this in an earlier thread.  20 years ago it would have been impossible to consider that the Government would monitor every phone conversation in the US.  Yet now?  10 years from now?</p><p>So yeah, tell me again those images are always going to be blurry monocrome and anonymous.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Until the technology improves ( actually it is already better than what you have seen ) .Sigh...Just because something is n't possible now , does n't mean that it wo n't be possible later .
I said this in an earlier thread .
20 years ago it would have been impossible to consider that the Government would monitor every phone conversation in the US .
Yet now ?
10 years from now ? So yeah , tell me again those images are always going to be blurry monocrome and anonymous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Until the technology improves (actually it is already better than what you have seen).Sigh...Just because something isn't possible now, doesn't mean that it won't be possible later.
I said this in an earlier thread.
20 years ago it would have been impossible to consider that the Government would monitor every phone conversation in the US.
Yet now?
10 years from now?So yeah, tell me again those images are always going to be blurry monocrome and anonymous.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993120</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30995694</id>
	<title>Boxers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265127960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I want to get a pair of boxers that have metallic lettering in the form of:</p><p>You Fag!<br>I caught you looking!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I want to get a pair of boxers that have metallic lettering in the form of : You Fag ! I caught you looking !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I want to get a pair of boxers that have metallic lettering in the form of:You Fag!I caught you looking!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30997892</id>
	<title>I'd pay extra to avoid this.</title>
	<author>gknoy</author>
	<datestamp>1265134980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was going to moderate some very good posts, but it occurred to me<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>I would gladly drive extra or pay extra to fly the Unsafe Skies.  I bet that if some airlines and a specific airport in a major metropolitan area were to adopt a "We won't scan/frisk/xray/etc you" policy, customers would jump on it.  Imagine this scenario:</p><p>- You don't have to take off your shoes.<br>- We don't want to see you naked.<br>- Aside from some bomb sniffing dogs and some Israeli-style attention, we don't check for much on planes.<br>- You can bring knives on the airplane.  So can everyone else, though.<br>- Please no guns.<br>- We only fly to other airports with similar "relaxed" security, or else you need to go through normal security when you get where you're going.</p><p>I guess x-raying might be necessary, or perhaps a chemical sniffer (?) for bomb-stuff... but the general idea would be that we are Okay with armed passengers, as anyone that tries something with a box cutter will have a herd of angry passengers to deal with.</p><p>I wonder how financially viable that would be.  Would it get more demand than the strip-search airports?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was going to moderate some very good posts , but it occurred to me ...I would gladly drive extra or pay extra to fly the Unsafe Skies .
I bet that if some airlines and a specific airport in a major metropolitan area were to adopt a " We wo n't scan/frisk/xray/etc you " policy , customers would jump on it .
Imagine this scenario : - You do n't have to take off your shoes.- We do n't want to see you naked.- Aside from some bomb sniffing dogs and some Israeli-style attention , we do n't check for much on planes.- You can bring knives on the airplane .
So can everyone else , though.- Please no guns.- We only fly to other airports with similar " relaxed " security , or else you need to go through normal security when you get where you 're going.I guess x-raying might be necessary , or perhaps a chemical sniffer ( ?
) for bomb-stuff... but the general idea would be that we are Okay with armed passengers , as anyone that tries something with a box cutter will have a herd of angry passengers to deal with.I wonder how financially viable that would be .
Would it get more demand than the strip-search airports ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was going to moderate some very good posts, but it occurred to me ...I would gladly drive extra or pay extra to fly the Unsafe Skies.
I bet that if some airlines and a specific airport in a major metropolitan area were to adopt a "We won't scan/frisk/xray/etc you" policy, customers would jump on it.
Imagine this scenario:- You don't have to take off your shoes.- We don't want to see you naked.- Aside from some bomb sniffing dogs and some Israeli-style attention, we don't check for much on planes.- You can bring knives on the airplane.
So can everyone else, though.- Please no guns.- We only fly to other airports with similar "relaxed" security, or else you need to go through normal security when you get where you're going.I guess x-raying might be necessary, or perhaps a chemical sniffer (?
) for bomb-stuff... but the general idea would be that we are Okay with armed passengers, as anyone that tries something with a box cutter will have a herd of angry passengers to deal with.I wonder how financially viable that would be.
Would it get more demand than the strip-search airports?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994222</id>
	<title>Health effects of millimeter waves</title>
	<author>Bozovision</author>
	<datestamp>1265121300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The health effects of millimeter wave scanning are what we should be worried about - there's an unknown risk but a high possible impact: imagine if in 10 years time millions of people start developing melanomas as a result of being scanned.</p><p>The x-ray backscatter machines are much less worrying; we've had 100(?) years of experience with X-rays and we understand what x-rays can do to DNA.</p><p>But we have very little experience of mm level radiation.</p><p>What I've seen in the press is cheerleading. 'Experts say there is little cause to worry' with unknown experts talking in vague generalities. I've seen articles saying that the energy involved is less than the energy emitted by a cell-phone. That may well be the case, but it's not in the cell-phone spectrum, and even a little energy in the wrong place can do a lot of damage. Just see what a match can do to a pile of paper*.</p><p>Of course it's impossible to completely prove something is safe. But I don't think we don't have empirical evidence that it's safe. Or at least - I've not seen it.</p><p>I absolutely have not made an exhaustive search for literature on the health effects of mm radiation, and I'm not an expert. In the brief searches I have made I have seen that there's a lot of scare-noise based on what seems like only a few sources which imo are not applicable. What I don't see is a long list of studies. And even more striking is that that non-existent list of studies is not full of papers saying 'we found no observable effects'**.</p><p>But I have found that it's possible to <a href="http://www.mwrf.com/Article/ArticleID/22035/22035.html" title="mwrf.com">cook bacteria with mm waves</a> [mwrf.com]! Maybe this is a hint that there's a potential problem. And in the diagrams of atmospheric absorption of radiation that I've looked at, <a href="http://odin.physastro.mnsu.edu/~eskridge/astr101/atmospheric\_windows.jpg" title="mnsu.edu">for example</a> [mnsu.edu], it looks like mm waves are mostly absorbed, which suggests that we'd have little evolved defense to mm wave damage.</p><p>What I'd really like to see is a series of mm wave experts saying things like 'we've studied the health effects of mm wave scanners for 10 years now, and I'd have no qualms about subjecting my three month old baby to a scan because I'm confident that there's no health risk associated.'</p><p>* Pedants: yes, I know the energies involved are different orders of magnitude - it's a metaphor.</p><p>** It's quite possible I was looking in the wrong place. I'd be very pleased to see a detailed response with a link to this list.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The health effects of millimeter wave scanning are what we should be worried about - there 's an unknown risk but a high possible impact : imagine if in 10 years time millions of people start developing melanomas as a result of being scanned.The x-ray backscatter machines are much less worrying ; we 've had 100 ( ?
) years of experience with X-rays and we understand what x-rays can do to DNA.But we have very little experience of mm level radiation.What I 've seen in the press is cheerleading .
'Experts say there is little cause to worry ' with unknown experts talking in vague generalities .
I 've seen articles saying that the energy involved is less than the energy emitted by a cell-phone .
That may well be the case , but it 's not in the cell-phone spectrum , and even a little energy in the wrong place can do a lot of damage .
Just see what a match can do to a pile of paper * .Of course it 's impossible to completely prove something is safe .
But I do n't think we do n't have empirical evidence that it 's safe .
Or at least - I 've not seen it.I absolutely have not made an exhaustive search for literature on the health effects of mm radiation , and I 'm not an expert .
In the brief searches I have made I have seen that there 's a lot of scare-noise based on what seems like only a few sources which imo are not applicable .
What I do n't see is a long list of studies .
And even more striking is that that non-existent list of studies is not full of papers saying 'we found no observable effects ' * * .But I have found that it 's possible to cook bacteria with mm waves [ mwrf.com ] !
Maybe this is a hint that there 's a potential problem .
And in the diagrams of atmospheric absorption of radiation that I 've looked at , for example [ mnsu.edu ] , it looks like mm waves are mostly absorbed , which suggests that we 'd have little evolved defense to mm wave damage.What I 'd really like to see is a series of mm wave experts saying things like 'we 've studied the health effects of mm wave scanners for 10 years now , and I 'd have no qualms about subjecting my three month old baby to a scan because I 'm confident that there 's no health risk associated .
' * Pedants : yes , I know the energies involved are different orders of magnitude - it 's a metaphor .
* * It 's quite possible I was looking in the wrong place .
I 'd be very pleased to see a detailed response with a link to this list .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The health effects of millimeter wave scanning are what we should be worried about - there's an unknown risk but a high possible impact: imagine if in 10 years time millions of people start developing melanomas as a result of being scanned.The x-ray backscatter machines are much less worrying; we've had 100(?
) years of experience with X-rays and we understand what x-rays can do to DNA.But we have very little experience of mm level radiation.What I've seen in the press is cheerleading.
'Experts say there is little cause to worry' with unknown experts talking in vague generalities.
I've seen articles saying that the energy involved is less than the energy emitted by a cell-phone.
That may well be the case, but it's not in the cell-phone spectrum, and even a little energy in the wrong place can do a lot of damage.
Just see what a match can do to a pile of paper*.Of course it's impossible to completely prove something is safe.
But I don't think we don't have empirical evidence that it's safe.
Or at least - I've not seen it.I absolutely have not made an exhaustive search for literature on the health effects of mm radiation, and I'm not an expert.
In the brief searches I have made I have seen that there's a lot of scare-noise based on what seems like only a few sources which imo are not applicable.
What I don't see is a long list of studies.
And even more striking is that that non-existent list of studies is not full of papers saying 'we found no observable effects'**.But I have found that it's possible to cook bacteria with mm waves [mwrf.com]!
Maybe this is a hint that there's a potential problem.
And in the diagrams of atmospheric absorption of radiation that I've looked at, for example [mnsu.edu], it looks like mm waves are mostly absorbed, which suggests that we'd have little evolved defense to mm wave damage.What I'd really like to see is a series of mm wave experts saying things like 'we've studied the health effects of mm wave scanners for 10 years now, and I'd have no qualms about subjecting my three month old baby to a scan because I'm confident that there's no health risk associated.
'* Pedants: yes, I know the energies involved are different orders of magnitude - it's a metaphor.
** It's quite possible I was looking in the wrong place.
I'd be very pleased to see a detailed response with a link to this list.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993186</id>
	<title>Re:not that bad</title>
	<author>Sobrique</author>
	<datestamp>1265112420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think they're missing an opportunity actually.
<br>
First class passengers get a personalised 'pat down' by a security attendant of the opposite sex (or same sex, if that's more to their taste) wearing something sexy. Pick from bikini, catsuit, negliee, hotpants<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think they 're missing an opportunity actually .
First class passengers get a personalised 'pat down ' by a security attendant of the opposite sex ( or same sex , if that 's more to their taste ) wearing something sexy .
Pick from bikini , catsuit , negliee , hotpants .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think they're missing an opportunity actually.
First class passengers get a personalised 'pat down' by a security attendant of the opposite sex (or same sex, if that's more to their taste) wearing something sexy.
Pick from bikini, catsuit, negliee, hotpants ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994664</id>
	<title>yuk, it must be the most unhealthy environment....</title>
	<author>garompeta</author>
	<datestamp>1265123760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...to work.<p>Imagine all the stalactites under the table and the sticky keyboard...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...to work.Imagine all the stalactites under the table and the sticky keyboard.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...to work.Imagine all the stalactites under the table and the sticky keyboard...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993424</id>
	<title>Scanners and Health</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265114520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't understand why more people aren't afraid of the ill health effects of walking through this scanner.  Has it been conclusively proven not to harm people- after all it is a new technology that seems to have been pushed through the right channels rather quickly.  Does anyone have any information they can share regarding this scanner and health?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand why more people are n't afraid of the ill health effects of walking through this scanner .
Has it been conclusively proven not to harm people- after all it is a new technology that seems to have been pushed through the right channels rather quickly .
Does anyone have any information they can share regarding this scanner and health ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't understand why more people aren't afraid of the ill health effects of walking through this scanner.
Has it been conclusively proven not to harm people- after all it is a new technology that seems to have been pushed through the right channels rather quickly.
Does anyone have any information they can share regarding this scanner and health?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994332</id>
	<title>Frequency of attacks</title>
	<author>Lemming Mark</author>
	<datestamp>1265121960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OK, so how many people have been killed due to terrorists boarding flights in the UK in the past decade?  How many have been killed due to terrorists on the London Underground and London buses.  The London public transport system is a more successful target here.  We can't possibly scan everyone who uses that, though therefore I guess we'll have to ban clothes in London.  Getting on the tube at rush hour is going to get a *whole* lot worse than it is now<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OK , so how many people have been killed due to terrorists boarding flights in the UK in the past decade ?
How many have been killed due to terrorists on the London Underground and London buses .
The London public transport system is a more successful target here .
We ca n't possibly scan everyone who uses that , though therefore I guess we 'll have to ban clothes in London .
Getting on the tube at rush hour is going to get a * whole * lot worse than it is now .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK, so how many people have been killed due to terrorists boarding flights in the UK in the past decade?
How many have been killed due to terrorists on the London Underground and London buses.
The London public transport system is a more successful target here.
We can't possibly scan everyone who uses that, though therefore I guess we'll have to ban clothes in London.
Getting on the tube at rush hour is going to get a *whole* lot worse than it is now ...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993906</id>
	<title>What's up with you puritans ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265118900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Com'on, folks. Be realistic about this, will you ?</p><p>Do you REALLY think that some people (yes, the people you are so afraid of) will sit around and fab to a picture of a blurry, monochrome child / youth image, when the same person in minutes (obviously knowing the right source) can get a full-color, no-clothes, ultra-high res image of exactly the same topic ? Or a video ?</p><p>Oh, and btw the SAME people can go to a public swimming pool and probably see what they want much clearer than the blurry images.</p><p>I really think this is a storm in a small glass of water, as we say around where I'm from. It's NOT an issue, except for the puritanical among you that are SO afraid of nudity. It's not like the scanners produce a high-res color image, like a nude image.</p><p>Oh, and did you know that many places in Europe, mixed saunas and dressing rooms are common ? A problem ? Do kids get raped there all the time ? No, not really.</p><p>Grow up about this and re-consider: is these scanners really producing material pedophiles want to fab to / collect ? I really don't think so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Com'on , folks .
Be realistic about this , will you ? Do you REALLY think that some people ( yes , the people you are so afraid of ) will sit around and fab to a picture of a blurry , monochrome child / youth image , when the same person in minutes ( obviously knowing the right source ) can get a full-color , no-clothes , ultra-high res image of exactly the same topic ?
Or a video ? Oh , and btw the SAME people can go to a public swimming pool and probably see what they want much clearer than the blurry images.I really think this is a storm in a small glass of water , as we say around where I 'm from .
It 's NOT an issue , except for the puritanical among you that are SO afraid of nudity .
It 's not like the scanners produce a high-res color image , like a nude image.Oh , and did you know that many places in Europe , mixed saunas and dressing rooms are common ?
A problem ?
Do kids get raped there all the time ?
No , not really.Grow up about this and re-consider : is these scanners really producing material pedophiles want to fab to / collect ?
I really do n't think so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Com'on, folks.
Be realistic about this, will you ?Do you REALLY think that some people (yes, the people you are so afraid of) will sit around and fab to a picture of a blurry, monochrome child / youth image, when the same person in minutes (obviously knowing the right source) can get a full-color, no-clothes, ultra-high res image of exactly the same topic ?
Or a video ?Oh, and btw the SAME people can go to a public swimming pool and probably see what they want much clearer than the blurry images.I really think this is a storm in a small glass of water, as we say around where I'm from.
It's NOT an issue, except for the puritanical among you that are SO afraid of nudity.
It's not like the scanners produce a high-res color image, like a nude image.Oh, and did you know that many places in Europe, mixed saunas and dressing rooms are common ?
A problem ?
Do kids get raped there all the time ?
No, not really.Grow up about this and re-consider: is these scanners really producing material pedophiles want to fab to / collect ?
I really don't think so.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993606</id>
	<title>Just fly naked</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265116200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...then there's no need to be scanned</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...then there 's no need to be scanned</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...then there's no need to be scanned</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994938</id>
	<title>A cheap simpler way</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265124960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It would be more simple and much much cheaper to have people remove their clothes... i mean its like the same thing... except for the $$$$$$$ difference at each check point</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would be more simple and much much cheaper to have people remove their clothes... i mean its like the same thing... except for the $ $ $ $ $ $ $ difference at each check point</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would be more simple and much much cheaper to have people remove their clothes... i mean its like the same thing... except for the $$$$$$$ difference at each check point</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994820</id>
	<title>Re:Better way to beat the scanner...</title>
	<author>Eudial</author>
	<datestamp>1265124480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Wear leather underwear.  Backscatter doesn't penetrate skin?  Try penetrating this cow skin!</p></div><p>If S&amp;M isn't your thing, maybe <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lam\%C3\%A9\_(fabric)" title="wikipedia.org">lam&#233;</a> [wikipedia.org] would do as a substitute?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wear leather underwear .
Backscatter does n't penetrate skin ?
Try penetrating this cow skin ! If S&amp;M is n't your thing , maybe lam   [ wikipedia.org ] would do as a substitute ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wear leather underwear.
Backscatter doesn't penetrate skin?
Try penetrating this cow skin!If S&amp;M isn't your thing, maybe lamé [wikipedia.org] would do as a substitute?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.31000286</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>centuren</author>
	<datestamp>1265101260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What I find more intriguing is the real reason behind all of this crap. Distract people from real problems? Collapse the air transportation system? Mess with our minds? Totalitarian control?</p></div><p>No need to be so dramatic, it's just politics. I think people genuinely are more afraid for their safety while flying (trapped, uncomfortable, incomprehensibly high above the ground, etc). It's can be good politics to play that up (even without any specific goals other than raising poll numbers), and if something does happen like the underpants bomber, it's good politics to attack if your opponent tries to assuage the public's fear with reason rather than respond with visible new security measures.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What I find more intriguing is the real reason behind all of this crap .
Distract people from real problems ?
Collapse the air transportation system ?
Mess with our minds ?
Totalitarian control ? No need to be so dramatic , it 's just politics .
I think people genuinely are more afraid for their safety while flying ( trapped , uncomfortable , incomprehensibly high above the ground , etc ) .
It 's can be good politics to play that up ( even without any specific goals other than raising poll numbers ) , and if something does happen like the underpants bomber , it 's good politics to attack if your opponent tries to assuage the public 's fear with reason rather than respond with visible new security measures .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I find more intriguing is the real reason behind all of this crap.
Distract people from real problems?
Collapse the air transportation system?
Mess with our minds?
Totalitarian control?No need to be so dramatic, it's just politics.
I think people genuinely are more afraid for their safety while flying (trapped, uncomfortable, incomprehensibly high above the ground, etc).
It's can be good politics to play that up (even without any specific goals other than raising poll numbers), and if something does happen like the underpants bomber, it's good politics to attack if your opponent tries to assuage the public's fear with reason rather than respond with visible new security measures.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994086</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>Ant P.</author>
	<datestamp>1265120460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Terrorists will always find a way to get explosives on planes if they feel they need to.</p></div><p>Why bother? Thanks to security theatre, they can now simply blow themselves up in the scanner queue, which will kill the hundred or so people packed in there, will probably shut down the entire airport, and will cause the government to rape us even harder than before.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Terrorists will always find a way to get explosives on planes if they feel they need to.Why bother ?
Thanks to security theatre , they can now simply blow themselves up in the scanner queue , which will kill the hundred or so people packed in there , will probably shut down the entire airport , and will cause the government to rape us even harder than before .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Terrorists will always find a way to get explosives on planes if they feel they need to.Why bother?
Thanks to security theatre, they can now simply blow themselves up in the scanner queue, which will kill the hundred or so people packed in there, will probably shut down the entire airport, and will cause the government to rape us even harder than before.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993538</id>
	<title>Re:Read the article, please.</title>
	<author>fnj</author>
	<datestamp>1265115720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>So, I say do whatever needs to be done to make us all even the slightest bit safer.</p></div></blockquote><p>"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin.</p><p>If you replace "liberty" with "dignity", it fits perfectly.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , I say do whatever needs to be done to make us all even the slightest bit safer .
" They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety , deserve neither liberty nor safety .
" - Benjamin Franklin.If you replace " liberty " with " dignity " , it fits perfectly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, I say do whatever needs to be done to make us all even the slightest bit safer.
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
" - Benjamin Franklin.If you replace "liberty" with "dignity", it fits perfectly.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30998850</id>
	<title>Re:Images CAN be stored and captured.</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1265138520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If we're going to be subjected to the thing anyway, I'd actually prefer the images be stored. Otherwise, when the scanner fails (as it will sooner or later), how can they look back to see what it missed?</p><p>I mean, the technology is *probably* useless now, but that's no reason to make it *more* useless by removing the ability to look at past scans.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If we 're going to be subjected to the thing anyway , I 'd actually prefer the images be stored .
Otherwise , when the scanner fails ( as it will sooner or later ) , how can they look back to see what it missed ? I mean , the technology is * probably * useless now , but that 's no reason to make it * more * useless by removing the ability to look at past scans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If we're going to be subjected to the thing anyway, I'd actually prefer the images be stored.
Otherwise, when the scanner fails (as it will sooner or later), how can they look back to see what it missed?I mean, the technology is *probably* useless now, but that's no reason to make it *more* useless by removing the ability to look at past scans.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30996532</id>
	<title>Bonus for /.ers...</title>
	<author>fahrbot-bot</author>
	<datestamp>1265130600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>...now there's a chance someone will see us naked...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>...now there 's a chance someone will see us naked... : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...now there's a chance someone will see us naked... :-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.31001770</id>
	<title>Re:not that bad</title>
	<author>mikestew</author>
	<datestamp>1265108280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If only they grabbed your junk and your ass. I've been patted on multiple occasions, and you'd think my junk had leprosy. I've wondered if that is why the undie bomber went for that setup, knowing that even in the event of a pat down the male security personnel would be afraid of turning gay if they got near his junk.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If only they grabbed your junk and your ass .
I 've been patted on multiple occasions , and you 'd think my junk had leprosy .
I 've wondered if that is why the undie bomber went for that setup , knowing that even in the event of a pat down the male security personnel would be afraid of turning gay if they got near his junk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If only they grabbed your junk and your ass.
I've been patted on multiple occasions, and you'd think my junk had leprosy.
I've wondered if that is why the undie bomber went for that setup, knowing that even in the event of a pat down the male security personnel would be afraid of turning gay if they got near his junk.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.31006286</id>
	<title>The cavity search? What about the cavity search?</title>
	<author>dogzdik</author>
	<datestamp>1265136780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My life has been missing that "vital zing" since the cavity searches stopped.

I was always first in line, because I wanted that fist up to the wrist; and to be the glove puppet for that nasty, nasty orifice inspector.....

Sigh....

The good old days of air travel are now gone forever.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My life has been missing that " vital zing " since the cavity searches stopped .
I was always first in line , because I wanted that fist up to the wrist ; and to be the glove puppet for that nasty , nasty orifice inspector.... . Sigh... . The good old days of air travel are now gone forever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My life has been missing that "vital zing" since the cavity searches stopped.
I was always first in line, because I wanted that fist up to the wrist; and to be the glove puppet for that nasty, nasty orifice inspector.....

Sigh....

The good old days of air travel are now gone forever.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994446</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>spitzig</author>
	<datestamp>1265122680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've seen a couple of these scans. It would be difficult for me to enjoy one. BUT, considering that when I was in high school, I used to get excited by watching Cinemax that was half-static(my parents didn't have Cinemax), I'm sure that plenty of pedophiles would enjoy a child's scan. Some of them are probably as desperate for their porn as I was for mine in high school.</p><p>On the other side of the argument, no security measure is perfect. That doesn't mean you shouldn't make it harder.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've seen a couple of these scans .
It would be difficult for me to enjoy one .
BUT , considering that when I was in high school , I used to get excited by watching Cinemax that was half-static ( my parents did n't have Cinemax ) , I 'm sure that plenty of pedophiles would enjoy a child 's scan .
Some of them are probably as desperate for their porn as I was for mine in high school.On the other side of the argument , no security measure is perfect .
That does n't mean you should n't make it harder .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've seen a couple of these scans.
It would be difficult for me to enjoy one.
BUT, considering that when I was in high school, I used to get excited by watching Cinemax that was half-static(my parents didn't have Cinemax), I'm sure that plenty of pedophiles would enjoy a child's scan.
Some of them are probably as desperate for their porn as I was for mine in high school.On the other side of the argument, no security measure is perfect.
That doesn't mean you shouldn't make it harder.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994434</id>
	<title>Enough is enough....</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1265122620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would take a picture of each of the guards at that scanner when a child went through and<br>then started a class action lawsuit against their company for promoting child pornography.<br>If you can allow someone to see a childs genitals without being for a medical reason or doctor,<br>I think this becomes a bit too close and personal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would take a picture of each of the guards at that scanner when a child went through andthen started a class action lawsuit against their company for promoting child pornography.If you can allow someone to see a childs genitals without being for a medical reason or doctor,I think this becomes a bit too close and personal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would take a picture of each of the guards at that scanner when a child went through andthen started a class action lawsuit against their company for promoting child pornography.If you can allow someone to see a childs genitals without being for a medical reason or doctor,I think this becomes a bit too close and personal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994844</id>
	<title>easy fix</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265124540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wear tinfoil underpants.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wear tinfoil underpants .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wear tinfoil underpants.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.31019846</id>
	<title>Stupidity = Security</title>
	<author>xenobyte</author>
	<datestamp>1265275080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have simply stopped flying completely until they wake up and start treating the passengers decently and stop the completely stupid and inefficient security theater with an arsenal of scanners, strip searches and other deeply invasive measures. Proper profiling would do the trick much more efficiently and securely; the current scanners and methods still wouldn't have stopped the 9/11 terrorists for instance.</p><p>At the very least they need to do their job in ways much less abusive than they do today. They bark orders around and treat people like a cross between common trash and a heavily armed terrorists... smiling seems banned and people skills non-existent (job requirement it seems). Perhaps regulating the pay of the security personnel based on passenger evaluations would help? - More smiles, nicer methods, more flexibility, sense of humor... Could make the security check fun even!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have simply stopped flying completely until they wake up and start treating the passengers decently and stop the completely stupid and inefficient security theater with an arsenal of scanners , strip searches and other deeply invasive measures .
Proper profiling would do the trick much more efficiently and securely ; the current scanners and methods still would n't have stopped the 9/11 terrorists for instance.At the very least they need to do their job in ways much less abusive than they do today .
They bark orders around and treat people like a cross between common trash and a heavily armed terrorists... smiling seems banned and people skills non-existent ( job requirement it seems ) .
Perhaps regulating the pay of the security personnel based on passenger evaluations would help ?
- More smiles , nicer methods , more flexibility , sense of humor... Could make the security check fun even !
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have simply stopped flying completely until they wake up and start treating the passengers decently and stop the completely stupid and inefficient security theater with an arsenal of scanners, strip searches and other deeply invasive measures.
Proper profiling would do the trick much more efficiently and securely; the current scanners and methods still wouldn't have stopped the 9/11 terrorists for instance.At the very least they need to do their job in ways much less abusive than they do today.
They bark orders around and treat people like a cross between common trash and a heavily armed terrorists... smiling seems banned and people skills non-existent (job requirement it seems).
Perhaps regulating the pay of the security personnel based on passenger evaluations would help?
- More smiles, nicer methods, more flexibility, sense of humor... Could make the security check fun even!
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.31004662</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265125380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm surprised that the Catholic church isn't protesting this. <br>
Once word gets out all their priests will be resigning and taking on jobs at airports...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm surprised that the Catholic church is n't protesting this .
Once word gets out all their priests will be resigning and taking on jobs at airports.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm surprised that the Catholic church isn't protesting this.
Once word gets out all their priests will be resigning and taking on jobs at airports...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993536</id>
	<title>Visible genitals</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265115660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>"...unless the genitals of people going through them are visible."</i> </p><p>Hmmmm. Should make the waiting time in the queue much more interesting... Clearly an improvement in airline service.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...unless the genitals of people going through them are visible .
" Hmmmm .
Should make the waiting time in the queue much more interesting... Clearly an improvement in airline service .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> "...unless the genitals of people going through them are visible.
" Hmmmm.
Should make the waiting time in the queue much more interesting... Clearly an improvement in airline service.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994590</id>
	<title>Oblig. Quote</title>
	<author>Teufelhunde</author>
	<datestamp>1265123340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"He who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserves neither" - Benjamin Franklin (paraphrased)</htmltext>
<tokenext>" He who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserves neither " - Benjamin Franklin ( paraphrased )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"He who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserves neither" - Benjamin Franklin (paraphrased)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30995060</id>
	<title>No Rights, NO VISIT</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265125500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>  to the country that brought you disasters in Iraq, Afghanistan, United States, India, Canada, Australia, Hong Kong, and so on and so forth</p><p>P.S.: Waterboard Tony Blair.</p><p>Yours In Astrakhan,<br>K. Trout</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>to the country that brought you disasters in Iraq , Afghanistan , United States , India , Canada , Australia , Hong Kong , and so on and so forthP.S .
: Waterboard Tony Blair.Yours In Astrakhan,K .
Trout</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  to the country that brought you disasters in Iraq, Afghanistan, United States, India, Canada, Australia, Hong Kong, and so on and so forthP.S.
: Waterboard Tony Blair.Yours In Astrakhan,K.
Trout</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30997312</id>
	<title>This is just plain wrong</title>
	<author>Sheik Yerbouti</author>
	<datestamp>1265133240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I won't be flying to Heathrow or Manchester as long as this is the case. And it's not about someone seeing my junk. That really does not bother me. All though it is interesting that if I whipped it out in the Airport I would surely be arrested for indecent exposure and yet this whole thing is compulsory. But this is more about the princicipal of the matter this is a gross violation of civil rights and I will not tolerate it.</p><p>If your a subject of her majesty the queen and you aren't up in arms about this and don't fight it tooth and nail then you deserve what you get.</p><p>Let's also not forget that what failed largely in the case of the attempted underwear bomber was not airport scanners. What failed was the American inelligence services. I mean for Christ sakes his father showed up at the American embassy in Nigeria and warned anyone who would listen that his son was a threat and they did nothing with this information. So why on earth should we give up our civil liberties as a fail safe to government mailaise and incompetence that is absurd beyond belief.</p><p>Also just from a pure safety perspective motor vehicle accidents cause about 40k deaths a year in the US alone and around 4million injuries. Terrorism over the last TEN YEARS in the US does not even rate by comparison. So there really is very little security to even be had as a result of giving up your liberties it's just insane.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wo n't be flying to Heathrow or Manchester as long as this is the case .
And it 's not about someone seeing my junk .
That really does not bother me .
All though it is interesting that if I whipped it out in the Airport I would surely be arrested for indecent exposure and yet this whole thing is compulsory .
But this is more about the princicipal of the matter this is a gross violation of civil rights and I will not tolerate it.If your a subject of her majesty the queen and you are n't up in arms about this and do n't fight it tooth and nail then you deserve what you get.Let 's also not forget that what failed largely in the case of the attempted underwear bomber was not airport scanners .
What failed was the American inelligence services .
I mean for Christ sakes his father showed up at the American embassy in Nigeria and warned anyone who would listen that his son was a threat and they did nothing with this information .
So why on earth should we give up our civil liberties as a fail safe to government mailaise and incompetence that is absurd beyond belief.Also just from a pure safety perspective motor vehicle accidents cause about 40k deaths a year in the US alone and around 4million injuries .
Terrorism over the last TEN YEARS in the US does not even rate by comparison .
So there really is very little security to even be had as a result of giving up your liberties it 's just insane .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I won't be flying to Heathrow or Manchester as long as this is the case.
And it's not about someone seeing my junk.
That really does not bother me.
All though it is interesting that if I whipped it out in the Airport I would surely be arrested for indecent exposure and yet this whole thing is compulsory.
But this is more about the princicipal of the matter this is a gross violation of civil rights and I will not tolerate it.If your a subject of her majesty the queen and you aren't up in arms about this and don't fight it tooth and nail then you deserve what you get.Let's also not forget that what failed largely in the case of the attempted underwear bomber was not airport scanners.
What failed was the American inelligence services.
I mean for Christ sakes his father showed up at the American embassy in Nigeria and warned anyone who would listen that his son was a threat and they did nothing with this information.
So why on earth should we give up our civil liberties as a fail safe to government mailaise and incompetence that is absurd beyond belief.Also just from a pure safety perspective motor vehicle accidents cause about 40k deaths a year in the US alone and around 4million injuries.
Terrorism over the last TEN YEARS in the US does not even rate by comparison.
So there really is very little security to even be had as a result of giving up your liberties it's just insane.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993120</id>
	<title>Some of think this scanner is pornographic? really</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265111640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Firstly, it's not like these images are in any way erotic. I doubt very much they could ever really be used in fashion. Secondly, do you really think these screens are visible to the rest of the terminal?</p><p>No, of course they aren't. You might consider it a breach of privacy, but only the operator will see that blurry, monocrome image of your genitals.</p><p>Complain about civil liberties if you must, but at least use arguments that don't make you sound like utter retards.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Firstly , it 's not like these images are in any way erotic .
I doubt very much they could ever really be used in fashion .
Secondly , do you really think these screens are visible to the rest of the terminal ? No , of course they are n't .
You might consider it a breach of privacy , but only the operator will see that blurry , monocrome image of your genitals.Complain about civil liberties if you must , but at least use arguments that do n't make you sound like utter retards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firstly, it's not like these images are in any way erotic.
I doubt very much they could ever really be used in fashion.
Secondly, do you really think these screens are visible to the rest of the terminal?No, of course they aren't.
You might consider it a breach of privacy, but only the operator will see that blurry, monocrome image of your genitals.Complain about civil liberties if you must, but at least use arguments that don't make you sound like utter retards.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993378</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>hughk</author>
	<datestamp>1265113980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You forgot to factor in the cost of the not particularly useful scanners, extra operating staff and time to scan.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You forgot to factor in the cost of the not particularly useful scanners , extra operating staff and time to scan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forgot to factor in the cost of the not particularly useful scanners, extra operating staff and time to scan.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993820</id>
	<title>What about pacemakers?</title>
	<author>joneil</author>
	<datestamp>1265118180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>  A member of my family has and  needs a pacemaker to stay alive.  I have read several articles on the topic, and so far, there is no definitive answer on the possible effects, if any, on a person with a pacemaker.       Let's say for sake of arguement there is a 1 in a 100 or a 1 in 10,000 chance of adversely affecting a pacemaker when walking through one of these scanners - would you take that chance?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A member of my family has and needs a pacemaker to stay alive .
I have read several articles on the topic , and so far , there is no definitive answer on the possible effects , if any , on a person with a pacemaker .
Let 's say for sake of arguement there is a 1 in a 100 or a 1 in 10,000 chance of adversely affecting a pacemaker when walking through one of these scanners - would you take that chance ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  A member of my family has and  needs a pacemaker to stay alive.
I have read several articles on the topic, and so far, there is no definitive answer on the possible effects, if any, on a person with a pacemaker.
Let's say for sake of arguement there is a 1 in a 100 or a 1 in 10,000 chance of adversely affecting a pacemaker when walking through one of these scanners - would you take that chance?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993144</id>
	<title>What about</title>
	<author>PePe242</author>
	<datestamp>1265111940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>- being sued for indecent exposure if the traveler happens to be a little excited when going through the scanner?
- Suing the person checking the scanner of a naked child.

- who owns the pictures? Even though it's not supposed to be stored, I can very well imagine that, if something shows up on the screen, there is some sort of "Take a picture so that it can be used in court"</htmltext>
<tokenext>- being sued for indecent exposure if the traveler happens to be a little excited when going through the scanner ?
- Suing the person checking the scanner of a naked child .
- who owns the pictures ?
Even though it 's not supposed to be stored , I can very well imagine that , if something shows up on the screen , there is some sort of " Take a picture so that it can be used in court "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>- being sued for indecent exposure if the traveler happens to be a little excited when going through the scanner?
- Suing the person checking the scanner of a naked child.
- who owns the pictures?
Even though it's not supposed to be stored, I can very well imagine that, if something shows up on the screen, there is some sort of "Take a picture so that it can be used in court"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.31007432</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>kamochan</author>
	<datestamp>1264932360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr><em>...if someone shoves a C4 capsule up their ass, this stupid machines won't detect it.</em></p></div><p>I started to laugh, but then didn't.</p><p>At least this will force terrorists to shove C4 up their ass. I wonder what they'll do with the detonator cords.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...if someone shoves a C4 capsule up their ass , this stupid machines wo n't detect it.I started to laugh , but then did n't.At least this will force terrorists to shove C4 up their ass .
I wonder what they 'll do with the detonator cords .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...if someone shoves a C4 capsule up their ass, this stupid machines won't detect it.I started to laugh, but then didn't.At least this will force terrorists to shove C4 up their ass.
I wonder what they'll do with the detonator cords.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994784</id>
	<title>You had privacy before?</title>
	<author>hufter</author>
	<datestamp>1265124300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They <b>will</b> X-ray all your stuff, they may check them more closely -  by just a random pick or if they are suspicious for some reason. That will probably tell more about you than what your genitals look like (chances are they are just typical normal genitals).
If they think you might have some narcotics stuck in your ass, they will <b>physically intrude your body</b> to try and find them.
<br>
Since you can put only a fraction of passengers through the scanners, the real problem is that how you use them scanner. It may be a real humiliation to the people picked. So, you cannot pick by race, religion and stuff like that. Random? - Okay but doesn't really stop any terror attempts. Maybe you are on some CIA watchlist, which doesn't necessarily make you a terrorist, but other passengers will think you may be a terrorist, even if you ware picked by random.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They will X-ray all your stuff , they may check them more closely - by just a random pick or if they are suspicious for some reason .
That will probably tell more about you than what your genitals look like ( chances are they are just typical normal genitals ) .
If they think you might have some narcotics stuck in your ass , they will physically intrude your body to try and find them .
Since you can put only a fraction of passengers through the scanners , the real problem is that how you use them scanner .
It may be a real humiliation to the people picked .
So , you can not pick by race , religion and stuff like that .
Random ? - Okay but does n't really stop any terror attempts .
Maybe you are on some CIA watchlist , which does n't necessarily make you a terrorist , but other passengers will think you may be a terrorist , even if you ware picked by random .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They will X-ray all your stuff, they may check them more closely -  by just a random pick or if they are suspicious for some reason.
That will probably tell more about you than what your genitals look like (chances are they are just typical normal genitals).
If they think you might have some narcotics stuck in your ass, they will physically intrude your body to try and find them.
Since you can put only a fraction of passengers through the scanners, the real problem is that how you use them scanner.
It may be a real humiliation to the people picked.
So, you cannot pick by race, religion and stuff like that.
Random? - Okay but doesn't really stop any terror attempts.
Maybe you are on some CIA watchlist, which doesn't necessarily make you a terrorist, but other passengers will think you may be a terrorist, even if you ware picked by random.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994360</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1265122080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think anyone's seriously suggesting it should be illegal, the point is about the absurd  double standard in the scaremongering that we get from the Government over both these two issues.</p><p><i>Also, I doubt these scans have any erotic effect on even the most desperate pedophile except for those with some freaky scanner fetish.</i></p><p>But why are all sorts of obviously unrealistic things being criminalised? How would drawings and cartoons have an effect?</p><p>As for your x-ray argument, don't people (or the parents) have to give consent?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think anyone 's seriously suggesting it should be illegal , the point is about the absurd double standard in the scaremongering that we get from the Government over both these two issues.Also , I doubt these scans have any erotic effect on even the most desperate pedophile except for those with some freaky scanner fetish.But why are all sorts of obviously unrealistic things being criminalised ?
How would drawings and cartoons have an effect ? As for your x-ray argument , do n't people ( or the parents ) have to give consent ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think anyone's seriously suggesting it should be illegal, the point is about the absurd  double standard in the scaremongering that we get from the Government over both these two issues.Also, I doubt these scans have any erotic effect on even the most desperate pedophile except for those with some freaky scanner fetish.But why are all sorts of obviously unrealistic things being criminalised?
How would drawings and cartoons have an effect?As for your x-ray argument, don't people (or the parents) have to give consent?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993222</id>
	<title>Obvious way to beat the scanner:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265112600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Turn up naked.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Turn up naked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Turn up naked.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30998310</id>
	<title>I wonder...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265136420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The last few years have been a game of how-much-more-will-the-brits-take-before-they-have-enough-and-take-their-country-back. Seeing this article made me happy. Now it's in the open. EVERYONE has to do this, not just that guy who looks like he could be muslim. If nobody does anything about this, I think England can be said to be well and truly lost.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The last few years have been a game of how-much-more-will-the-brits-take-before-they-have-enough-and-take-their-country-back .
Seeing this article made me happy .
Now it 's in the open .
EVERYONE has to do this , not just that guy who looks like he could be muslim .
If nobody does anything about this , I think England can be said to be well and truly lost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The last few years have been a game of how-much-more-will-the-brits-take-before-they-have-enough-and-take-their-country-back.
Seeing this article made me happy.
Now it's in the open.
EVERYONE has to do this, not just that guy who looks like he could be muslim.
If nobody does anything about this, I think England can be said to be well and truly lost.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994182</id>
	<title>Re:Tinfoil underwear?</title>
	<author>melikamp</author>
	<datestamp>1265121060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My first thought, actually. The extra genitals are a nice touch<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>My first thought , actually .
The extra genitals are a nice touch : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My first thought, actually.
The extra genitals are a nice touch :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993566</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30995502</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265127240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And that's all not even considering that, as far as I'm aware, luggage scanners haven't been improved at all, only added a rule about liquids or gels - so now terrorists can't smuggle *anything* onto the plane on their person, but if they can make it non-suspicious-looking they can just stick it in their carry-on and pass right through these body scanners.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And that 's all not even considering that , as far as I 'm aware , luggage scanners have n't been improved at all , only added a rule about liquids or gels - so now terrorists ca n't smuggle * anything * onto the plane on their person , but if they can make it non-suspicious-looking they can just stick it in their carry-on and pass right through these body scanners .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And that's all not even considering that, as far as I'm aware, luggage scanners haven't been improved at all, only added a rule about liquids or gels - so now terrorists can't smuggle *anything* onto the plane on their person, but if they can make it non-suspicious-looking they can just stick it in their carry-on and pass right through these body scanners.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994794</id>
	<title>Re:not that bad</title>
	<author>pydev</author>
	<datestamp>1265124360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I'd rather have someone see a vague picture of my junk than grab it and my ass, while breathing in my face.</i></p><p>I don't know, I'm occasionally rather fond of someone grabbing my junk and my ass; it really depends on who it is.  Maybe this would be more fun if we could pick our screeners and the level of screening ourselves?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd rather have someone see a vague picture of my junk than grab it and my ass , while breathing in my face.I do n't know , I 'm occasionally rather fond of someone grabbing my junk and my ass ; it really depends on who it is .
Maybe this would be more fun if we could pick our screeners and the level of screening ourselves ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd rather have someone see a vague picture of my junk than grab it and my ass, while breathing in my face.I don't know, I'm occasionally rather fond of someone grabbing my junk and my ass; it really depends on who it is.
Maybe this would be more fun if we could pick our screeners and the level of screening ourselves?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.31004776</id>
	<title>Re:Images CAN be stored and captured.</title>
	<author>sincewhen</author>
	<datestamp>1265126280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I liked this one:<br> <br>
<i>"It does see through clothing, but it's not a photographic image, it's a low-energy X-ray that reflects off the skin," added Ms Johnson.
</i> <br> <br>
Because it's true. Just like when I use a digital camera, I'm not making a photograph, I'm making a digital file. <br>
As I reason to my children as I try to impart some morals into them <i>"If you can't tell the truth about it you must think it's wrong, and if you think it's wrong you shouldn't do it"</i>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I liked this one : " It does see through clothing , but it 's not a photographic image , it 's a low-energy X-ray that reflects off the skin , " added Ms Johnson .
Because it 's true .
Just like when I use a digital camera , I 'm not making a photograph , I 'm making a digital file .
As I reason to my children as I try to impart some morals into them " If you ca n't tell the truth about it you must think it 's wrong , and if you think it 's wrong you should n't do it " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I liked this one: 
"It does see through clothing, but it's not a photographic image, it's a low-energy X-ray that reflects off the skin," added Ms Johnson.
Because it's true.
Just like when I use a digital camera, I'm not making a photograph, I'm making a digital file.
As I reason to my children as I try to impart some morals into them "If you can't tell the truth about it you must think it's wrong, and if you think it's wrong you shouldn't do it".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993254</id>
	<title>I for one am not bothered by this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265112960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nay; I fully intend on being nekkid scanned with a raging hard-on so they feel as awkward about it as me the customer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nay ; I fully intend on being nekkid scanned with a raging hard-on so they feel as awkward about it as me the customer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nay; I fully intend on being nekkid scanned with a raging hard-on so they feel as awkward about it as me the customer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994964</id>
	<title>Do any of you know what you are talking about?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265125080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How many people in this discussion have ever worked with a Whole Body Imaging scanner?  I'm guessing one, and that's counting me.  There is nothing erotic or even identifiable about the images provided by these machines.  They look more like the images from the "Bodies - the Exhibition" museum exhibit.  I would have no complaints at all about bringing any member of my family through these scanners.  Additionally, even if they cannot detect 100\% of all threats, only a fool would argue that we shouldn't use any security measure that can't detect every single possible security threat every time.  These scanners are part of a multi-layered security approach designed to reduce and deter threats as much as possible, and in that capacity, they are very effective if mandatory for all passengers.</p><p>Don't get me wrong, I am as concerned and paranoid about my privacy as anyone.  I give to the EFF and wear a tinfoil hat at Defcon.  I certainly don't want glorified mall cops seeing my kids naked or posting pictures of them online.  With the level of technical expertise of the people here involved in this discussion, I would hope that an understanding of the actual capabilities and limitations of this technology would triumph over this paranoid fear that someone can actually see or photograph anyone "naked".</p><p>Let's try to be reasonable thinking people here and understand that there are, in fact, bad people in the world who are trying to kill us and our loved ones, and we should be willing to take reasonable measures to protect ourselves.  Do I want to inadvertently star in amateur porn every time I get on a plane?  No way.  But am I willing to allow someone to see a blurry image of my insides if it might prevent or deter a terrorist from bringing explosives onto my flight?  Absolutely.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How many people in this discussion have ever worked with a Whole Body Imaging scanner ?
I 'm guessing one , and that 's counting me .
There is nothing erotic or even identifiable about the images provided by these machines .
They look more like the images from the " Bodies - the Exhibition " museum exhibit .
I would have no complaints at all about bringing any member of my family through these scanners .
Additionally , even if they can not detect 100 \ % of all threats , only a fool would argue that we should n't use any security measure that ca n't detect every single possible security threat every time .
These scanners are part of a multi-layered security approach designed to reduce and deter threats as much as possible , and in that capacity , they are very effective if mandatory for all passengers.Do n't get me wrong , I am as concerned and paranoid about my privacy as anyone .
I give to the EFF and wear a tinfoil hat at Defcon .
I certainly do n't want glorified mall cops seeing my kids naked or posting pictures of them online .
With the level of technical expertise of the people here involved in this discussion , I would hope that an understanding of the actual capabilities and limitations of this technology would triumph over this paranoid fear that someone can actually see or photograph anyone " naked " .Let 's try to be reasonable thinking people here and understand that there are , in fact , bad people in the world who are trying to kill us and our loved ones , and we should be willing to take reasonable measures to protect ourselves .
Do I want to inadvertently star in amateur porn every time I get on a plane ?
No way .
But am I willing to allow someone to see a blurry image of my insides if it might prevent or deter a terrorist from bringing explosives onto my flight ?
Absolutely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many people in this discussion have ever worked with a Whole Body Imaging scanner?
I'm guessing one, and that's counting me.
There is nothing erotic or even identifiable about the images provided by these machines.
They look more like the images from the "Bodies - the Exhibition" museum exhibit.
I would have no complaints at all about bringing any member of my family through these scanners.
Additionally, even if they cannot detect 100\% of all threats, only a fool would argue that we shouldn't use any security measure that can't detect every single possible security threat every time.
These scanners are part of a multi-layered security approach designed to reduce and deter threats as much as possible, and in that capacity, they are very effective if mandatory for all passengers.Don't get me wrong, I am as concerned and paranoid about my privacy as anyone.
I give to the EFF and wear a tinfoil hat at Defcon.
I certainly don't want glorified mall cops seeing my kids naked or posting pictures of them online.
With the level of technical expertise of the people here involved in this discussion, I would hope that an understanding of the actual capabilities and limitations of this technology would triumph over this paranoid fear that someone can actually see or photograph anyone "naked".Let's try to be reasonable thinking people here and understand that there are, in fact, bad people in the world who are trying to kill us and our loved ones, and we should be willing to take reasonable measures to protect ourselves.
Do I want to inadvertently star in amateur porn every time I get on a plane?
No way.
But am I willing to allow someone to see a blurry image of my insides if it might prevent or deter a terrorist from bringing explosives onto my flight?
Absolutely.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993348</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>IBBoard</author>
	<datestamp>1265113680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're body scanners, not genital scanners. Unless you're one big genital then you needn't worry about the focus being genitals. If they need to take an x-ray of your hip (or, heaven forbid, a child's hip) for medical reasons, do you complain that genitals will show up as a silhouette in that as well?</p><p>Not that any of this makes a difference really - if you're intent on dying while blowing up a plane then you're going to have nothing against consuming or implanting the explosives so that they don't show up on surface scanners.</p><p>As for highways, I think we need brain scanners more than anything else to stop the idiots who don't know how to drive safely.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're body scanners , not genital scanners .
Unless you 're one big genital then you need n't worry about the focus being genitals .
If they need to take an x-ray of your hip ( or , heaven forbid , a child 's hip ) for medical reasons , do you complain that genitals will show up as a silhouette in that as well ? Not that any of this makes a difference really - if you 're intent on dying while blowing up a plane then you 're going to have nothing against consuming or implanting the explosives so that they do n't show up on surface scanners.As for highways , I think we need brain scanners more than anything else to stop the idiots who do n't know how to drive safely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're body scanners, not genital scanners.
Unless you're one big genital then you needn't worry about the focus being genitals.
If they need to take an x-ray of your hip (or, heaven forbid, a child's hip) for medical reasons, do you complain that genitals will show up as a silhouette in that as well?Not that any of this makes a difference really - if you're intent on dying while blowing up a plane then you're going to have nothing against consuming or implanting the explosives so that they don't show up on surface scanners.As for highways, I think we need brain scanners more than anything else to stop the idiots who don't know how to drive safely.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30996344</id>
	<title>Re:Ways around it:</title>
	<author>Actually, I do RTFA</author>
	<datestamp>1265129940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>What we really need to do before signing off on anything is give a machine to Mythbusters for a couple of weeks</p></div></blockquote><p>Hear hear!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What we really need to do before signing off on anything is give a machine to Mythbusters for a couple of weeksHear hear !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What we really need to do before signing off on anything is give a machine to Mythbusters for a couple of weeksHear hear!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993304</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_0132210_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993604
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_0132210_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30992974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_0132210_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30999500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_0132210_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30992974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_0132210_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30996344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_0132210_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30992974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.31000286
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_0132210_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30992974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_0132210_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30992974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994976
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_0132210_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_0132210_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30997544
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_0132210_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30992974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.31007432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_0132210_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30999476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_0132210_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994794
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_0132210_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_0132210_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993260
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_0132210_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30992974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.31001088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_0132210_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30992974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30995442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_0132210_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30998104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_0132210_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30992974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993942
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_0132210_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30998850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_0132210_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993186
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_0132210_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.31003600
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_0132210_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30992974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_0132210_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.31001770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_0132210_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30992974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994338
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_0132210_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_0132210_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30992974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.31001542
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_0132210_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30992974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.31000938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_0132210_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30997098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_0132210_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30995154
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_0132210_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30992974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993784
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_0132210_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30992974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_0132210_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993636
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_0132210_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30992974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994254
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_0132210_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993898
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_0132210_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30997588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_0132210_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30992974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994086
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_0132210_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30992974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30995502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_0132210_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_0132210_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994226
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_0132210_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993538
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_0132210_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_0132210_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30992974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993378
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_0132210_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30992974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_0132210_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30996490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_0132210_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30998690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_0132210_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30992974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30996736
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_0132210_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30992974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30996960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_0132210_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.31004776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_0132210_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30992974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_0132210_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30992974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.31009008
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_0132210_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30992974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994310
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_0132210_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30992974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993334
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_0132210_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_0132210_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30992974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_0132210_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30992974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994360
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_0132210_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30998624
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_0132210_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30992974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994446
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_0132210_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30992974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30998508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_0132210_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_0132210_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993566
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994182
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_0132210_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30999812
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_0132210_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.31007316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_0132210_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30992974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.31004662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_0132210_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994820
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_0132210_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30992974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_0132210_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_0132210_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_0132210_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30992974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_0132210.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993558
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_0132210.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993048
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_0132210.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993726
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_0132210.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993568
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_0132210.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993722
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_0132210.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993200
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994004
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.31007316
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994594
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_0132210.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993668
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_0132210.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993556
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_0132210.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993222
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994194
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30997544
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994820
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30998104
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_0132210.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993786
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30998690
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30997098
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_0132210.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994776
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_0132210.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993344
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994172
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_0132210.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994222
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.31003600
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_0132210.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993386
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_0132210.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993058
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_0132210.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993304
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30999812
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30996344
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30997588
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30998624
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30999500
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_0132210.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993240
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30999476
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_0132210.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993452
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.31004776
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30998850
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994346
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_0132210.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993566
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994182
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_0132210.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993916
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_0132210.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30992974
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993098
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993896
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994816
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994310
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30996736
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.31004662
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993046
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993224
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993348
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.31000938
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993378
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993540
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993950
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.31001088
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994976
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994338
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993140
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994984
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993382
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.31007432
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993784
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994150
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30995442
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30995502
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.31009008
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.31000286
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994460
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30996960
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993942
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993970
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994360
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993334
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994254
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993418
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994086
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993696
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993810
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.31001542
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994446
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30998508
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993826
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_0132210.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993100
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_0132210.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993600
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994006
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_0132210.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30992972
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_0132210.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30995644
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_0132210.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993034
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993260
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30995154
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30996490
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_0132210.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993036
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993604
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994794
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.31001770
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994964
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993186
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993426
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994224
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_0132210.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30997892
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_0132210.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993440
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993538
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993912
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993898
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993636
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_0132210.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30993120
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_0132210.30994226
</commentlist>
</conversation>
