<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_04_2249241</id>
	<title>Craig Mundie Wants "Internet Driver's Licenses"</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1265287800000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.eff.org/support" rel="nofollow">I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property</a> writes <i>"<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig\_Mundie">Craig Mundie</a>, Microsoft's Chief Research and Strategy Officer, <a href="http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/201002/msg00010.html">called for the creation of an 'Internet Driver's License'</a> at the World Economic Forum in Davos, saying, 'If you want to drive a car you have to have a license to say that you are capable of driving a car, the car has to pass a test to say it is fit to drive and you have to have insurance.'  Of course, there are quite a few problems with this.  For starters, internet use cannot yet cause death or dismemberment like car accidents can; and this would get rid of most of the good of internet anonymity while retaining all of the bad parts, especially in terms of expanding the market for stolen identities. Even though telephone networks have long been used by scammers and spammers/telemarketers, we've never needed a 'Telephone Driver's License.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>I Do n't Believe in Imaginary Property writes " Craig Mundie , Microsoft 's Chief Research and Strategy Officer , called for the creation of an 'Internet Driver 's License ' at the World Economic Forum in Davos , saying , 'If you want to drive a car you have to have a license to say that you are capable of driving a car , the car has to pass a test to say it is fit to drive and you have to have insurance .
' Of course , there are quite a few problems with this .
For starters , internet use can not yet cause death or dismemberment like car accidents can ; and this would get rid of most of the good of internet anonymity while retaining all of the bad parts , especially in terms of expanding the market for stolen identities .
Even though telephone networks have long been used by scammers and spammers/telemarketers , we 've never needed a 'Telephone Driver 's License .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Craig Mundie, Microsoft's Chief Research and Strategy Officer, called for the creation of an 'Internet Driver's License' at the World Economic Forum in Davos, saying, 'If you want to drive a car you have to have a license to say that you are capable of driving a car, the car has to pass a test to say it is fit to drive and you have to have insurance.
'  Of course, there are quite a few problems with this.
For starters, internet use cannot yet cause death or dismemberment like car accidents can; and this would get rid of most of the good of internet anonymity while retaining all of the bad parts, especially in terms of expanding the market for stolen identities.
Even though telephone networks have long been used by scammers and spammers/telemarketers, we've never needed a 'Telephone Driver's License.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31039052</id>
	<title>Re:Questions</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1265362920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>nothing is free in this world</i></p><p>How much are you paying for all that air you're breathing? Nothing is free, my ass. All of life's best things are free. Now excuse me while I go check out a book from the city library...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>nothing is free in this worldHow much are you paying for all that air you 're breathing ?
Nothing is free , my ass .
All of life 's best things are free .
Now excuse me while I go check out a book from the city library.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>nothing is free in this worldHow much are you paying for all that air you're breathing?
Nothing is free, my ass.
All of life's best things are free.
Now excuse me while I go check out a book from the city library...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029928</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029464</id>
	<title>we need a law?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265291640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>   since when do laws stop the bad guys?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>since when do laws stop the bad guys ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>   since when do laws stop the bad guys?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31033010</id>
	<title>Keep the rules simple!</title>
	<author>XenonChloride</author>
	<datestamp>1265371140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>#1 Using IE gets you a ride on the Old Sparky.</htmltext>
<tokenext># 1 Using IE gets you a ride on the Old Sparky .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>#1 Using IE gets you a ride on the Old Sparky.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029738</id>
	<title>How about a license to *write* an OS?</title>
	<author>JoeF</author>
	<datestamp>1265293140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Instead of a license for users, there should be a license to write an OS.<br>Nobody at Microsoft would qualify, judging by the POSes they have released since the 1980s.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Instead of a license for users , there should be a license to write an OS.Nobody at Microsoft would qualify , judging by the POSes they have released since the 1980s .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Instead of a license for users, there should be a license to write an OS.Nobody at Microsoft would qualify, judging by the POSes they have released since the 1980s.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030564</id>
	<title>Re:Why do you have a steering wheel in your pants?</title>
	<author>hitmark</author>
	<datestamp>1265300460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>also, the phone is a single use, dumb terminal.</p><p>heck, i suspect one could say that mr mundie is indirectly advocating the ipad, as its basically a net terminal.</p><p>its funny btw, i keep coming back to a thought i had some time ago that if the micro computers of the day had the ability to dial multiple bbs's, would the net ever have happened in the way it did?</p><p>basically, much of the web is basically a collection of graphical bbs's (this very place, slashdot, is a prime example).</p><p>so lets say we replace most home computers with devices that can surfe the web, mail, IM, do text layout and spreadsheets. Would that remove the problem for the most part?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>also , the phone is a single use , dumb terminal.heck , i suspect one could say that mr mundie is indirectly advocating the ipad , as its basically a net terminal.its funny btw , i keep coming back to a thought i had some time ago that if the micro computers of the day had the ability to dial multiple bbs 's , would the net ever have happened in the way it did ? basically , much of the web is basically a collection of graphical bbs 's ( this very place , slashdot , is a prime example ) .so lets say we replace most home computers with devices that can surfe the web , mail , IM , do text layout and spreadsheets .
Would that remove the problem for the most part ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>also, the phone is a single use, dumb terminal.heck, i suspect one could say that mr mundie is indirectly advocating the ipad, as its basically a net terminal.its funny btw, i keep coming back to a thought i had some time ago that if the micro computers of the day had the ability to dial multiple bbs's, would the net ever have happened in the way it did?basically, much of the web is basically a collection of graphical bbs's (this very place, slashdot, is a prime example).so lets say we replace most home computers with devices that can surfe the web, mail, IM, do text layout and spreadsheets.
Would that remove the problem for the most part?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029672</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31032498</id>
	<title>Re:Questions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265364000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are questions well before those. Such as:</p><ul><li>Can this work? </li><li>Will this work? </li><li>What is to stop the "bad people" from faking/cloning/stealing this license/identity?</li><li>What are the chances the "bad people" will find a way to subvert this and infiltrate unseen vectors thus rendering the whole thing useless except from a monitoring/tracking individuals perspective? </li><li>What happens when a license holder or group of license holders are compromised through an as yet undiscovered exploit? (They have done everything right and secured all KNOWN holes/exploits).</li></ul><p>This is worse than a bad idea. It falls on its face. There is no way it can work. There is no way it will work. The \_only\_ way it would/could be useful is as a monitor/tracking tool.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are questions well before those .
Such as : Can this work ?
Will this work ?
What is to stop the " bad people " from faking/cloning/stealing this license/identity ? What are the chances the " bad people " will find a way to subvert this and infiltrate unseen vectors thus rendering the whole thing useless except from a monitoring/tracking individuals perspective ?
What happens when a license holder or group of license holders are compromised through an as yet undiscovered exploit ?
( They have done everything right and secured all KNOWN holes/exploits ) .This is worse than a bad idea .
It falls on its face .
There is no way it can work .
There is no way it will work .
The \ _only \ _ way it would/could be useful is as a monitor/tracking tool .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are questions well before those.
Such as:Can this work?
Will this work?
What is to stop the "bad people" from faking/cloning/stealing this license/identity?What are the chances the "bad people" will find a way to subvert this and infiltrate unseen vectors thus rendering the whole thing useless except from a monitoring/tracking individuals perspective?
What happens when a license holder or group of license holders are compromised through an as yet undiscovered exploit?
(They have done everything right and secured all KNOWN holes/exploits).This is worse than a bad idea.
It falls on its face.
There is no way it can work.
There is no way it will work.
The \_only\_ way it would/could be useful is as a monitor/tracking tool.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029928</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029894</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot is getting out of hand</title>
	<author>PopeRatzo</author>
	<datestamp>1265294220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>First links that link to blogs that link to articles. Then links to social networks to link to links that link to articles.</p><p>Where does the stupidity end?</p></div></blockquote><p>Usually at Twitter.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>First links that link to blogs that link to articles .
Then links to social networks to link to links that link to articles.Where does the stupidity end ? Usually at Twitter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First links that link to blogs that link to articles.
Then links to social networks to link to links that link to articles.Where does the stupidity end?Usually at Twitter.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030364</id>
	<title>Let The Market Decide</title>
	<author>BitHive</author>
	<datestamp>1265298540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As with all ideas, the only true arbiter of this proposal's utility is - and should be - the free market.  If people are want to pay for an internet license, why shouldn't they be free to?  I expect a lot of the same Linux liberals here on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. that bank on big government protectionism (in the form of the copyright laws that make anti-competitive devices like the GPL possible) will be the first to decry this potential market, they would love to regulate the internet to the point where sharing your CPU, memory, and all your intellectual property with everyone else on the network is compulsory.</p><p>A lot of the concerns in this case are overblown FUD.  There is no motive for licensing companies to exploit their positions as gatekeepers of the public trust.  It would be entirely against their interests to allow the types of activities in the summary to go on and if some should stray, the freedom of consumer choice as exercised in a free market would quickly put them out of business</p><p>Anyone who disagrees with this just doesn't understand that free markets have never <i>really</i> been tried.  Any cases where unregulated free markets appeared to fail were really due to the inefficiency of big government, which can of course never be responsible for anyone's economic gains, but universally presides over private industry's failures.  How cruel that this Craig Mundie will have his entrepreneurial spirit mocked and torn down by leeches with no innovative drives of their own, on the very internet which he is trying to protect.</p><p>For shame.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As with all ideas , the only true arbiter of this proposal 's utility is - and should be - the free market .
If people are want to pay for an internet license , why should n't they be free to ?
I expect a lot of the same Linux liberals here on / .
that bank on big government protectionism ( in the form of the copyright laws that make anti-competitive devices like the GPL possible ) will be the first to decry this potential market , they would love to regulate the internet to the point where sharing your CPU , memory , and all your intellectual property with everyone else on the network is compulsory.A lot of the concerns in this case are overblown FUD .
There is no motive for licensing companies to exploit their positions as gatekeepers of the public trust .
It would be entirely against their interests to allow the types of activities in the summary to go on and if some should stray , the freedom of consumer choice as exercised in a free market would quickly put them out of businessAnyone who disagrees with this just does n't understand that free markets have never really been tried .
Any cases where unregulated free markets appeared to fail were really due to the inefficiency of big government , which can of course never be responsible for anyone 's economic gains , but universally presides over private industry 's failures .
How cruel that this Craig Mundie will have his entrepreneurial spirit mocked and torn down by leeches with no innovative drives of their own , on the very internet which he is trying to protect.For shame .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As with all ideas, the only true arbiter of this proposal's utility is - and should be - the free market.
If people are want to pay for an internet license, why shouldn't they be free to?
I expect a lot of the same Linux liberals here on /.
that bank on big government protectionism (in the form of the copyright laws that make anti-competitive devices like the GPL possible) will be the first to decry this potential market, they would love to regulate the internet to the point where sharing your CPU, memory, and all your intellectual property with everyone else on the network is compulsory.A lot of the concerns in this case are overblown FUD.
There is no motive for licensing companies to exploit their positions as gatekeepers of the public trust.
It would be entirely against their interests to allow the types of activities in the summary to go on and if some should stray, the freedom of consumer choice as exercised in a free market would quickly put them out of businessAnyone who disagrees with this just doesn't understand that free markets have never really been tried.
Any cases where unregulated free markets appeared to fail were really due to the inefficiency of big government, which can of course never be responsible for anyone's economic gains, but universally presides over private industry's failures.
How cruel that this Craig Mundie will have his entrepreneurial spirit mocked and torn down by leeches with no innovative drives of their own, on the very internet which he is trying to protect.For shame.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030406</id>
	<title>Craig Mundie, enemy of the people</title>
	<author>itsybitsy</author>
	<datestamp>1265299140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Craig Mundie, what a total raving idiot that wants to take away our freedom. Put him in jail just for suggesting this and see how he likes his freedoms restricted. That's being polite about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Craig Mundie , what a total raving idiot that wants to take away our freedom .
Put him in jail just for suggesting this and see how he likes his freedoms restricted .
That 's being polite about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Craig Mundie, what a total raving idiot that wants to take away our freedom.
Put him in jail just for suggesting this and see how he likes his freedoms restricted.
That's being polite about it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31033886</id>
	<title>Re:Questions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265381520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hmmm... Let me guess</p><ul><li>Microsoft</li><li>-"Do you use Microsoft Windows ?" -"Yes." -"Ok you're fine."</li><li>Over 9000 dollars</li><li>Building Mr Mundies a nice new house with pool and tennis course</li><li>Microsoft</li><li>For the licensee : ??? For the others see point 2 and 4</li><li>Hey, it's Microsoft, we can trust them... Right ?</li><li>You will have to pay again</li><li>Each company will have to pay for each employee</li><li>Yes</li></ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmmm... Let me guessMicrosoft- " Do you use Microsoft Windows ?
" - " Yes .
" - " Ok you 're fine .
" Over 9000 dollarsBuilding Mr Mundies a nice new house with pool and tennis courseMicrosoftFor the licensee : ? ? ?
For the others see point 2 and 4Hey , it 's Microsoft , we can trust them... Right ? You will have to pay againEach company will have to pay for each employeeYes</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmmm... Let me guessMicrosoft-"Do you use Microsoft Windows ?
" -"Yes.
" -"Ok you're fine.
"Over 9000 dollarsBuilding Mr Mundies a nice new house with pool and tennis courseMicrosoftFor the licensee : ???
For the others see point 2 and 4Hey, it's Microsoft, we can trust them... Right ?You will have to pay againEach company will have to pay for each employeeYes</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029928</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31126168</id>
	<title>Drivers Licences Mean You Can Drive?????</title>
	<author>rrvau</author>
	<datestamp>1266068700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, a drivers licence doesn't mean you can drive a car, it just means you can pass a test.  Drivers licences are just a source of revenue as will this bovine excrement</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , a drivers licence does n't mean you can drive a car , it just means you can pass a test .
Drivers licences are just a source of revenue as will this bovine excrement</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, a drivers licence doesn't mean you can drive a car, it just means you can pass a test.
Drivers licences are just a source of revenue as will this bovine excrement</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31032312</id>
	<title>what about a license to speak in public?</title>
	<author>kubitus</author>
	<datestamp>1265361780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Microsoft should be held liable for every lie they told in public.<p>
What about a license to announce vaporware?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft should be held liable for every lie they told in public .
What about a license to announce vaporware ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft should be held liable for every lie they told in public.
What about a license to announce vaporware?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31031750</id>
	<title>One part of the test: e-mail and BCC</title>
	<author>kanweg</author>
	<datestamp>1265310360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm in favour. No one should be allowed to send an e-mail to multiple persons without knowing what a BCC field is and how to use it.</p><p>Bert</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm in favour .
No one should be allowed to send an e-mail to multiple persons without knowing what a BCC field is and how to use it.Bert</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm in favour.
No one should be allowed to send an e-mail to multiple persons without knowing what a BCC field is and how to use it.Bert</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31034670</id>
	<title>Perhaps we should just barcode everyone instead.</title>
	<author>gestalt\_n\_pepper</author>
	<datestamp>1265386560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, universal netizinship bar coding would be most efficient. While we're at it, let's confine everyone to one room where we can watch them at all times and make sure they're working.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , universal netizinship bar coding would be most efficient .
While we 're at it , let 's confine everyone to one room where we can watch them at all times and make sure they 're working .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, universal netizinship bar coding would be most efficient.
While we're at it, let's confine everyone to one room where we can watch them at all times and make sure they're working.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029640</id>
	<title>Only terrible because of complications</title>
	<author>slimjim8094</author>
	<datestamp>1265292540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've seen many people on Slashdot suggest such a thing. Microsoft may be ridiculous, but it's likely they didn't come up with the idea.</p><p>In any case, the idea itself isn't terrible - it's only consequences of this that make it a bad idea (loss of anonymity, censorship, etc). The concept itself isn't a bad one. Loads of people aren't competent enough to not ruin it for everyone else.</p><p>If I were inclined to suggest something like this, it would be an ISP level thing. The ISP by default would allow you on to a NATted firewalled connection with a private IP address and filtering between hosts on the same virtual subnet. By passing a (standardized) evaluation or test or something, you'd be allowed IP addresses on the real internet. Sort of like a playpen for idiots.</p><p>These have the same problems as with a "driver's license", though, so I don't support them. Just saying Microsoft isn't nuts.</p><p>And keep in mind this guy shot down his own idea a few seconds after voicing it. I'm sure it was more like a thought experiment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've seen many people on Slashdot suggest such a thing .
Microsoft may be ridiculous , but it 's likely they did n't come up with the idea.In any case , the idea itself is n't terrible - it 's only consequences of this that make it a bad idea ( loss of anonymity , censorship , etc ) .
The concept itself is n't a bad one .
Loads of people are n't competent enough to not ruin it for everyone else.If I were inclined to suggest something like this , it would be an ISP level thing .
The ISP by default would allow you on to a NATted firewalled connection with a private IP address and filtering between hosts on the same virtual subnet .
By passing a ( standardized ) evaluation or test or something , you 'd be allowed IP addresses on the real internet .
Sort of like a playpen for idiots.These have the same problems as with a " driver 's license " , though , so I do n't support them .
Just saying Microsoft is n't nuts.And keep in mind this guy shot down his own idea a few seconds after voicing it .
I 'm sure it was more like a thought experiment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've seen many people on Slashdot suggest such a thing.
Microsoft may be ridiculous, but it's likely they didn't come up with the idea.In any case, the idea itself isn't terrible - it's only consequences of this that make it a bad idea (loss of anonymity, censorship, etc).
The concept itself isn't a bad one.
Loads of people aren't competent enough to not ruin it for everyone else.If I were inclined to suggest something like this, it would be an ISP level thing.
The ISP by default would allow you on to a NATted firewalled connection with a private IP address and filtering between hosts on the same virtual subnet.
By passing a (standardized) evaluation or test or something, you'd be allowed IP addresses on the real internet.
Sort of like a playpen for idiots.These have the same problems as with a "driver's license", though, so I don't support them.
Just saying Microsoft isn't nuts.And keep in mind this guy shot down his own idea a few seconds after voicing it.
I'm sure it was more like a thought experiment.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31033796</id>
	<title>Re:we need a law?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265380740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This sounds like an attempt to extend the Internet practices of the Chinese State (with which Microsoft has friendly relations) to the rest of the world.  How is it that, while lesser people are prosecuted for working as agents of the Chinese State, Mr. Mundie can get away with it because he is a Microsoft executive?</p><p>Yes, this reply is trollitary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This sounds like an attempt to extend the Internet practices of the Chinese State ( with which Microsoft has friendly relations ) to the rest of the world .
How is it that , while lesser people are prosecuted for working as agents of the Chinese State , Mr. Mundie can get away with it because he is a Microsoft executive ? Yes , this reply is trollitary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This sounds like an attempt to extend the Internet practices of the Chinese State (with which Microsoft has friendly relations) to the rest of the world.
How is it that, while lesser people are prosecuted for working as agents of the Chinese State, Mr. Mundie can get away with it because he is a Microsoft executive?Yes, this reply is trollitary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030170</id>
	<title>He needs to be careful what he asks for</title>
	<author>Stumbles</author>
	<datestamp>1265296500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>cause that could but Microsoft out of business... Windows; unsafe at any speed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>cause that could but Microsoft out of business... Windows ; unsafe at any speed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>cause that could but Microsoft out of business... Windows; unsafe at any speed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029768</id>
	<title>OK, I see some value in here</title>
	<author>david.emery</author>
	<datestamp>1265293320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm NO fan of Microsoft (which I hold responsible for a lot of the malware problems on the 'Net), nor am I a big fan of PKI (I think the implementations are way to fragile), but I think there might be a worthy idea in here.</p><p>Drivers Licenses have two uses:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; 1.  Certification of driving skills<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; 2.  A nationally recognized identity<br>Consider this for use #2...</p><p>So what if the government issued an "Internet ID Card", with PKI Certs, etc, that would be used to secure email, transactions, etc?  This is by no means a panacea, but as a factor in 2-factor ID, it might well cut down on some forms of malware.</p><p>Yes, there -are- civil liberty implications.  But we always have the tension between known identity and guaranteed privacy.</p><p>So as a form of tougher ID on the Internet, I think this deserves to be taken seriously, and the plusses and minuses (as established here...) should be debated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm NO fan of Microsoft ( which I hold responsible for a lot of the malware problems on the 'Net ) , nor am I a big fan of PKI ( I think the implementations are way to fragile ) , but I think there might be a worthy idea in here.Drivers Licenses have two uses :     1 .
Certification of driving skills     2 .
A nationally recognized identityConsider this for use # 2...So what if the government issued an " Internet ID Card " , with PKI Certs , etc , that would be used to secure email , transactions , etc ?
This is by no means a panacea , but as a factor in 2-factor ID , it might well cut down on some forms of malware.Yes , there -are- civil liberty implications .
But we always have the tension between known identity and guaranteed privacy.So as a form of tougher ID on the Internet , I think this deserves to be taken seriously , and the plusses and minuses ( as established here... ) should be debated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm NO fan of Microsoft (which I hold responsible for a lot of the malware problems on the 'Net), nor am I a big fan of PKI (I think the implementations are way to fragile), but I think there might be a worthy idea in here.Drivers Licenses have two uses:
    1.
Certification of driving skills
    2.
A nationally recognized identityConsider this for use #2...So what if the government issued an "Internet ID Card", with PKI Certs, etc, that would be used to secure email, transactions, etc?
This is by no means a panacea, but as a factor in 2-factor ID, it might well cut down on some forms of malware.Yes, there -are- civil liberty implications.
But we always have the tension between known identity and guaranteed privacy.So as a form of tougher ID on the Internet, I think this deserves to be taken seriously, and the plusses and minuses (as established here...) should be debated.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31032512</id>
	<title>Re:Windows not road ready</title>
	<author>hazydave</author>
	<datestamp>1265364240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's a very good point... not only do drivers need to be licensed, but cars have to pass a variety of safety tests, or they're not allowed on the road. I think, long before there's any license to use the internet, there will need to be high standards of internet "vehicles". Windows is very clearly "unsafe at any speed", and needs to be immediately taken off all internet connections, until such time as the manufacturer can complete recall work to render it safe for the information superhighway.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's a very good point... not only do drivers need to be licensed , but cars have to pass a variety of safety tests , or they 're not allowed on the road .
I think , long before there 's any license to use the internet , there will need to be high standards of internet " vehicles " .
Windows is very clearly " unsafe at any speed " , and needs to be immediately taken off all internet connections , until such time as the manufacturer can complete recall work to render it safe for the information superhighway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's a very good point... not only do drivers need to be licensed, but cars have to pass a variety of safety tests, or they're not allowed on the road.
I think, long before there's any license to use the internet, there will need to be high standards of internet "vehicles".
Windows is very clearly "unsafe at any speed", and needs to be immediately taken off all internet connections, until such time as the manufacturer can complete recall work to render it safe for the information superhighway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030984</id>
	<title>Re:we need a law?</title>
	<author>Locutus</author>
	<datestamp>1265304240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>You are making the mistake of thinking this has anything to do with stopping bad guys.  They are losing control of the primary computing device people use so they would really like to have some control of who does what on the network. More signs of the brilliance found at One Microsoft Way, Redmond WA.<br><br>LoB</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are making the mistake of thinking this has anything to do with stopping bad guys .
They are losing control of the primary computing device people use so they would really like to have some control of who does what on the network .
More signs of the brilliance found at One Microsoft Way , Redmond WA.LoB</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are making the mistake of thinking this has anything to do with stopping bad guys.
They are losing control of the primary computing device people use so they would really like to have some control of who does what on the network.
More signs of the brilliance found at One Microsoft Way, Redmond WA.LoB</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31031626</id>
	<title>I believe it's time...</title>
	<author>nightfire-unique</author>
	<datestamp>1265309100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe it's time to declare Internet access to be a fundamental human right which cannot be legally denied except through standard criminal punishments (ie. jail).</p><p>Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness.  Right to freedom of movement.  Right to own property.  Right to remain silent.  Right to expression.</p><p>I humbly suggest we add: right to connect to the Internet.</p><p>The Internet is no longer a whizbang gadget with potential; it is the way we communicate.  It is used for banking, entertainment, conversation, research, coordination, purchases, government facilities, mapping/navigation, finding employment...</p><p>The concept that this can be denied to someone without due course of law is utterly unacceptable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe it 's time to declare Internet access to be a fundamental human right which can not be legally denied except through standard criminal punishments ( ie .
jail ) .Life , liberty , pursuit of happiness .
Right to freedom of movement .
Right to own property .
Right to remain silent .
Right to expression.I humbly suggest we add : right to connect to the Internet.The Internet is no longer a whizbang gadget with potential ; it is the way we communicate .
It is used for banking , entertainment , conversation , research , coordination , purchases , government facilities , mapping/navigation , finding employment...The concept that this can be denied to someone without due course of law is utterly unacceptable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe it's time to declare Internet access to be a fundamental human right which cannot be legally denied except through standard criminal punishments (ie.
jail).Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness.
Right to freedom of movement.
Right to own property.
Right to remain silent.
Right to expression.I humbly suggest we add: right to connect to the Internet.The Internet is no longer a whizbang gadget with potential; it is the way we communicate.
It is used for banking, entertainment, conversation, research, coordination, purchases, government facilities, mapping/navigation, finding employment...The concept that this can be denied to someone without due course of law is utterly unacceptable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029750</id>
	<title>I for one</title>
	<author>Starlon</author>
	<datestamp>1265293200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I for one welcome our new Free Speech Licenses.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I for one welcome our new Free Speech Licenses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I for one welcome our new Free Speech Licenses.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31050538</id>
	<title>Re:OK, I see some value in here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265480040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Drivers Licenses have two uses:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 1. Certification of driving skills<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 2. A nationally recognized identity</p></div><p>The problem with that is</p><p>1. Having a driver's license certifies exactly nothing about your skills at driving.<br>2. States don't have to (and many times do not) honor DL's as ID from other states.<br>3. It is incredibly easy to alter or obtain a bogus DL... or in some cases impersonate the real owner.</p><p>I see the same problems with an 'internet DL' only magnified by a factor of 100.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Drivers Licenses have two uses :         1 .
Certification of driving skills         2 .
A nationally recognized identityThe problem with that is1 .
Having a driver 's license certifies exactly nothing about your skills at driving.2 .
States do n't have to ( and many times do not ) honor DL 's as ID from other states.3 .
It is incredibly easy to alter or obtain a bogus DL... or in some cases impersonate the real owner.I see the same problems with an 'internet DL ' only magnified by a factor of 100 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Drivers Licenses have two uses:
        1.
Certification of driving skills
        2.
A nationally recognized identityThe problem with that is1.
Having a driver's license certifies exactly nothing about your skills at driving.2.
States don't have to (and many times do not) honor DL's as ID from other states.3.
It is incredibly easy to alter or obtain a bogus DL... or in some cases impersonate the real owner.I see the same problems with an 'internet DL' only magnified by a factor of 100.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030158</id>
	<title>Re:Ham radio</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265296440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The S/N ratio in the ham bands is good? I don't know about you, but I'm sick of hearing old farts talk about their health problems every night on 80 m phone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The S/N ratio in the ham bands is good ?
I do n't know about you , but I 'm sick of hearing old farts talk about their health problems every night on 80 m phone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The S/N ratio in the ham bands is good?
I don't know about you, but I'm sick of hearing old farts talk about their health problems every night on 80 m phone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31032084</id>
	<title>I guess the Chinese govt. has Microsoft's ear</title>
	<author>blind biker</author>
	<datestamp>1265400840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not that I'm surprised, at all, but I think this came straight from the Chinese Communist Party's list of wet dreams. What better way to control even the last remnants of political dissent, on the last place where it can still be (somewhat) freely expressed (the Internet)?</p><p>Well done Microsoft. You truly suck up majesticly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not that I 'm surprised , at all , but I think this came straight from the Chinese Communist Party 's list of wet dreams .
What better way to control even the last remnants of political dissent , on the last place where it can still be ( somewhat ) freely expressed ( the Internet ) ? Well done Microsoft .
You truly suck up majesticly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not that I'm surprised, at all, but I think this came straight from the Chinese Communist Party's list of wet dreams.
What better way to control even the last remnants of political dissent, on the last place where it can still be (somewhat) freely expressed (the Internet)?Well done Microsoft.
You truly suck up majesticly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030606</id>
	<title>You must be this smart</title>
	<author>imWACC0</author>
	<datestamp>1265300820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I know I had seen this before....
<a href="http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20100131" title="userfriendly.org" rel="nofollow">http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20100131</a> [userfriendly.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know I had seen this before... . http : //ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/ ? id = 20100131 [ userfriendly.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know I had seen this before....
http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20100131 [userfriendly.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030068</id>
	<title>An easier solution</title>
	<author>aldld</author>
	<datestamp>1265295600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here's an easier solution. Have a button on every computer that when pressed, it erases the contents of the entire hard drive. At least some stupid people will be tempted to press it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's an easier solution .
Have a button on every computer that when pressed , it erases the contents of the entire hard drive .
At least some stupid people will be tempted to press it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's an easier solution.
Have a button on every computer that when pressed, it erases the contents of the entire hard drive.
At least some stupid people will be tempted to press it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31031938</id>
	<title>Actually RTFA ...</title>
	<author>w0mprat</author>
	<datestamp>1265312400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think the term 'Internet Drivers Licence' is a poor description of what the original dimwit actually proposed, and it's not a new idea thrown around.
<br> <br>
Reading more about this it seems the core idea is a uniquely identical signature for any Internet activity, that corresponds to a person who is legally responsible for the transaction/connection/data payload.
<br> <br>
Much as a drivers licence is a form of identification first and for most, gives you clearance for you to drive particular vehicles (commercial, passenger etc). That it also proves you have learned how to control a vehicle and obey the road rules is almost incidental (especially since it seems many drivers can't). A licensed driver is also legally responsible for the vehicle (for example in most nations the driver gets fined if the occupants don't wear seat-belts).
<br> <br>
So this is where this idea begins to scare me and bothers me that no one has really read into thinking behind TFA. This is not about <b>CERTIFICATION</b> to use the internet this is about <b>IDENTIFICATION</b> on the internet.
<br> <br>
Not only would China and the MafRIAA love this kind of thing, needs no explanation, but there are other parties that would love this too. Content providers and hosts, youtube, myspace, others would be delighted with the identification system since it positively assures they have no legal liability for the actions of the users. ISPs and the service provision sector would also have the liability moved to the licensed user.
<br> <br>
It'd be a simple matter to block unlicensed traffic, and nobody can upload ripped Top Gear episodes to a youtube channel.
<br> <br>
The internet would soon be divided into 'licensed' traffic and 'unlicensed' anonymous traffic. This would of course drive illicit activity into the unlicensed realm, thus further justifiying blocking such traffic all together and making it unusable even. You'd have to go get a IDL because the anonymous internet would be <i>crap</i>. Going further, routing would break down between the legal "whitenet" and the anonymous "undernet", thus another potential Internet apocalypse.
<br> <br>
[:: Posting Licence: Authorized Licensed post under section 4 of the Internet Identies Act - 2018. IDL EU6434-3243-4356. United States of Eurasia. Long Live our Glorious Leader.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>::]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the term 'Internet Drivers Licence ' is a poor description of what the original dimwit actually proposed , and it 's not a new idea thrown around .
Reading more about this it seems the core idea is a uniquely identical signature for any Internet activity , that corresponds to a person who is legally responsible for the transaction/connection/data payload .
Much as a drivers licence is a form of identification first and for most , gives you clearance for you to drive particular vehicles ( commercial , passenger etc ) .
That it also proves you have learned how to control a vehicle and obey the road rules is almost incidental ( especially since it seems many drivers ca n't ) .
A licensed driver is also legally responsible for the vehicle ( for example in most nations the driver gets fined if the occupants do n't wear seat-belts ) .
So this is where this idea begins to scare me and bothers me that no one has really read into thinking behind TFA .
This is not about CERTIFICATION to use the internet this is about IDENTIFICATION on the internet .
Not only would China and the MafRIAA love this kind of thing , needs no explanation , but there are other parties that would love this too .
Content providers and hosts , youtube , myspace , others would be delighted with the identification system since it positively assures they have no legal liability for the actions of the users .
ISPs and the service provision sector would also have the liability moved to the licensed user .
It 'd be a simple matter to block unlicensed traffic , and nobody can upload ripped Top Gear episodes to a youtube channel .
The internet would soon be divided into 'licensed ' traffic and 'unlicensed ' anonymous traffic .
This would of course drive illicit activity into the unlicensed realm , thus further justifiying blocking such traffic all together and making it unusable even .
You 'd have to go get a IDL because the anonymous internet would be crap .
Going further , routing would break down between the legal " whitenet " and the anonymous " undernet " , thus another potential Internet apocalypse .
[ : : Posting Licence : Authorized Licensed post under section 4 of the Internet Identies Act - 2018 .
IDL EU6434-3243-4356 .
United States of Eurasia .
Long Live our Glorious Leader .
: : ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the term 'Internet Drivers Licence' is a poor description of what the original dimwit actually proposed, and it's not a new idea thrown around.
Reading more about this it seems the core idea is a uniquely identical signature for any Internet activity, that corresponds to a person who is legally responsible for the transaction/connection/data payload.
Much as a drivers licence is a form of identification first and for most, gives you clearance for you to drive particular vehicles (commercial, passenger etc).
That it also proves you have learned how to control a vehicle and obey the road rules is almost incidental (especially since it seems many drivers can't).
A licensed driver is also legally responsible for the vehicle (for example in most nations the driver gets fined if the occupants don't wear seat-belts).
So this is where this idea begins to scare me and bothers me that no one has really read into thinking behind TFA.
This is not about CERTIFICATION to use the internet this is about IDENTIFICATION on the internet.
Not only would China and the MafRIAA love this kind of thing, needs no explanation, but there are other parties that would love this too.
Content providers and hosts, youtube, myspace, others would be delighted with the identification system since it positively assures they have no legal liability for the actions of the users.
ISPs and the service provision sector would also have the liability moved to the licensed user.
It'd be a simple matter to block unlicensed traffic, and nobody can upload ripped Top Gear episodes to a youtube channel.
The internet would soon be divided into 'licensed' traffic and 'unlicensed' anonymous traffic.
This would of course drive illicit activity into the unlicensed realm, thus further justifiying blocking such traffic all together and making it unusable even.
You'd have to go get a IDL because the anonymous internet would be crap.
Going further, routing would break down between the legal "whitenet" and the anonymous "undernet", thus another potential Internet apocalypse.
[:: Posting Licence: Authorized Licensed post under section 4 of the Internet Identies Act - 2018.
IDL EU6434-3243-4356.
United States of Eurasia.
Long Live our Glorious Leader.
::]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029524</id>
	<title>Cui Bono?</title>
	<author>kramer</author>
	<datestamp>1265291940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course, it would be completely coincidental that Microsoft would offer training, software and certification to help get your Internet driver's license, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , it would be completely coincidental that Microsoft would offer training , software and certification to help get your Internet driver 's license , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, it would be completely coincidental that Microsoft would offer training, software and certification to help get your Internet driver's license, right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31032694</id>
	<title>Licenses are not an indication of competence.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265366700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just because people have licenses doesn't mean they're any good at driving. There's a surprising amount of shit drivers out there who earned their licenses fair and square.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because people have licenses does n't mean they 're any good at driving .
There 's a surprising amount of shit drivers out there who earned their licenses fair and square .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because people have licenses doesn't mean they're any good at driving.
There's a surprising amount of shit drivers out there who earned their licenses fair and square.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31032208</id>
	<title>tell them to p155 off...</title>
	<author>advocate\_one</author>
	<datestamp>1265403300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>there's already a European Computer Driving License... thankfully not mandatory... however, the syllabus is written entirely around Microsoft software... and so are the exams... I strongly suspect that any Computer Driving License Microsoft proposes for you will have tests that can only be passed with Microsoft software as well...</htmltext>
<tokenext>there 's already a European Computer Driving License... thankfully not mandatory... however , the syllabus is written entirely around Microsoft software... and so are the exams... I strongly suspect that any Computer Driving License Microsoft proposes for you will have tests that can only be passed with Microsoft software as well.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there's already a European Computer Driving License... thankfully not mandatory... however, the syllabus is written entirely around Microsoft software... and so are the exams... I strongly suspect that any Computer Driving License Microsoft proposes for you will have tests that can only be passed with Microsoft software as well...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31039228</id>
	<title>This licence would be better</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1265363700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How about we make companies get a licence to prove they can provide safe secure software? I'm sure MS would like that.
<br> <br>
While I do think people need to take more responsibility and learn how to use their computer but forcing them to get a licence will probably prove nothing and just make it easier to track people and earn the government more money.
<br> <br>
Driving can cause death and yet driver's tests are nearly impossible to fail. It's because everyone thinks it's their right to drive. Stopping people from driving would cause an uproar. The same will happen with computers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about we make companies get a licence to prove they can provide safe secure software ?
I 'm sure MS would like that .
While I do think people need to take more responsibility and learn how to use their computer but forcing them to get a licence will probably prove nothing and just make it easier to track people and earn the government more money .
Driving can cause death and yet driver 's tests are nearly impossible to fail .
It 's because everyone thinks it 's their right to drive .
Stopping people from driving would cause an uproar .
The same will happen with computers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about we make companies get a licence to prove they can provide safe secure software?
I'm sure MS would like that.
While I do think people need to take more responsibility and learn how to use their computer but forcing them to get a licence will probably prove nothing and just make it easier to track people and earn the government more money.
Driving can cause death and yet driver's tests are nearly impossible to fail.
It's because everyone thinks it's their right to drive.
Stopping people from driving would cause an uproar.
The same will happen with computers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029954</id>
	<title>Re:Doh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265294580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So NeXT cubes were the original idea of internet licenses?  Or... um... the counterexample?  What?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So NeXT cubes were the original idea of internet licenses ?
Or... um... the counterexample ?
What ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So NeXT cubes were the original idea of internet licenses?
Or... um... the counterexample?
What?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029456</id>
	<title>Slashdot is getting out of hand</title>
	<author>mmcxii</author>
	<datestamp>1265291640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>First links that link to blogs that link to articles. Then links to social networks to link to links that link to articles.<br> <br>Where does the stupidity end?</htmltext>
<tokenext>First links that link to blogs that link to articles .
Then links to social networks to link to links that link to articles .
Where does the stupidity end ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First links that link to blogs that link to articles.
Then links to social networks to link to links that link to articles.
Where does the stupidity end?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029784</id>
	<title>Re:If you drunk e-mail...</title>
	<author>SimonInOz</author>
	<datestamp>1265293440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is so Microsoft. Their response to any problem is to want more control. (A bit like most governments, actually)</p><p>Interestingly, this is the exact opposite of Open Source, or perhaps Wikipedia.</p><p>They are absolutely committed to the cathedral, with no thought of the bazaar.</p><p>And, for a while, it works.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is so Microsoft .
Their response to any problem is to want more control .
( A bit like most governments , actually ) Interestingly , this is the exact opposite of Open Source , or perhaps Wikipedia.They are absolutely committed to the cathedral , with no thought of the bazaar.And , for a while , it works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is so Microsoft.
Their response to any problem is to want more control.
(A bit like most governments, actually)Interestingly, this is the exact opposite of Open Source, or perhaps Wikipedia.They are absolutely committed to the cathedral, with no thought of the bazaar.And, for a while, it works.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31031008</id>
	<title>Re:major loss for privacy, dissent</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265304360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>credit card transactions</i></p><p>There are. PCI Compliance. <a href="http://www.pcicomplianceguide.org/pcifaqs.php" title="pcicomplianceguide.org">http://www.pcicomplianceguide.org/pcifaqs.php</a> [pcicomplianceguide.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>credit card transactionsThere are .
PCI Compliance .
http : //www.pcicomplianceguide.org/pcifaqs.php [ pcicomplianceguide.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>credit card transactionsThere are.
PCI Compliance.
http://www.pcicomplianceguide.org/pcifaqs.php [pcicomplianceguide.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029680</id>
	<title>really?</title>
	<author>isthisnametaken</author>
	<datestamp>1265292780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What has this guy been smoking?!</htmltext>
<tokenext>What has this guy been smoking ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What has this guy been smoking?
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31031322</id>
	<title>car analogy</title>
	<author>DavMz</author>
	<datestamp>1265306640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I need a license to use a car. I use the internet. Ergo I need a license to use the internet.</p><p>100\% pure syllogism, beautifuly wrapped-up into a car analogy. I'm afraid many people will say: "yeah! that's true! we need an internet license!"<br>What we need is more education...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I need a license to use a car .
I use the internet .
Ergo I need a license to use the internet.100 \ % pure syllogism , beautifuly wrapped-up into a car analogy .
I 'm afraid many people will say : " yeah !
that 's true !
we need an internet license !
" What we need is more education.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I need a license to use a car.
I use the internet.
Ergo I need a license to use the internet.100\% pure syllogism, beautifuly wrapped-up into a car analogy.
I'm afraid many people will say: "yeah!
that's true!
we need an internet license!
"What we need is more education...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029530</id>
	<title>Only if...</title>
	<author>Asadullah Ahmad</author>
	<datestamp>1265292000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Add the first <b>requirement</b> of not using IE, and then we might entertain the thought, and start some serious discussion.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Add the first requirement of not using IE , and then we might entertain the thought , and start some serious discussion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Add the first requirement of not using IE, and then we might entertain the thought, and start some serious discussion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029622</id>
	<title>I knew this had come up before</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265292480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I knew this had come up before here on Slashdot...<br>http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/08/28/1952211/Crime-Expert-Backs-Call-For-License-To-Compute?from=rss (slashdot.org)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I knew this had come up before here on Slashdot...http : //tech.slashdot.org/story/09/08/28/1952211/Crime-Expert-Backs-Call-For-License-To-Compute ? from = rss ( slashdot.org )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I knew this had come up before here on Slashdot...http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/08/28/1952211/Crime-Expert-Backs-Call-For-License-To-Compute?from=rss (slashdot.org)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31034742</id>
	<title>Re:System administrator Driver's License</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265387040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I also pushed for licensing programmers, like doctors and lawyers.  Mainly to keep doctors and lawyers from writing programs.  I always make a deal with doctors, "they don't write any code, and I won't take out any appendixes."</p><p>The irony of Microsoft pushing for an Internet license is that they would have been kept off the Internet for years, if one had existed 15 years ago.  Microsoft did NOT understanding IP networking.  They still don't understand a lot of components of the Internet, such as DNS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I also pushed for licensing programmers , like doctors and lawyers .
Mainly to keep doctors and lawyers from writing programs .
I always make a deal with doctors , " they do n't write any code , and I wo n't take out any appendixes .
" The irony of Microsoft pushing for an Internet license is that they would have been kept off the Internet for years , if one had existed 15 years ago .
Microsoft did NOT understanding IP networking .
They still do n't understand a lot of components of the Internet , such as DNS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I also pushed for licensing programmers, like doctors and lawyers.
Mainly to keep doctors and lawyers from writing programs.
I always make a deal with doctors, "they don't write any code, and I won't take out any appendixes.
"The irony of Microsoft pushing for an Internet license is that they would have been kept off the Internet for years, if one had existed 15 years ago.
Microsoft did NOT understanding IP networking.
They still don't understand a lot of components of the Internet, such as DNS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029690</id>
	<title>Excuse me</title>
	<author>blugu64</author>
	<datestamp>1265292840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Excuse me sir but do you know what I pulled you over?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Excuse me sir but do you know what I pulled you over ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Excuse me sir but do you know what I pulled you over?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029566</id>
	<title>Chief Research and Strategy Officer...?!</title>
	<author>creimer</author>
	<datestamp>1265292240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is the best idea that this guy could come up with?</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the best idea that this guy could come up with ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the best idea that this guy could come up with?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31031506</id>
	<title>Hi.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265308140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm twenty five years old, and up until two weeks ago, I was a virgin. Too<br>many celibacy had worn my self-esteem down to the point where I was finally<br>willing to pay for sex. I'll spare you the details of the event, as this is<br>not what I am writing about.</p><p>After having completed the act, the prostitute whose services I had rented<br>immediately exclaimed that something had felt weird. With no particular<br>ceremony, she grabbed my now-flaccid member and subjected it to an intense<br>examination, while biting her thumbnail in consternation.</p><p>After a brief period, she informed me that my penis was deformed, in her<br>professional opinion. I had spent my entire life without ever seeing another<br>man urinate, so I was not aware that the output usually emits from the end<br>of the head, not the underside, where mine does.</p><p>I'd like to know if I should seek the advice of a doctor or plastic surgeon?<br>Is this the sort of thing that can, or even should be corrected? I've lived<br>with it for twenty five years, and it hasn't bothered me. Is there really<br>any reason to worry about this?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm twenty five years old , and up until two weeks ago , I was a virgin .
Toomany celibacy had worn my self-esteem down to the point where I was finallywilling to pay for sex .
I 'll spare you the details of the event , as this isnot what I am writing about.After having completed the act , the prostitute whose services I had rentedimmediately exclaimed that something had felt weird .
With no particularceremony , she grabbed my now-flaccid member and subjected it to an intenseexamination , while biting her thumbnail in consternation.After a brief period , she informed me that my penis was deformed , in herprofessional opinion .
I had spent my entire life without ever seeing anotherman urinate , so I was not aware that the output usually emits from the endof the head , not the underside , where mine does.I 'd like to know if I should seek the advice of a doctor or plastic surgeon ? Is this the sort of thing that can , or even should be corrected ?
I 've livedwith it for twenty five years , and it has n't bothered me .
Is there reallyany reason to worry about this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm twenty five years old, and up until two weeks ago, I was a virgin.
Toomany celibacy had worn my self-esteem down to the point where I was finallywilling to pay for sex.
I'll spare you the details of the event, as this isnot what I am writing about.After having completed the act, the prostitute whose services I had rentedimmediately exclaimed that something had felt weird.
With no particularceremony, she grabbed my now-flaccid member and subjected it to an intenseexamination, while biting her thumbnail in consternation.After a brief period, she informed me that my penis was deformed, in herprofessional opinion.
I had spent my entire life without ever seeing anotherman urinate, so I was not aware that the output usually emits from the endof the head, not the underside, where mine does.I'd like to know if I should seek the advice of a doctor or plastic surgeon?Is this the sort of thing that can, or even should be corrected?
I've livedwith it for twenty five years, and it hasn't bothered me.
Is there reallyany reason to worry about this?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31032058</id>
	<title>Re:If you drunk e-mail...</title>
	<author>Nikker</author>
	<datestamp>1265400480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>He is a current employee of Microsoft and is discussing his views of a field Microsoft is directly involved in. So do you think somone with as much stature as him within the company possibly have pull to attempt this direction?  Well as chief researcher Microsoft does pay him to come up with ideas I guess and maybe even use a couple of them. <br> <br>Common a cheap disclaimer like that is pathetic.</htmltext>
<tokenext>He is a current employee of Microsoft and is discussing his views of a field Microsoft is directly involved in .
So do you think somone with as much stature as him within the company possibly have pull to attempt this direction ?
Well as chief researcher Microsoft does pay him to come up with ideas I guess and maybe even use a couple of them .
Common a cheap disclaimer like that is pathetic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He is a current employee of Microsoft and is discussing his views of a field Microsoft is directly involved in.
So do you think somone with as much stature as him within the company possibly have pull to attempt this direction?
Well as chief researcher Microsoft does pay him to come up with ideas I guess and maybe even use a couple of them.
Common a cheap disclaimer like that is pathetic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31031468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31033594</id>
	<title>1 billion licences</title>
	<author>Max\_W</author>
	<datestamp>1265378940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It would mean 1 billion+ licenses. Besides there is no place in my wallet for one more license card.</p><p>I would suggest a course in schools on Internet security. And also installing anti-virus and scanning with it the disk on mom's and dad's computer next time. It is the platform of the DDoS attacks.</p><p>Nice kind mom and dad do harbor unknowingly the worst evil in their PCs - spam bot-net trojans and viruses, most often than not.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would mean 1 billion + licenses .
Besides there is no place in my wallet for one more license card.I would suggest a course in schools on Internet security .
And also installing anti-virus and scanning with it the disk on mom 's and dad 's computer next time .
It is the platform of the DDoS attacks.Nice kind mom and dad do harbor unknowingly the worst evil in their PCs - spam bot-net trojans and viruses , most often than not .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would mean 1 billion+ licenses.
Besides there is no place in my wallet for one more license card.I would suggest a course in schools on Internet security.
And also installing anti-virus and scanning with it the disk on mom's and dad's computer next time.
It is the platform of the DDoS attacks.Nice kind mom and dad do harbor unknowingly the worst evil in their PCs - spam bot-net trojans and viruses, most often than not.
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31032988</id>
	<title>Re:If you drunk e-mail...</title>
	<author>PePe242</author>
	<datestamp>1265370780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Someone takes Craig's "licence to breath" away!!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone takes Craig 's " licence to breath " away ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone takes Craig's "licence to breath" away!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029980</id>
	<title>It's only a *tad* bit flawed...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265294880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Okay, I kid; this idea really sucks. I'm sure others here have picked up on this, but from just pondering it for thirty seconds:</p><ul><li>1) (An aside) The headline is quite misleading; for a moment, I thought the article suggested porting physical driving licenses to an online medium, which isn't that good or that useful of an idea</li><li>2) What will this theoretical license allow and disallow? Would I have my internet account revoked because I forgot to sign up for a license?  What would provoke such action?</li><li>3) This license would need physically-identifiable information, which probably means a social security number. Forget bank account hacking; this will be where the money's at. Which leads to...</li><li>4) Where would such a license be stored? If it's local, what happens when I wipe my PC? Can I re-download it from "the cloud?" And what happens if my license were stolen from "the cloud?"</li><li>5) How would this be enforced anyway? What if I'm connecting via tor or an anonymizing proxy?</li></ul><p>I'm sure these questions can  get addressed with enough thought, but I really hope this doesn't grow beyond that point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , I kid ; this idea really sucks .
I 'm sure others here have picked up on this , but from just pondering it for thirty seconds : 1 ) ( An aside ) The headline is quite misleading ; for a moment , I thought the article suggested porting physical driving licenses to an online medium , which is n't that good or that useful of an idea2 ) What will this theoretical license allow and disallow ?
Would I have my internet account revoked because I forgot to sign up for a license ?
What would provoke such action ? 3 ) This license would need physically-identifiable information , which probably means a social security number .
Forget bank account hacking ; this will be where the money 's at .
Which leads to...4 ) Where would such a license be stored ?
If it 's local , what happens when I wipe my PC ?
Can I re-download it from " the cloud ?
" And what happens if my license were stolen from " the cloud ?
" 5 ) How would this be enforced anyway ?
What if I 'm connecting via tor or an anonymizing proxy ? I 'm sure these questions can get addressed with enough thought , but I really hope this does n't grow beyond that point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay, I kid; this idea really sucks.
I'm sure others here have picked up on this, but from just pondering it for thirty seconds:1) (An aside) The headline is quite misleading; for a moment, I thought the article suggested porting physical driving licenses to an online medium, which isn't that good or that useful of an idea2) What will this theoretical license allow and disallow?
Would I have my internet account revoked because I forgot to sign up for a license?
What would provoke such action?3) This license would need physically-identifiable information, which probably means a social security number.
Forget bank account hacking; this will be where the money's at.
Which leads to...4) Where would such a license be stored?
If it's local, what happens when I wipe my PC?
Can I re-download it from "the cloud?
" And what happens if my license were stolen from "the cloud?
"5) How would this be enforced anyway?
What if I'm connecting via tor or an anonymizing proxy?I'm sure these questions can  get addressed with enough thought, but I really hope this doesn't grow beyond that point.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029826</id>
	<title>Re:If you drunk e-mail...</title>
	<author>Interoperable</author>
	<datestamp>1265293680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It depends on the e-mail. You receive 2 demerits for each grammatical error; if you rack up 8, it's a suspension. You now have 2 for failing to begin a sentence with a capital letter. Of course, use of "cuz" (because) or "u" (you) will result in the immediate loss of the license and posting a lolcat is punishable by a maximum of 10 years in prison.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It depends on the e-mail .
You receive 2 demerits for each grammatical error ; if you rack up 8 , it 's a suspension .
You now have 2 for failing to begin a sentence with a capital letter .
Of course , use of " cuz " ( because ) or " u " ( you ) will result in the immediate loss of the license and posting a lolcat is punishable by a maximum of 10 years in prison .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It depends on the e-mail.
You receive 2 demerits for each grammatical error; if you rack up 8, it's a suspension.
You now have 2 for failing to begin a sentence with a capital letter.
Of course, use of "cuz" (because) or "u" (you) will result in the immediate loss of the license and posting a lolcat is punishable by a maximum of 10 years in prison.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31031966</id>
	<title>dfas</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265312820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.jewel-tiffany.com/Gucci/Gucci-Necklaces.html" title="jewel-tiffany.com" rel="nofollow">&ldquo;/ 1&rdquo;</a> [jewel-tiffany.com]<br><a href="http://www.jewel-tiffany.com/Gucci/Gucci-Necklaces.html" title="jewel-tiffany.com" rel="nofollow">&ldquo;/ 1&rdquo;</a> [jewel-tiffany.com]<br><a href="http://www.jewel-tiffany.com/Gucci/Gucci-Necklaces.html" title="jewel-tiffany.com" rel="nofollow">&ldquo;/ 1&rdquo;</a> [jewel-tiffany.com]<br><a href="http://www.jewel-tiffany.com/Gucci/Gucci-Necklaces.html" title="jewel-tiffany.com" rel="nofollow">&ldquo;/ 1&rdquo;</a> [jewel-tiffany.com]<br><a href="http://www.jewel-tiffany.com/Gucci/Gucci-Earrings.html" title="jewel-tiffany.com" rel="nofollow">&ldquo;/ 1&rdquo;</a> [jewel-tiffany.com]<br><a href="http://www.jewel-tiffany.com/Gucci/Gucci-Earrings.html" title="jewel-tiffany.com" rel="nofollow">&ldquo;/ 1&rdquo;</a> [jewel-tiffany.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>   / 1    [ jewel-tiffany.com ]    / 1    [ jewel-tiffany.com ]    / 1    [ jewel-tiffany.com ]    / 1    [ jewel-tiffany.com ]    / 1    [ jewel-tiffany.com ]    / 1    [ jewel-tiffany.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>“/ 1” [jewel-tiffany.com]“/ 1” [jewel-tiffany.com]“/ 1” [jewel-tiffany.com]“/ 1” [jewel-tiffany.com]“/ 1” [jewel-tiffany.com]“/ 1” [jewel-tiffany.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029498</id>
	<title>Ender's Game, anyone?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265291760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Makes me think of Valentine and Peter trying to get on their father's "citizen access" in order to be taken seriously on the internet in Ender's Game.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Makes me think of Valentine and Peter trying to get on their father 's " citizen access " in order to be taken seriously on the internet in Ender 's Game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Makes me think of Valentine and Peter trying to get on their father's "citizen access" in order to be taken seriously on the internet in Ender's Game.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030578</id>
	<title>Re:Translation</title>
	<author>jvkjvk</author>
	<datestamp>1265300580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it's more like.</p><p>We (the royal We, as it were) want control.  Of everything.</p><p>Of course, that should be obvious to everyone by now.</p><p>Regards.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's more like.We ( the royal We , as it were ) want control .
Of everything.Of course , that should be obvious to everyone by now.Regards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's more like.We (the royal We, as it were) want control.
Of everything.Of course, that should be obvious to everyone by now.Regards.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029936</id>
	<title>Re:If you drunk e-mail...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265294520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And taking a joke too far will carry the death penalty!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And taking a joke too far will carry the death penalty !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And taking a joke too far will carry the death penalty!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31032246</id>
	<title>Re:From the email cited</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265360820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, there was no good intentions at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , there was no good intentions at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, there was no good intentions at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030482</id>
	<title>Old man once said</title>
	<author>BountyX</author>
	<datestamp>1265299800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That Internet would go the way of ham radio...</htmltext>
<tokenext>That Internet would go the way of ham radio.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That Internet would go the way of ham radio...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030360</id>
	<title>If MS idiots wants to talk</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265298540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If an MS idiot wants to talk anywhere outside MS campus he or she must show a license from 90\% of people of the plant saying this person is allowed to talk.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If an MS idiot wants to talk anywhere outside MS campus he or she must show a license from 90 \ % of people of the plant saying this person is allowed to talk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If an MS idiot wants to talk anywhere outside MS campus he or she must show a license from 90\% of people of the plant saying this person is allowed to talk.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31034352</id>
	<title>Troll!!</title>
	<author>deck</author>
	<datestamp>1265384760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And you appear to be a troll.  He i a VP for Microsoft and not just an employee. VPs set the direction of a company. Therefore what he says is the direction of Microsoft.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And you appear to be a troll .
He i a VP for Microsoft and not just an employee .
VPs set the direction of a company .
Therefore what he says is the direction of Microsoft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And you appear to be a troll.
He i a VP for Microsoft and not just an employee.
VPs set the direction of a company.
Therefore what he says is the direction of Microsoft.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31031468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31034430</id>
	<title>Darket idea</title>
	<author>Joe U</author>
	<datestamp>1265385180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, what happens if I write an encrypted mesh app that destroys geolocation and user identification all at once? Suddenly the Internet is much worse off, but I'll remain anonymous.</p><p>Think Tor, but more for just wreaking havoc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , what happens if I write an encrypted mesh app that destroys geolocation and user identification all at once ?
Suddenly the Internet is much worse off , but I 'll remain anonymous.Think Tor , but more for just wreaking havoc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, what happens if I write an encrypted mesh app that destroys geolocation and user identification all at once?
Suddenly the Internet is much worse off, but I'll remain anonymous.Think Tor, but more for just wreaking havoc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030318</id>
	<title>Re:Why do you have a steering wheel in your pants?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265298060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Arghhhh!   Because it's drivin' me nuts!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Arghhhh !
Because it 's drivin ' me nuts !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Arghhhh!
Because it's drivin' me nuts!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029672</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31031784</id>
	<title>Re:OK, I see some value in here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265310780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/02/anonymity\_and\_t\_3.html" title="schneier.com" rel="nofollow">This guy</a> [schneier.com] needs to be heard as much as possible.</p><p>So, your idea is to institute a computer network to stop people who are saavy at screwing with computer networks?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This guy [ schneier.com ] needs to be heard as much as possible.So , your idea is to institute a computer network to stop people who are saavy at screwing with computer networks ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This guy [schneier.com] needs to be heard as much as possible.So, your idea is to institute a computer network to stop people who are saavy at screwing with computer networks?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31031122</id>
	<title>Re:Translation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265305200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>In other words, Windows doesn't suck - The users do.</p></div></blockquote><p>This is something I've said for years! (well, more like, windows exists because users suck)</p><p>This is an odd position for microsoft to take, if people actually learned a little bit about computers... it's a pretty safe bet they wouldn't be using microsoft based operating systems anymore.</p><p>People really ought to know a few things about how the internet works before using it, basic things like what a URL is and why you shouldn't type them into search boxes for example.</p><p>In the context of hurting other people.. someone who thinks it's a neat idea to send HTML email, or attachments that clog up the recipients inbox really ought to be taken "offline".</p><p>Same goes for PHP-heads that insist on placing database settings and other private data in the document root or other bone-head moves, it's pretty bad when "programmers" don't even take the time to learn how things work.</p><p>So, yea, the spirit of an "internet license" is a good idea, just not sure how you'd go about implementing it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In other words , Windows does n't suck - The users do.This is something I 've said for years !
( well , more like , windows exists because users suck ) This is an odd position for microsoft to take , if people actually learned a little bit about computers... it 's a pretty safe bet they would n't be using microsoft based operating systems anymore.People really ought to know a few things about how the internet works before using it , basic things like what a URL is and why you should n't type them into search boxes for example.In the context of hurting other people.. someone who thinks it 's a neat idea to send HTML email , or attachments that clog up the recipients inbox really ought to be taken " offline " .Same goes for PHP-heads that insist on placing database settings and other private data in the document root or other bone-head moves , it 's pretty bad when " programmers " do n't even take the time to learn how things work.So , yea , the spirit of an " internet license " is a good idea , just not sure how you 'd go about implementing it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other words, Windows doesn't suck - The users do.This is something I've said for years!
(well, more like, windows exists because users suck)This is an odd position for microsoft to take, if people actually learned a little bit about computers... it's a pretty safe bet they wouldn't be using microsoft based operating systems anymore.People really ought to know a few things about how the internet works before using it, basic things like what a URL is and why you shouldn't type them into search boxes for example.In the context of hurting other people.. someone who thinks it's a neat idea to send HTML email, or attachments that clog up the recipients inbox really ought to be taken "offline".Same goes for PHP-heads that insist on placing database settings and other private data in the document root or other bone-head moves, it's pretty bad when "programmers" don't even take the time to learn how things work.So, yea, the spirit of an "internet license" is a good idea, just not sure how you'd go about implementing it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31036032</id>
	<title>Re:Great segue</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265392860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"the car has to pass a test to say it is fit to drive"</p><p>
&nbsp; I'm amazed he would dare make that analogy, since a good case can be made that Microsoft's operating systems are not "fit to drive".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" the car has to pass a test to say it is fit to drive "   I 'm amazed he would dare make that analogy , since a good case can be made that Microsoft 's operating systems are not " fit to drive " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"the car has to pass a test to say it is fit to drive"
  I'm amazed he would dare make that analogy, since a good case can be made that Microsoft's operating systems are not "fit to drive".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029512</id>
	<title>I tell you what we need...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265291880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>we need freakin "For Stupid Execs Forum Licenses" so jerks like these would STFU</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>we need freakin " For Stupid Execs Forum Licenses " so jerks like these would STFU</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we need freakin "For Stupid Execs Forum Licenses" so jerks like these would STFU</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31031468</id>
	<title>Re:If you drunk e-mail...</title>
	<author>chentiangemalc</author>
	<datestamp>1265307840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just to clairfy - this is not the position of Microsoft, this is the view of one employee at Microsoft.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just to clairfy - this is not the position of Microsoft , this is the view of one employee at Microsoft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just to clairfy - this is not the position of Microsoft, this is the view of one employee at Microsoft.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030492</id>
	<title>Re:If you drunk e-mail...</title>
	<author>russ1337</author>
	<datestamp>1265299860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>will they take away your license?</p></div><p>No, but if you copyright infringe three times they will...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>will they take away your license ? No , but if you copyright infringe three times they will.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>will they take away your license?No, but if you copyright infringe three times they will...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029672</id>
	<title>Why do you have a steering wheel in your pants?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265292720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>we've never needed a 'Telephone Driver's License</p></div><p>Probably because you don't drive a telephone.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>we 've never needed a 'Telephone Driver 's LicenseProbably because you do n't drive a telephone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we've never needed a 'Telephone Driver's LicenseProbably because you don't drive a telephone.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029580</id>
	<title>It's been proposed before, and it still won't work</title>
	<author>Adrian Lopez</author>
	<datestamp>1265292300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. It would probably be illegal for the US government to require "drivers licenses" for general Internet use. The Internet is primarily a medium for the dissemination of speech, and the US government is prohibited from demanding that people obtain <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior\_restraint" title="wikipedia.org">permission before speaking</a> [wikipedia.org].</p><p>2. Even if done privately, requiring people to identify themselves for any and all uses of the internet is likely a <a href="http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/02/anonymity\_and\_t\_3.html" title="schneier.com">bad idea</a> [schneier.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
It would probably be illegal for the US government to require " drivers licenses " for general Internet use .
The Internet is primarily a medium for the dissemination of speech , and the US government is prohibited from demanding that people obtain permission before speaking [ wikipedia.org ] .2 .
Even if done privately , requiring people to identify themselves for any and all uses of the internet is likely a bad idea [ schneier.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
It would probably be illegal for the US government to require "drivers licenses" for general Internet use.
The Internet is primarily a medium for the dissemination of speech, and the US government is prohibited from demanding that people obtain permission before speaking [wikipedia.org].2.
Even if done privately, requiring people to identify themselves for any and all uses of the internet is likely a bad idea [schneier.com].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029868</id>
	<title>Car analogy</title>
	<author>Jason Levine</author>
	<datestamp>1265293980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think this would be best explained with a car analogy.... wait, doesn't "Internet Driver's License" have a built-in car analogy?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think this would be best explained with a car analogy.... wait , does n't " Internet Driver 's License " have a built-in car analogy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think this would be best explained with a car analogy.... wait, doesn't "Internet Driver's License" have a built-in car analogy?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030130</id>
	<title>whom to regulate</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265296140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about we regulate the banks to provide <b>real</b> two-factor authentication for any online financial transaction? How about we set a standard for smart-cards (hell, add the capability to dirvers' licenses) and require that PCs come with smart-card readers?</p><p>If we just had these standards in place, they would pay for themselves extremely quickly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about we regulate the banks to provide real two-factor authentication for any online financial transaction ?
How about we set a standard for smart-cards ( hell , add the capability to dirvers ' licenses ) and require that PCs come with smart-card readers ? If we just had these standards in place , they would pay for themselves extremely quickly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about we regulate the banks to provide real two-factor authentication for any online financial transaction?
How about we set a standard for smart-cards (hell, add the capability to dirvers' licenses) and require that PCs come with smart-card readers?If we just had these standards in place, they would pay for themselves extremely quickly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029854</id>
	<title>While this might not be a good thing..</title>
	<author>billsayswow</author>
	<datestamp>1265293860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Imagine by how much internet security would improve if we required some sort of internet competency test, that if, to use the internet, you had to prove that you don't trust Your-E-Buddy to deliver you the finest in genital enlargement pills?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Imagine by how much internet security would improve if we required some sort of internet competency test , that if , to use the internet , you had to prove that you do n't trust Your-E-Buddy to deliver you the finest in genital enlargement pills ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Imagine by how much internet security would improve if we required some sort of internet competency test, that if, to use the internet, you had to prove that you don't trust Your-E-Buddy to deliver you the finest in genital enlargement pills?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030856</id>
	<title>I can see it now</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265303100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>*knock knock*<br>-Good Evening Officer.<br>-License and registration please.<br>*passes the license through front door*<br>-Was I doing anything wrong?<br>-Nope, just making sure... Hey wait a minute! This license is issued in Gambia!<br>*shrug*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>* knock knock * -Good Evening Officer.-License and registration please .
* passes the license through front door * -Was I doing anything wrong ? -Nope , just making sure... Hey wait a minute !
This license is issued in Gambia !
* shrug *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>*knock knock*-Good Evening Officer.-License and registration please.
*passes the license through front door*-Was I doing anything wrong?-Nope, just making sure... Hey wait a minute!
This license is issued in Gambia!
*shrug*</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030910</id>
	<title>Re:Proof</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265303640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="//slashdot.org/~HomelessInLaJolla" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">Here ya go</a> [slashdot.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here ya go [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here ya go [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030222</id>
	<title>Re:we need a law?</title>
	<author>ehrichweiss</author>
	<datestamp>1265297040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually he's come up with an idea that's about 6 years behind my own thoughts, including the drivers license analogy. The deal is that while there might not be any deaths from not knowing how to use your computer and/or the internet, there are the tons of idiots who click on every fucking email they get, they join every "OMG, Obama is gonna ban kittenz!!!" or "get your Dislike Button here by spamming your friends for us" group on Facebook(that inevitably is revealed to be created by spammers or malware writers), download software they should know better than to even look at...AND THEN after their computer becomes infected it comes delivering spam on all the innocent networks, including my own.

There's no need to ban people "arbitrarily" because right now there's plenty of evidence to prove that most of the people using the internet right now have no clue how badly they're fucking up the experience for the rest of us and there's nothing wrong with the idea of requiring people to prove they have some idea as to what they're doing when online because of this. It doesn't have to be revoked for arbitrary reasons either, we can settle for something as simple as banning people for allowing their machines to become spambots for more than a day and their license could be restored the moment they proved their system was clear of malware via an online scan ala Trendmicro or the like.

And there's an economic factor that goes far beyond spam: tech support. I used to run a tech support company for a cable internet operation and I cannot begin to count the number of times that the user expected us to deal with THEIR virus problems with a "you mean *I* have to pay to have this fixed?!?!? I have an internet connection that I'm paying for and can't use and YOU are supposed to help me get online", or they wanted us to setup their wireless router, or gobs of other issues that could be cured if they'd take a goddamn weekend workshop on responsible computer and internet usage, for example "the point of demarcation for an ISP is the CPE(customer premise equipment) modem, not their router, not their firewall."

Even crazier is that Craig Mundie HAS to know that 99.9999\% of the users infected with malware are Windows users so it's not like he's saying that those of us who use Linux, BSD, OS/X, etc. are at fault as some of us might come to expect from a Microsoft employee.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually he 's come up with an idea that 's about 6 years behind my own thoughts , including the drivers license analogy .
The deal is that while there might not be any deaths from not knowing how to use your computer and/or the internet , there are the tons of idiots who click on every fucking email they get , they join every " OMG , Obama is gon na ban kittenz ! ! !
" or " get your Dislike Button here by spamming your friends for us " group on Facebook ( that inevitably is revealed to be created by spammers or malware writers ) , download software they should know better than to even look at...AND THEN after their computer becomes infected it comes delivering spam on all the innocent networks , including my own .
There 's no need to ban people " arbitrarily " because right now there 's plenty of evidence to prove that most of the people using the internet right now have no clue how badly they 're fucking up the experience for the rest of us and there 's nothing wrong with the idea of requiring people to prove they have some idea as to what they 're doing when online because of this .
It does n't have to be revoked for arbitrary reasons either , we can settle for something as simple as banning people for allowing their machines to become spambots for more than a day and their license could be restored the moment they proved their system was clear of malware via an online scan ala Trendmicro or the like .
And there 's an economic factor that goes far beyond spam : tech support .
I used to run a tech support company for a cable internet operation and I can not begin to count the number of times that the user expected us to deal with THEIR virus problems with a " you mean * I * have to pay to have this fixed ? ! ? ! ?
I have an internet connection that I 'm paying for and ca n't use and YOU are supposed to help me get online " , or they wanted us to setup their wireless router , or gobs of other issues that could be cured if they 'd take a goddamn weekend workshop on responsible computer and internet usage , for example " the point of demarcation for an ISP is the CPE ( customer premise equipment ) modem , not their router , not their firewall .
" Even crazier is that Craig Mundie HAS to know that 99.9999 \ % of the users infected with malware are Windows users so it 's not like he 's saying that those of us who use Linux , BSD , OS/X , etc .
are at fault as some of us might come to expect from a Microsoft employee .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually he's come up with an idea that's about 6 years behind my own thoughts, including the drivers license analogy.
The deal is that while there might not be any deaths from not knowing how to use your computer and/or the internet, there are the tons of idiots who click on every fucking email they get, they join every "OMG, Obama is gonna ban kittenz!!!
" or "get your Dislike Button here by spamming your friends for us" group on Facebook(that inevitably is revealed to be created by spammers or malware writers), download software they should know better than to even look at...AND THEN after their computer becomes infected it comes delivering spam on all the innocent networks, including my own.
There's no need to ban people "arbitrarily" because right now there's plenty of evidence to prove that most of the people using the internet right now have no clue how badly they're fucking up the experience for the rest of us and there's nothing wrong with the idea of requiring people to prove they have some idea as to what they're doing when online because of this.
It doesn't have to be revoked for arbitrary reasons either, we can settle for something as simple as banning people for allowing their machines to become spambots for more than a day and their license could be restored the moment they proved their system was clear of malware via an online scan ala Trendmicro or the like.
And there's an economic factor that goes far beyond spam: tech support.
I used to run a tech support company for a cable internet operation and I cannot begin to count the number of times that the user expected us to deal with THEIR virus problems with a "you mean *I* have to pay to have this fixed?!?!?
I have an internet connection that I'm paying for and can't use and YOU are supposed to help me get online", or they wanted us to setup their wireless router, or gobs of other issues that could be cured if they'd take a goddamn weekend workshop on responsible computer and internet usage, for example "the point of demarcation for an ISP is the CPE(customer premise equipment) modem, not their router, not their firewall.
"

Even crazier is that Craig Mundie HAS to know that 99.9999\% of the users infected with malware are Windows users so it's not like he's saying that those of us who use Linux, BSD, OS/X, etc.
are at fault as some of us might come to expect from a Microsoft employee.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029842</id>
	<title>Just Saying...</title>
	<author>Frankenshteen</author>
	<datestamp>1265293800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's time we adopt Morgan's label, "the Interweb". Clearest term for the proles [because it contains 'web'].</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's time we adopt Morgan 's label , " the Interweb " .
Clearest term for the proles [ because it contains 'web ' ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's time we adopt Morgan's label, "the Interweb".
Clearest term for the proles [because it contains 'web'].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31031554</id>
	<title>Re:Questions</title>
	<author>jackchance</author>
	<datestamp>1265308440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you ask some good questions.</p><p>I certainly do not support the idea of Microsoft being the authority for these licenses.</p><p>But what would be nice is an "Authority" that grants certs or licenses to individuals which require real life background checks that allow people to interact "anonymously" but with the assurance that the person on the other end doesn't have a criminal record and isn't trying to rip you off.</p><p>I put anonymously in quotes because the point is that you have some ID of the person you interact with and if they do screw you, you can report them to the authority and there is a system of dealing with complaints (and appeals, etc).</p><p>Obviously, like any reputation based system, there will be problems.</p><p>I think the right thing to do is take the openID idea and create different levels of verification, which include a personal "real life" check.  That way when i interact with someone i can see how "verified" they are and decide how much i want to trust them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you ask some good questions.I certainly do not support the idea of Microsoft being the authority for these licenses.But what would be nice is an " Authority " that grants certs or licenses to individuals which require real life background checks that allow people to interact " anonymously " but with the assurance that the person on the other end does n't have a criminal record and is n't trying to rip you off.I put anonymously in quotes because the point is that you have some ID of the person you interact with and if they do screw you , you can report them to the authority and there is a system of dealing with complaints ( and appeals , etc ) .Obviously , like any reputation based system , there will be problems.I think the right thing to do is take the openID idea and create different levels of verification , which include a personal " real life " check .
That way when i interact with someone i can see how " verified " they are and decide how much i want to trust them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you ask some good questions.I certainly do not support the idea of Microsoft being the authority for these licenses.But what would be nice is an "Authority" that grants certs or licenses to individuals which require real life background checks that allow people to interact "anonymously" but with the assurance that the person on the other end doesn't have a criminal record and isn't trying to rip you off.I put anonymously in quotes because the point is that you have some ID of the person you interact with and if they do screw you, you can report them to the authority and there is a system of dealing with complaints (and appeals, etc).Obviously, like any reputation based system, there will be problems.I think the right thing to do is take the openID idea and create different levels of verification, which include a personal "real life" check.
That way when i interact with someone i can see how "verified" they are and decide how much i want to trust them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029928</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31032600</id>
	<title>Being human license</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265365620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Without passing being human license, that is showing you are ethically and morally acceptable, a person has to be aborted. Passing license criteria is required before birth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Without passing being human license , that is showing you are ethically and morally acceptable , a person has to be aborted .
Passing license criteria is required before birth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Without passing being human license, that is showing you are ethically and morally acceptable, a person has to be aborted.
Passing license criteria is required before birth.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029878</id>
	<title>Re:Only if...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265294040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Enforcing a restriction on IE would constitute a violation of free speech you fascist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Enforcing a restriction on IE would constitute a violation of free speech you fascist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Enforcing a restriction on IE would constitute a violation of free speech you fascist.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029530</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31034186</id>
	<title>And i supose</title>
	<author>hellraizer</author>
	<datestamp>1265383680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Micro$oft whould be the ones selling the licence !!!???
OMG i guess the average IQ at micro$oft dropped to negative values</htmltext>
<tokenext>Micro $ oft whould be the ones selling the licence ! ! ! ? ? ?
OMG i guess the average IQ at micro $ oft dropped to negative values</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Micro$oft whould be the ones selling the licence !!!???
OMG i guess the average IQ at micro$oft dropped to negative values</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029888</id>
	<title>Re:From the email cited</title>
	<author>GreatBunzinni</author>
	<datestamp>1265294160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More to the point, who exactly believes that the ability to freely express our own ideas how we see fit and without any danger of being attacked and punished by it is somehow bad or even dangerous to anyone?  Who exactly is so afraid of free communication of ideas and the freedom to share information in order to be so desperate to beg any country's government to quench their citizen's ability to do that sort of thing?  To put it in other words, who is so desperately afraid of not only their own countrymen but also every country's populace?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More to the point , who exactly believes that the ability to freely express our own ideas how we see fit and without any danger of being attacked and punished by it is somehow bad or even dangerous to anyone ?
Who exactly is so afraid of free communication of ideas and the freedom to share information in order to be so desperate to beg any country 's government to quench their citizen 's ability to do that sort of thing ?
To put it in other words , who is so desperately afraid of not only their own countrymen but also every country 's populace ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More to the point, who exactly believes that the ability to freely express our own ideas how we see fit and without any danger of being attacked and punished by it is somehow bad or even dangerous to anyone?
Who exactly is so afraid of free communication of ideas and the freedom to share information in order to be so desperate to beg any country's government to quench their citizen's ability to do that sort of thing?
To put it in other words, who is so desperately afraid of not only their own countrymen but also every country's populace?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030602</id>
	<title>Drivers Licenses Help?</title>
	<author>leeosenton</author>
	<datestamp>1265300760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does he mean to imply that driving licenses have kept morons off the roads? I'm not so sure it is working around here...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does he mean to imply that driving licenses have kept morons off the roads ?
I 'm not so sure it is working around here.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does he mean to imply that driving licenses have kept morons off the roads?
I'm not so sure it is working around here...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030140</id>
	<title>Re:major loss for privacy, dissent</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265296200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I know that some view ACs and their ilk as idiots clogging up discourse, but for a flip side of the coin how about the efforts to 'Out' Prop 8 contributors in Calif so they can be harrassed by gay activists?</p></div><p>Oh well that's a perfectly OK form of harassment because it's a bunch of reactionary right wing fundies who deserve it.</p><p>Now on the other hand if it was a bunch of reactionary right wing fundies harassing gay activists well then that'd be a major human rights violation and require immediate action to be taken on the part of state and federal agencies.</p><p>Yes I'm being sarcastic but if a "progressive" were spouting the same nonsense they'd do so  with a perfectly straight face.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know that some view ACs and their ilk as idiots clogging up discourse , but for a flip side of the coin how about the efforts to 'Out ' Prop 8 contributors in Calif so they can be harrassed by gay activists ? Oh well that 's a perfectly OK form of harassment because it 's a bunch of reactionary right wing fundies who deserve it.Now on the other hand if it was a bunch of reactionary right wing fundies harassing gay activists well then that 'd be a major human rights violation and require immediate action to be taken on the part of state and federal agencies.Yes I 'm being sarcastic but if a " progressive " were spouting the same nonsense they 'd do so with a perfectly straight face .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know that some view ACs and their ilk as idiots clogging up discourse, but for a flip side of the coin how about the efforts to 'Out' Prop 8 contributors in Calif so they can be harrassed by gay activists?Oh well that's a perfectly OK form of harassment because it's a bunch of reactionary right wing fundies who deserve it.Now on the other hand if it was a bunch of reactionary right wing fundies harassing gay activists well then that'd be a major human rights violation and require immediate action to be taken on the part of state and federal agencies.Yes I'm being sarcastic but if a "progressive" were spouting the same nonsense they'd do so  with a perfectly straight face.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31031078</id>
	<title>Why?</title>
	<author>RichM</author>
	<datestamp>1265304840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I had mod points for this story but screw it.<br>
What the FUCK is going on in the Microsoft LALA Land these days?<br>
You only have to look at the last 20 or so<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. stories here and they are mostly about this company!<br>
<br>
1. <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/02/04/1442214/Bill-Gates-Knows-What-You-Did-Last-Summer" title="slashdot.org">Bill Gates Knows What You Did Last Summer</a> [slashdot.org] <br>
2. <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/02/04/198252/IE-Flaw-Gives-Hackers-Access-To-User-Files" title="slashdot.org">IE Flaw Gives Hackers Access To User Files</a> [slashdot.org] <br>
3. <a href="http://slashdot.org/story/10/02/04/210238/How-Infighting-Hampers-Innovation-At-Microsoft" title="slashdot.org">How Infighting Hampers Innovation At Microsoft</a> [slashdot.org] <br>
<br>
If anyone is still using their comedy Windows O/S for personal use, I'd have to question if they value their online safety and security. This is just ridiculous.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I had mod points for this story but screw it .
What the FUCK is going on in the Microsoft LALA Land these days ?
You only have to look at the last 20 or so / .
stories here and they are mostly about this company !
1. Bill Gates Knows What You Did Last Summer [ slashdot.org ] 2 .
IE Flaw Gives Hackers Access To User Files [ slashdot.org ] 3 .
How Infighting Hampers Innovation At Microsoft [ slashdot.org ] If anyone is still using their comedy Windows O/S for personal use , I 'd have to question if they value their online safety and security .
This is just ridiculous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had mod points for this story but screw it.
What the FUCK is going on in the Microsoft LALA Land these days?
You only have to look at the last 20 or so /.
stories here and they are mostly about this company!
1. Bill Gates Knows What You Did Last Summer [slashdot.org] 
2.
IE Flaw Gives Hackers Access To User Files [slashdot.org] 
3.
How Infighting Hampers Innovation At Microsoft [slashdot.org] 

If anyone is still using their comedy Windows O/S for personal use, I'd have to question if they value their online safety and security.
This is just ridiculous.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029770</id>
	<title>Let's make a deal...</title>
	<author>DoofusOfDeath</author>
	<datestamp>1265293320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If users are like drivers, then OS providers are like car manufacturers.</p><p>So let's require drivers licenses, if and only if Microsoft:</p><ul><li>Can be sued when its brakes fail.</li><li>Must issue recalls on all defective operating systems, regardless of how old the operating system is.</li><li>Must subject its operating systems to safety tests.</li><li>Must permit the government to review all of its designs when there are questions of safety.</li><li>Must provide drivers enough information to fix their cars if/when Microsoft is slow to do so.</li></ul><p>After all, dangers cars are just as serious as dangerous drivers, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If users are like drivers , then OS providers are like car manufacturers.So let 's require drivers licenses , if and only if Microsoft : Can be sued when its brakes fail.Must issue recalls on all defective operating systems , regardless of how old the operating system is.Must subject its operating systems to safety tests.Must permit the government to review all of its designs when there are questions of safety.Must provide drivers enough information to fix their cars if/when Microsoft is slow to do so.After all , dangers cars are just as serious as dangerous drivers , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If users are like drivers, then OS providers are like car manufacturers.So let's require drivers licenses, if and only if Microsoft:Can be sued when its brakes fail.Must issue recalls on all defective operating systems, regardless of how old the operating system is.Must subject its operating systems to safety tests.Must permit the government to review all of its designs when there are questions of safety.Must provide drivers enough information to fix their cars if/when Microsoft is slow to do so.After all, dangers cars are just as serious as dangerous drivers, right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31031232</id>
	<title>Re:Criag Mundie wants to control you.</title>
	<author>RichM</author>
	<datestamp>1265306100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Fuck you Criag Mundie. Fuck you in your tiny dick hole, you elitist, ruling class, piece of shit. Shall we require government licenses to use our toasters and our televisions so that we will never burn our toast, and will be capable of understanding that not all TV, including the news is real, or good for us?</p></div></blockquote><p>

Welcome to the <a href="http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/" title="tvlicensing.co.uk">"United" Kingdom</a> [tvlicensing.co.uk]. (airquotes intentional)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fuck you Criag Mundie .
Fuck you in your tiny dick hole , you elitist , ruling class , piece of shit .
Shall we require government licenses to use our toasters and our televisions so that we will never burn our toast , and will be capable of understanding that not all TV , including the news is real , or good for us ?
Welcome to the " United " Kingdom [ tvlicensing.co.uk ] .
( airquotes intentional )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fuck you Criag Mundie.
Fuck you in your tiny dick hole, you elitist, ruling class, piece of shit.
Shall we require government licenses to use our toasters and our televisions so that we will never burn our toast, and will be capable of understanding that not all TV, including the news is real, or good for us?
Welcome to the "United" Kingdom [tvlicensing.co.uk].
(airquotes intentional)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030326</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31032888</id>
	<title>Re:Why do you have a steering wheel in your pants?</title>
	<author>maxwell demon</author>
	<datestamp>1265369220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>also, the phone is a single use, dumb terminal.</p></div></blockquote><p>A smart phone isn't.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>also , the phone is a single use , dumb terminal.A smart phone is n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>also, the phone is a single use, dumb terminal.A smart phone isn't.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030088</id>
	<title>Even for a car analogy...</title>
	<author>Bieeanda</author>
	<datestamp>1265295720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>...this one is incredibly flawed. Different nation-states have different rules for licensing virtually everything (but not everything virtual, apparently) and getting any sort of concordance is highly unlikely.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...this one is incredibly flawed .
Different nation-states have different rules for licensing virtually everything ( but not everything virtual , apparently ) and getting any sort of concordance is highly unlikely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...this one is incredibly flawed.
Different nation-states have different rules for licensing virtually everything (but not everything virtual, apparently) and getting any sort of concordance is highly unlikely.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31033116</id>
	<title>Great idea!</title>
	<author>Big Nemo '60</author>
	<datestamp>1265372940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think this idea should be extended.</p><p>What about a Consumer's License? You are not allowed to go shopping unless you prove you are capable of making rational choices and planning a budget.</p><p>Even better, and possibly more needed, a Parent's License - you are not allowed to reproduce unless you are willing and able to take proper care and responsibility for your offspring and their education. (Now that I think of it, maybe once upon a time there used to be something like that, but I can't remember what they called it... Marriage?)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think this idea should be extended.What about a Consumer 's License ?
You are not allowed to go shopping unless you prove you are capable of making rational choices and planning a budget.Even better , and possibly more needed , a Parent 's License - you are not allowed to reproduce unless you are willing and able to take proper care and responsibility for your offspring and their education .
( Now that I think of it , maybe once upon a time there used to be something like that , but I ca n't remember what they called it.. .
Marriage ? )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think this idea should be extended.What about a Consumer's License?
You are not allowed to go shopping unless you prove you are capable of making rational choices and planning a budget.Even better, and possibly more needed, a Parent's License - you are not allowed to reproduce unless you are willing and able to take proper care and responsibility for your offspring and their education.
(Now that I think of it, maybe once upon a time there used to be something like that, but I can't remember what they called it...
Marriage?)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029886</id>
	<title>Craig Mundie raises his hand...</title>
	<author>Un pobre guey</author>
	<datestamp>1265294160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>...and shouts to the four winds "I'm an Idiot!"</htmltext>
<tokenext>...and shouts to the four winds " I 'm an Idiot !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and shouts to the four winds "I'm an Idiot!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31031746</id>
	<title>Re:major loss for privacy, dissent</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265310300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;dealing with credit card transactions</p><p>There are already security standards required for networks that work with credit card data.</p><p>For the rest, navigator beware. My problem with this, besides the absolute destruction of anonyminity for non-saavy people, is that it won't actually help security in any way. I mean, seriously, install a computer network for authentication to fight against people that screw with computer networks? I CAN'T SEE ANY WAY THIS WILL BACKFIRE.</p><p>You should be incredibly stingy with your "real world information" on the Internet anyways. Damn, how did you even get your internet license?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; dealing with credit card transactionsThere are already security standards required for networks that work with credit card data.For the rest , navigator beware .
My problem with this , besides the absolute destruction of anonyminity for non-saavy people , is that it wo n't actually help security in any way .
I mean , seriously , install a computer network for authentication to fight against people that screw with computer networks ?
I CA N'T SEE ANY WAY THIS WILL BACKFIRE.You should be incredibly stingy with your " real world information " on the Internet anyways .
Damn , how did you even get your internet license ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;dealing with credit card transactionsThere are already security standards required for networks that work with credit card data.For the rest, navigator beware.
My problem with this, besides the absolute destruction of anonyminity for non-saavy people, is that it won't actually help security in any way.
I mean, seriously, install a computer network for authentication to fight against people that screw with computer networks?
I CAN'T SEE ANY WAY THIS WILL BACKFIRE.You should be incredibly stingy with your "real world information" on the Internet anyways.
Damn, how did you even get your internet license?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029998</id>
	<title>Computer Driver Test</title>
	<author>zlel</author>
	<datestamp>1265295060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think what we need instead is a Computer Driver Test, which should include a basic theory test about general concepts behind computers.
The computer is a tool for the brain. Stupid people should not be allowed to use a computer, not any more than blind people should be allowed to drive.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think what we need instead is a Computer Driver Test , which should include a basic theory test about general concepts behind computers .
The computer is a tool for the brain .
Stupid people should not be allowed to use a computer , not any more than blind people should be allowed to drive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think what we need instead is a Computer Driver Test, which should include a basic theory test about general concepts behind computers.
The computer is a tool for the brain.
Stupid people should not be allowed to use a computer, not any more than blind people should be allowed to drive.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31033186</id>
	<title>Car analogy in article</title>
	<author>Shoe Puppet</author>
	<datestamp>1265374260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Awesome.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Awesome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Awesome.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029476</id>
	<title>From the email cited</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265291700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>   Even here in the U.S., one of the most common Internet-related
   questions that I receive is also one of the most deeply disturbing:
   Why can't the U.S. require an Internet "driver's license" so that
   there would be no way (ostensibly) to do anything anonymously on the
   Net?</p></div>
</blockquote><p>

The road to ruin was paved with good intentions. However, that includes ludicrous ideas.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even here in the U.S. , one of the most common Internet-related questions that I receive is also one of the most deeply disturbing : Why ca n't the U.S. require an Internet " driver 's license " so that there would be no way ( ostensibly ) to do anything anonymously on the Net ?
The road to ruin was paved with good intentions .
However , that includes ludicrous ideas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>   Even here in the U.S., one of the most common Internet-related
   questions that I receive is also one of the most deeply disturbing:
   Why can't the U.S. require an Internet "driver's license" so that
   there would be no way (ostensibly) to do anything anonymously on the
   Net?
The road to ruin was paved with good intentions.
However, that includes ludicrous ideas.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029552</id>
	<title>Ham radio</title>
	<author>KC1P</author>
	<datestamp>1265292180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So this is like a ham license for landlines which sort of *act* like public airwaves.  It's actually not SUCH a bad idea -- it sure keeps the S/N ratio up in the ham bands.  Even if the test is virtually unfailable, the overall sense of earned-privilege vs. god-given-right seems to add a few percent to the general level of maturity you get.  It'll never happen though!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So this is like a ham license for landlines which sort of * act * like public airwaves .
It 's actually not SUCH a bad idea -- it sure keeps the S/N ratio up in the ham bands .
Even if the test is virtually unfailable , the overall sense of earned-privilege vs. god-given-right seems to add a few percent to the general level of maturity you get .
It 'll never happen though !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So this is like a ham license for landlines which sort of *act* like public airwaves.
It's actually not SUCH a bad idea -- it sure keeps the S/N ratio up in the ham bands.
Even if the test is virtually unfailable, the overall sense of earned-privilege vs. god-given-right seems to add a few percent to the general level of maturity you get.
It'll never happen though!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31034892</id>
	<title>He's too late</title>
	<author>swordgeek</author>
	<datestamp>1265387880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The idiots are already online. We can't retroactively test and license them.</p><p>Besides, Microsoft would never have been allowed online. Does anyone remember their "the internet is a fad" stance?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The idiots are already online .
We ca n't retroactively test and license them.Besides , Microsoft would never have been allowed online .
Does anyone remember their " the internet is a fad " stance ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The idiots are already online.
We can't retroactively test and license them.Besides, Microsoft would never have been allowed online.
Does anyone remember their "the internet is a fad" stance?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029928</id>
	<title>Questions</title>
	<author>bXTr</author>
	<datestamp>1265294460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Civil rights issues aside, there are other questions about this "proposal". <ul> <li>What authority would be responsible for issuing these licenses?</li><li>What are the criteria one would have to pass when obtaining a license?</li><li>Assuming one would have to pay a fee for the license (nothing is free in this world), how much would one have to pay?</li><li>What exactly would the monies collected in license fees be used for?</li><li>What authority would be responsible for policing and enforcement of being licensed?</li><li>What would be the benefit to the licensee? What would we get in return that we don't already have now?</li><li>How will the information being collected from licensees be safeguarded from abuse by those within and without the licensing authority?</li><li>If I'm traveling to another country, would the license be valid there, or would I need to obtain yet another license from that country?</li><li>What about businesses that allow Internet access to their employees? Would the individual license be valid at work, or would the company have to obtain its own license?</li><li>Would government agencies also be required to obtain licenses?</li></ul><p>
Those are only the few questions I could come up with in ten minutes time. There are certainly many more beyond these. I would like to hear Mr. Mundie's answers to these questions along with the complete plan for putting this into place. I'll wait.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Civil rights issues aside , there are other questions about this " proposal " .
What authority would be responsible for issuing these licenses ? What are the criteria one would have to pass when obtaining a license ? Assuming one would have to pay a fee for the license ( nothing is free in this world ) , how much would one have to pay ? What exactly would the monies collected in license fees be used for ? What authority would be responsible for policing and enforcement of being licensed ? What would be the benefit to the licensee ?
What would we get in return that we do n't already have now ? How will the information being collected from licensees be safeguarded from abuse by those within and without the licensing authority ? If I 'm traveling to another country , would the license be valid there , or would I need to obtain yet another license from that country ? What about businesses that allow Internet access to their employees ?
Would the individual license be valid at work , or would the company have to obtain its own license ? Would government agencies also be required to obtain licenses ?
Those are only the few questions I could come up with in ten minutes time .
There are certainly many more beyond these .
I would like to hear Mr. Mundie 's answers to these questions along with the complete plan for putting this into place .
I 'll wait .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Civil rights issues aside, there are other questions about this "proposal".
What authority would be responsible for issuing these licenses?What are the criteria one would have to pass when obtaining a license?Assuming one would have to pay a fee for the license (nothing is free in this world), how much would one have to pay?What exactly would the monies collected in license fees be used for?What authority would be responsible for policing and enforcement of being licensed?What would be the benefit to the licensee?
What would we get in return that we don't already have now?How will the information being collected from licensees be safeguarded from abuse by those within and without the licensing authority?If I'm traveling to another country, would the license be valid there, or would I need to obtain yet another license from that country?What about businesses that allow Internet access to their employees?
Would the individual license be valid at work, or would the company have to obtain its own license?Would government agencies also be required to obtain licenses?
Those are only the few questions I could come up with in ten minutes time.
There are certainly many more beyond these.
I would like to hear Mr. Mundie's answers to these questions along with the complete plan for putting this into place.
I'll wait.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31032418</id>
	<title>Re:If you drunk e-mail...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265362980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Interestingly, this is the exact opposite of Open Source, or perhaps Wikipedia.</i></p><p>Have you BEEN to wikipedia lately?</p><p>The moderators there LOVE control.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interestingly , this is the exact opposite of Open Source , or perhaps Wikipedia.Have you BEEN to wikipedia lately ? The moderators there LOVE control .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interestingly, this is the exact opposite of Open Source, or perhaps Wikipedia.Have you BEEN to wikipedia lately?The moderators there LOVE control.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030026</id>
	<title>Terrible Analogy</title>
	<author>meheler</author>
	<datestamp>1265295300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is there any fool out there who would actually buy this awful argument?</p><p>Here, I have made one up too: We should have licenses for eating! After all, we need licenses to drive. And there are fat people in the world.</p><p>NON SEQUITUR.<br>IT. DOES. NOT. FOLLOW.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there any fool out there who would actually buy this awful argument ? Here , I have made one up too : We should have licenses for eating !
After all , we need licenses to drive .
And there are fat people in the world.NON SEQUITUR.IT .
DOES. NOT .
FOLLOW .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there any fool out there who would actually buy this awful argument?Here, I have made one up too: We should have licenses for eating!
After all, we need licenses to drive.
And there are fat people in the world.NON SEQUITUR.IT.
DOES. NOT.
FOLLOW.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030366</id>
	<title>Re:From the email cited</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265298600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Never attribute to stupidity what can be explained by malice.</p><p>You're not in the business of government, are you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Never attribute to stupidity what can be explained by malice.You 're not in the business of government , are you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Never attribute to stupidity what can be explained by malice.You're not in the business of government, are you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029562</id>
	<title>I agree</title>
	<author>JumpDrive</author>
	<datestamp>1265292240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>You should have to have a license to operate Windows.  Any other OS you don't need one.  Licensing should be issued by the nearest LUG for a small fee.<br>
<br>
What the hell is this bonehead talking about?  They have a 90\% market share.  Just make up a required course that people must take to buy your software and be done with it.  Or make it so that IE doesn't work unless you have used a smart card that reads your license.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You should have to have a license to operate Windows .
Any other OS you do n't need one .
Licensing should be issued by the nearest LUG for a small fee .
What the hell is this bonehead talking about ?
They have a 90 \ % market share .
Just make up a required course that people must take to buy your software and be done with it .
Or make it so that IE does n't work unless you have used a smart card that reads your license .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You should have to have a license to operate Windows.
Any other OS you don't need one.
Licensing should be issued by the nearest LUG for a small fee.
What the hell is this bonehead talking about?
They have a 90\% market share.
Just make up a required course that people must take to buy your software and be done with it.
Or make it so that IE doesn't work unless you have used a smart card that reads your license.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31032586</id>
	<title>Re:Marketing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265365380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You sir, are the definition of a douche.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You sir , are the definition of a douche .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You sir, are the definition of a douche.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31032068</id>
	<title>Re:If you drunk e-mail...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265400600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Easier to have a Windows licence. That would keep a lot of the incompetent off the alleged information superhighway. Hmmm. Now how do we sell them Windows but not let them use it...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Easier to have a Windows licence .
That would keep a lot of the incompetent off the alleged information superhighway .
Hmmm. Now how do we sell them Windows but not let them use it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Easier to have a Windows licence.
That would keep a lot of the incompetent off the alleged information superhighway.
Hmmm. Now how do we sell them Windows but not let them use it...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029642</id>
	<title>Don't become South Korea</title>
	<author>BlueFiberOptics</author>
	<datestamp>1265292540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>As much as I like to joke that some people need licenses to operate a computer or use the Internet, this would be a bad thing.  We'd all end up with license numbers and sites would start to require us to register with those numbers if we wanted to use those services.

For many Internet-based services in Korea, you must enter a citizen ID.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As much as I like to joke that some people need licenses to operate a computer or use the Internet , this would be a bad thing .
We 'd all end up with license numbers and sites would start to require us to register with those numbers if we wanted to use those services .
For many Internet-based services in Korea , you must enter a citizen ID .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As much as I like to joke that some people need licenses to operate a computer or use the Internet, this would be a bad thing.
We'd all end up with license numbers and sites would start to require us to register with those numbers if we wanted to use those services.
For many Internet-based services in Korea, you must enter a citizen ID.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31031846</id>
	<title>What about youth?</title>
	<author>nightfire-unique</author>
	<datestamp>1265311500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I presume that youths will be denied licenses to the Internet.</p><p>Contrary to what the idiot think-of-the-children crowd would have you believe, young people are thinking humans, and need access to the Internet to learn and communicate.  That all they think about is porn is a testament to how shallow and ignorant they are, and it is the children of these people who need 'net access the most.</p><p>A nation that bans is minors from the 'net will not be able to compete on the world stage in 20 years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I presume that youths will be denied licenses to the Internet.Contrary to what the idiot think-of-the-children crowd would have you believe , young people are thinking humans , and need access to the Internet to learn and communicate .
That all they think about is porn is a testament to how shallow and ignorant they are , and it is the children of these people who need 'net access the most.A nation that bans is minors from the 'net will not be able to compete on the world stage in 20 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I presume that youths will be denied licenses to the Internet.Contrary to what the idiot think-of-the-children crowd would have you believe, young people are thinking humans, and need access to the Internet to learn and communicate.
That all they think about is porn is a testament to how shallow and ignorant they are, and it is the children of these people who need 'net access the most.A nation that bans is minors from the 'net will not be able to compete on the world stage in 20 years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31032438</id>
	<title>Ehr, its easier to change computers.</title>
	<author>miffo.swe</author>
	<datestamp>1265363280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Instead of trying to make everyone using the internet some kind of security expert perhaps its time to make computers handle more of the security decisions?</p><p>If the OS vendor cant make a good judgement, how could a normal user? A geek can, but here we have millions of users who want to do stuff, not act all computer technician.</p><p>Google has gotten it right with the specs and design docs for Google Chrome OS. They explicitly state the goal of the OS taking all the hard decisions and acting as a safety net should the user do stupid things. Thats how Windows should have been built instead of Windows UAC that dumps even more decisions onto the user. An internet license is just a way to further force the users to learn stuff the OS vendor should have solved years ago. Its also every suppressing states wet dream to be able to control who will be let onto the net and not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Instead of trying to make everyone using the internet some kind of security expert perhaps its time to make computers handle more of the security decisions ? If the OS vendor cant make a good judgement , how could a normal user ?
A geek can , but here we have millions of users who want to do stuff , not act all computer technician.Google has gotten it right with the specs and design docs for Google Chrome OS .
They explicitly state the goal of the OS taking all the hard decisions and acting as a safety net should the user do stupid things .
Thats how Windows should have been built instead of Windows UAC that dumps even more decisions onto the user .
An internet license is just a way to further force the users to learn stuff the OS vendor should have solved years ago .
Its also every suppressing states wet dream to be able to control who will be let onto the net and not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Instead of trying to make everyone using the internet some kind of security expert perhaps its time to make computers handle more of the security decisions?If the OS vendor cant make a good judgement, how could a normal user?
A geek can, but here we have millions of users who want to do stuff, not act all computer technician.Google has gotten it right with the specs and design docs for Google Chrome OS.
They explicitly state the goal of the OS taking all the hard decisions and acting as a safety net should the user do stupid things.
Thats how Windows should have been built instead of Windows UAC that dumps even more decisions onto the user.
An internet license is just a way to further force the users to learn stuff the OS vendor should have solved years ago.
Its also every suppressing states wet dream to be able to control who will be let onto the net and not.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030112</id>
	<title>This just in:</title>
	<author>uvajed\_ekil</author>
	<datestamp>1265295960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The people of the internet want Craig Mundie to STFU. But they will consider his whiny suggestion if he does in fact STFU and agrees never to apply for a license. They thought the internet was free, as in you are free to make an ass out of yourself, just as he does in real life.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The people of the internet want Craig Mundie to STFU .
But they will consider his whiny suggestion if he does in fact STFU and agrees never to apply for a license .
They thought the internet was free , as in you are free to make an ass out of yourself , just as he does in real life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The people of the internet want Craig Mundie to STFU.
But they will consider his whiny suggestion if he does in fact STFU and agrees never to apply for a license.
They thought the internet was free, as in you are free to make an ass out of yourself, just as he does in real life.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029586</id>
	<title>Call for a license to propose ideas.</title>
	<author>Betaemacs</author>
	<datestamp>1265292300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>'If you want to propose ideas you have to have a license to say that you are capable of forming coherent thoughts, your brain has to pass a test to show it is fit to operate your mouth properly and you have to have insurance.'</htmltext>
<tokenext>'If you want to propose ideas you have to have a license to say that you are capable of forming coherent thoughts , your brain has to pass a test to show it is fit to operate your mouth properly and you have to have insurance .
'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'If you want to propose ideas you have to have a license to say that you are capable of forming coherent thoughts, your brain has to pass a test to show it is fit to operate your mouth properly and you have to have insurance.
'</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31031526</id>
	<title>Re:If you drunk e-mail...</title>
	<author>mirix</author>
	<datestamp>1265308260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Using "u" and "ur" should be subject to summary execution.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Using " u " and " ur " should be subject to summary execution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Using "u" and "ur" should be subject to summary execution.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029822</id>
	<title>Marketing</title>
	<author>EmperorOfCanada</author>
	<datestamp>1265293620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This sounds like a marketing person annoyed that nearly everyone who is forced to fill out their stupid forms to get some needed content is telling Microsoft that they are 98 year old Afghan woman with an income over $100,000.
I love power-tripping types like this: Lifeguards who seem to think that they are there to do anything but pull drunks out of the water. Police who think that they are there to do anything but pull drunks off their girlfriends. TSA people who think they are there to do anything but smell my feet. Politicians who think that elected office doesn't mean that they are really just failed real-estate people. Hall monitors who think they are popular. Waiters who think they have earned a tip by interrupting my conversation to see if everything is all right. Oh and failed programmers who think that by dragging their "Team" into meetings is the road to a great product. But I digress. Would an internet driver's license make the internet a better place? And more importantly who would collect the money for the licensing? That sounds like a monopoly that they could milk for decades longer than their slowly dying OS / Text editor business.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This sounds like a marketing person annoyed that nearly everyone who is forced to fill out their stupid forms to get some needed content is telling Microsoft that they are 98 year old Afghan woman with an income over $ 100,000 .
I love power-tripping types like this : Lifeguards who seem to think that they are there to do anything but pull drunks out of the water .
Police who think that they are there to do anything but pull drunks off their girlfriends .
TSA people who think they are there to do anything but smell my feet .
Politicians who think that elected office does n't mean that they are really just failed real-estate people .
Hall monitors who think they are popular .
Waiters who think they have earned a tip by interrupting my conversation to see if everything is all right .
Oh and failed programmers who think that by dragging their " Team " into meetings is the road to a great product .
But I digress .
Would an internet driver 's license make the internet a better place ?
And more importantly who would collect the money for the licensing ?
That sounds like a monopoly that they could milk for decades longer than their slowly dying OS / Text editor business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This sounds like a marketing person annoyed that nearly everyone who is forced to fill out their stupid forms to get some needed content is telling Microsoft that they are 98 year old Afghan woman with an income over $100,000.
I love power-tripping types like this: Lifeguards who seem to think that they are there to do anything but pull drunks out of the water.
Police who think that they are there to do anything but pull drunks off their girlfriends.
TSA people who think they are there to do anything but smell my feet.
Politicians who think that elected office doesn't mean that they are really just failed real-estate people.
Hall monitors who think they are popular.
Waiters who think they have earned a tip by interrupting my conversation to see if everything is all right.
Oh and failed programmers who think that by dragging their "Team" into meetings is the road to a great product.
But I digress.
Would an internet driver's license make the internet a better place?
And more importantly who would collect the money for the licensing?
That sounds like a monopoly that they could milk for decades longer than their slowly dying OS / Text editor business.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31032078</id>
	<title>craig mundie is a carnt</title>
	<author>rico13</author>
	<datestamp>1265400840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Craig Mundie is a f**king c**k sucker</htmltext>
<tokenext>Craig Mundie is a f * * king c * * k sucker</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Craig Mundie is a f**king c**k sucker</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030182</id>
	<title>Stupid idea of the year award</title>
	<author>kheldan</author>
	<datestamp>1265296620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey, I know! We can tattoo it on the backs of people's necks! Seriously, somebody put this asshole up against a brick wall and give him a 21-gun salute.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , I know !
We can tattoo it on the backs of people 's necks !
Seriously , somebody put this asshole up against a brick wall and give him a 21-gun salute .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, I know!
We can tattoo it on the backs of people's necks!
Seriously, somebody put this asshole up against a brick wall and give him a 21-gun salute.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030136</id>
	<title>Let's tell it like it really is</title>
	<author>taustin</author>
	<datestamp>1265296200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft doesn't want you to have to have a license to use the internet. Microsoft wants you to have to <em>pay them</em> for a license to use the internet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft does n't want you to have to have a license to use the internet .
Microsoft wants you to have to pay them for a license to use the internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft doesn't want you to have to have a license to use the internet.
Microsoft wants you to have to pay them for a license to use the internet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030204</id>
	<title>Re:we need a law?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265296920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's the same principle as stun guns and sticky goop.  You aren't going to jump out of a helicopter in Iraq and law down the non-lethals.</p><p>They do this to use it on you, the law abiding citizen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's the same principle as stun guns and sticky goop .
You are n't going to jump out of a helicopter in Iraq and law down the non-lethals.They do this to use it on you , the law abiding citizen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's the same principle as stun guns and sticky goop.
You aren't going to jump out of a helicopter in Iraq and law down the non-lethals.They do this to use it on you, the law abiding citizen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030122</id>
	<title>Not surprised</title>
	<author>Neotrantor</author>
	<datestamp>1265296080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>After reading in the times today about the abysmal culture at MS, shit like this coming from an exec of any kind does not surprise me.

<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/04/opinion/04brass.html?th=&amp;emc=th&amp;pagewanted=all" title="nytimes.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/04/opinion/04brass.html?th=&amp;emc=th&amp;pagewanted=all</a> [nytimes.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>After reading in the times today about the abysmal culture at MS , shit like this coming from an exec of any kind does not surprise me .
http : //www.nytimes.com/2010/02/04/opinion/04brass.html ? th = &amp;emc = th&amp;pagewanted = all [ nytimes.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After reading in the times today about the abysmal culture at MS, shit like this coming from an exec of any kind does not surprise me.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/04/opinion/04brass.html?th=&amp;emc=th&amp;pagewanted=all [nytimes.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31035222</id>
	<title>Death &amp; Dismemberment by proxy (server) perhap</title>
	<author>Orbijx</author>
	<datestamp>1265389560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Of course, there are quite a few problems with this. For starters, internet use cannot yet cause death or dismemberment like car accidents can...</p></div><p>He has obviously not seen a man leaning over into the passenger seat of his car, furtively stabbing away at his laptop's keyboard while driving in rush hour traffic.<br>If that man had a mobile broadband card in that computer, and is busy trying to pull up a playlist on blip.fm/last.fm/pandora.com, and he manages to rear-end a mini-van in front of him that came to a sudden stop for whatever reason... and the kids in the back seat aren't buckled in, PLUS the airbags fail to deploy...</p><p>You've got a kid rocketing through a windshield to his death and possible dismemberment.</p><p>I'm sure there are better scenarios, but I have witnessed the man leaning to stab a laptop in the passenger seat. In the case I witnessed, it was just a smash of the rear bumper of the car in front of him at around 5-8 miles per hour. I can only imagine the results at 8 times that speed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , there are quite a few problems with this .
For starters , internet use can not yet cause death or dismemberment like car accidents can...He has obviously not seen a man leaning over into the passenger seat of his car , furtively stabbing away at his laptop 's keyboard while driving in rush hour traffic.If that man had a mobile broadband card in that computer , and is busy trying to pull up a playlist on blip.fm/last.fm/pandora.com , and he manages to rear-end a mini-van in front of him that came to a sudden stop for whatever reason... and the kids in the back seat are n't buckled in , PLUS the airbags fail to deploy...You 've got a kid rocketing through a windshield to his death and possible dismemberment.I 'm sure there are better scenarios , but I have witnessed the man leaning to stab a laptop in the passenger seat .
In the case I witnessed , it was just a smash of the rear bumper of the car in front of him at around 5-8 miles per hour .
I can only imagine the results at 8 times that speed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, there are quite a few problems with this.
For starters, internet use cannot yet cause death or dismemberment like car accidents can...He has obviously not seen a man leaning over into the passenger seat of his car, furtively stabbing away at his laptop's keyboard while driving in rush hour traffic.If that man had a mobile broadband card in that computer, and is busy trying to pull up a playlist on blip.fm/last.fm/pandora.com, and he manages to rear-end a mini-van in front of him that came to a sudden stop for whatever reason... and the kids in the back seat aren't buckled in, PLUS the airbags fail to deploy...You've got a kid rocketing through a windshield to his death and possible dismemberment.I'm sure there are better scenarios, but I have witnessed the man leaning to stab a laptop in the passenger seat.
In the case I witnessed, it was just a smash of the rear bumper of the car in front of him at around 5-8 miles per hour.
I can only imagine the results at 8 times that speed.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030046</id>
	<title>What is so wrong with the system we currently use?</title>
	<author>Rivalz</author>
	<datestamp>1265295480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is crime so rampant? Are people dying daily?
If it is in regards to internet security why don't they make a separate infrastructure banking and other critical systems.
Require a license / physical one time password keys or whatever for area's of intense security.

The day the make my girlfriend apply for a license so she can play some stupid facebook game is the day we move out of this country.
Some things are just too important to sacrifice.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is crime so rampant ?
Are people dying daily ?
If it is in regards to internet security why do n't they make a separate infrastructure banking and other critical systems .
Require a license / physical one time password keys or whatever for area 's of intense security .
The day the make my girlfriend apply for a license so she can play some stupid facebook game is the day we move out of this country .
Some things are just too important to sacrifice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is crime so rampant?
Are people dying daily?
If it is in regards to internet security why don't they make a separate infrastructure banking and other critical systems.
Require a license / physical one time password keys or whatever for area's of intense security.
The day the make my girlfriend apply for a license so she can play some stupid facebook game is the day we move out of this country.
Some things are just too important to sacrifice.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31031670</id>
	<title>This idea is so flawed where do I begin?</title>
	<author>merc</author>
	<datestamp>1265309520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm almost willing to believe this was a statement Mundie made that falls in one of the following categories:</p><p>* It was a joke</p><p>* It was a statement taken out of context</p><p>* A bad joke taken out of context</p><p>If this is something Mundie is serious about then this is a frightening insight into how Microsoft folks think. Besides being an outright assault onto the First Amendment there's so many arguments against this that it seems like a harmless strawman argument.</p><p>It's significant to note that Microsoft are probably largely responsible for introducing the hordes of clueless newbies onto the Internet -- moreso than any other factor, EVEN AOL. Given their culpability in this mess I have a suggestion, an amendment to their idea if you will:</p><p>A mandatory Internet-use license that is ONLY compulsary if you are a Microsoft Windows end user.</p><p>Lets see how much Microsoft likes the "Internet License" idea then.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm almost willing to believe this was a statement Mundie made that falls in one of the following categories : * It was a joke * It was a statement taken out of context * A bad joke taken out of contextIf this is something Mundie is serious about then this is a frightening insight into how Microsoft folks think .
Besides being an outright assault onto the First Amendment there 's so many arguments against this that it seems like a harmless strawman argument.It 's significant to note that Microsoft are probably largely responsible for introducing the hordes of clueless newbies onto the Internet -- moreso than any other factor , EVEN AOL .
Given their culpability in this mess I have a suggestion , an amendment to their idea if you will : A mandatory Internet-use license that is ONLY compulsary if you are a Microsoft Windows end user.Lets see how much Microsoft likes the " Internet License " idea then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm almost willing to believe this was a statement Mundie made that falls in one of the following categories:* It was a joke* It was a statement taken out of context* A bad joke taken out of contextIf this is something Mundie is serious about then this is a frightening insight into how Microsoft folks think.
Besides being an outright assault onto the First Amendment there's so many arguments against this that it seems like a harmless strawman argument.It's significant to note that Microsoft are probably largely responsible for introducing the hordes of clueless newbies onto the Internet -- moreso than any other factor, EVEN AOL.
Given their culpability in this mess I have a suggestion, an amendment to their idea if you will:A mandatory Internet-use license that is ONLY compulsary if you are a Microsoft Windows end user.Lets see how much Microsoft likes the "Internet License" idea then.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31033568</id>
	<title>Fascism</title>
	<author>pubwvj</author>
	<datestamp>1265378760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mundie is one more fascist attempting to gain more control over our lives.<br>What will they want next, a license to garden, to reproduce, to breath...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mundie is one more fascist attempting to gain more control over our lives.What will they want next , a license to garden , to reproduce , to breath.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mundie is one more fascist attempting to gain more control over our lives.What will they want next, a license to garden, to reproduce, to breath...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030608</id>
	<title>Re:Windows not road ready</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265300820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wait a damn minute there. APPLE is the one who introduced the idea of "Developers Licenses"! So Microsoft talks about it but Apple is ALREADY IMPLEMENTING IT! Try to program something for an iPhone...oh didn't pay for your "developers license" well then you can't sell your software!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait a damn minute there .
APPLE is the one who introduced the idea of " Developers Licenses " !
So Microsoft talks about it but Apple is ALREADY IMPLEMENTING IT !
Try to program something for an iPhone...oh did n't pay for your " developers license " well then you ca n't sell your software !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait a damn minute there.
APPLE is the one who introduced the idea of "Developers Licenses"!
So Microsoft talks about it but Apple is ALREADY IMPLEMENTING IT!
Try to program something for an iPhone...oh didn't pay for your "developers license" well then you can't sell your software!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030516</id>
	<title>Re:Cui Bono?</title>
	<author>drooling-dog</author>
	<datestamp>1265300100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I imagine that the license would come bundled with the proprietary closed-source operating system of your choice, at no additional cost (premium versions only).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I imagine that the license would come bundled with the proprietary closed-source operating system of your choice , at no additional cost ( premium versions only ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I imagine that the license would come bundled with the proprietary closed-source operating system of your choice, at no additional cost (premium versions only).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030502</id>
	<title>Re:Ham radio</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265299980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are dumb.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are dumb .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are dumb.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029434</id>
	<title>If you drunk e-mail...</title>
	<author>MrEricSir</author>
	<datestamp>1265291520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>will they take away your license?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>will they take away your license ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>will they take away your license?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030490</id>
	<title>Re:Just what I always wanted</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1265299860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Which brings up the question, if the test will include famous lolcat quotes, knowledge about goatse/tubgirl/etc, memes, 4chan, YouTube &ldquo;stars&rdquo;, etc... and most importantly... will be 99.9\% questions about porn topics. ^^</p><p>Ok, I did not expect some control freak lunatic like Craig Mundie to come up with something <em>realistic</em>...</p><p>Then again, nobody cares about him anyway. Ever. Especially from now on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which brings up the question , if the test will include famous lolcat quotes , knowledge about goatse/tubgirl/etc , memes , 4chan , YouTube    stars    , etc... and most importantly... will be 99.9 \ % questions about porn topics .
^ ^ Ok , I did not expect some control freak lunatic like Craig Mundie to come up with something realistic...Then again , nobody cares about him anyway .
Ever. Especially from now on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which brings up the question, if the test will include famous lolcat quotes, knowledge about goatse/tubgirl/etc, memes, 4chan, YouTube “stars”, etc... and most importantly... will be 99.9\% questions about porn topics.
^^Ok, I did not expect some control freak lunatic like Craig Mundie to come up with something realistic...Then again, nobody cares about him anyway.
Ever. Especially from now on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31033630</id>
	<title>Re:Cui Bono?</title>
	<author>paragon1</author>
	<datestamp>1265379300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Customer: So, what do I need to do?<br>Mundie:  Sign this document.  And pay us $500.<br>Customer:<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....And if I refuse?<br>Mundie:  Well, you may have noticed all the chairs in here are rather heavy...<br>Ballmer:  Sign the document.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Customer : So , what do I need to do ? Mundie : Sign this document .
And pay us $ 500.Customer : ....And if I refuse ? Mundie : Well , you may have noticed all the chairs in here are rather heavy...Ballmer : Sign the document .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Customer: So, what do I need to do?Mundie:  Sign this document.
And pay us $500.Customer: ....And if I refuse?Mundie:  Well, you may have noticed all the chairs in here are rather heavy...Ballmer:  Sign the document.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31044370</id>
	<title>Re:Licenses?</title>
	<author>MacWiz</author>
	<datestamp>1265454480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is like Toyota trying to ask for more driver responsibility this week, if they were stupid enough to do such a thing.</p><p>We need licenses, eh? Okay, as long as we get to make MS recall IE because it's an unsafe vehicle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is like Toyota trying to ask for more driver responsibility this week , if they were stupid enough to do such a thing.We need licenses , eh ?
Okay , as long as we get to make MS recall IE because it 's an unsafe vehicle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is like Toyota trying to ask for more driver responsibility this week, if they were stupid enough to do such a thing.We need licenses, eh?
Okay, as long as we get to make MS recall IE because it's an unsafe vehicle.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029840</id>
	<title>Re:we need a law?</title>
	<author>GreatBunzinni</author>
	<datestamp>1265293800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More importantly, this measure is not targeted at "bad guys".  When some idiot such as this Craig Mundie speaks about this concept of the "internet driver's license", what he is campaigning for is the ability to not only identify everyone who uses the internet but also the convenience of having any state's repressive power to ban anyone from the internet who disrespected any arbitrary rule these fools are trying to impose on the rest of the world.  And the thing is, we aren't talking about criminal acts, as these are already punished by imprisonment.  This sort of measure is intended to open the door for the ability to inflict arbitrary punishment on those who do not follow rules set forth by righteous idiots who believe they know better than the stupid masses.</p><p>But hey, let's call it "driver's license", as it's a very convenient term to associate with this oppressive measure as it's widely regarded by society as banal government grant.  This sort of totalitarian measure desperately needs a cuddly face to be able to fly.  Let's not mention what it really is: a corporate-tailored totalitarian attack on individual freedom intended to punish non-criminal acts which are frowned upon corporate execs such as mr Craig Mundie.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More importantly , this measure is not targeted at " bad guys " .
When some idiot such as this Craig Mundie speaks about this concept of the " internet driver 's license " , what he is campaigning for is the ability to not only identify everyone who uses the internet but also the convenience of having any state 's repressive power to ban anyone from the internet who disrespected any arbitrary rule these fools are trying to impose on the rest of the world .
And the thing is , we are n't talking about criminal acts , as these are already punished by imprisonment .
This sort of measure is intended to open the door for the ability to inflict arbitrary punishment on those who do not follow rules set forth by righteous idiots who believe they know better than the stupid masses.But hey , let 's call it " driver 's license " , as it 's a very convenient term to associate with this oppressive measure as it 's widely regarded by society as banal government grant .
This sort of totalitarian measure desperately needs a cuddly face to be able to fly .
Let 's not mention what it really is : a corporate-tailored totalitarian attack on individual freedom intended to punish non-criminal acts which are frowned upon corporate execs such as mr Craig Mundie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More importantly, this measure is not targeted at "bad guys".
When some idiot such as this Craig Mundie speaks about this concept of the "internet driver's license", what he is campaigning for is the ability to not only identify everyone who uses the internet but also the convenience of having any state's repressive power to ban anyone from the internet who disrespected any arbitrary rule these fools are trying to impose on the rest of the world.
And the thing is, we aren't talking about criminal acts, as these are already punished by imprisonment.
This sort of measure is intended to open the door for the ability to inflict arbitrary punishment on those who do not follow rules set forth by righteous idiots who believe they know better than the stupid masses.But hey, let's call it "driver's license", as it's a very convenient term to associate with this oppressive measure as it's widely regarded by society as banal government grant.
This sort of totalitarian measure desperately needs a cuddly face to be able to fly.
Let's not mention what it really is: a corporate-tailored totalitarian attack on individual freedom intended to punish non-criminal acts which are frowned upon corporate execs such as mr Craig Mundie.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029786</id>
	<title>SOMEBODY CALL THE INTERNET POLICE</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265293440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just had a packet collision!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just had a packet collision !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just had a packet collision!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030422</id>
	<title>Re:Licences for OS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265299200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Something similar came to my mind reading this article too...</p><p>How should any engineer at microsoft should receive that license with the performance they have shown in the last 30 years.... not to forget the ceo's and other types there, which will be completely lost?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Something similar came to my mind reading this article too...How should any engineer at microsoft should receive that license with the performance they have shown in the last 30 years.... not to forget the ceo 's and other types there , which will be completely lost ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Something similar came to my mind reading this article too...How should any engineer at microsoft should receive that license with the performance they have shown in the last 30 years.... not to forget the ceo's and other types there, which will be completely lost?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030300</id>
	<title>Re:OK, I see some value in here</title>
	<author>3.14159265</author>
	<datestamp>1265297940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Quite right!<br>
And:<br>

"If you want to drive a car you have to have a license to say that you are <b>capable of driving a car</b>"<br> <br>

Really, when did this happen?
Any 15min driving in any major traffic area contradicts this immediately.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Quite right !
And : " If you want to drive a car you have to have a license to say that you are capable of driving a car " Really , when did this happen ?
Any 15min driving in any major traffic area contradicts this immediately .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quite right!
And:

"If you want to drive a car you have to have a license to say that you are capable of driving a car" 

Really, when did this happen?
Any 15min driving in any major traffic area contradicts this immediately.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030310</id>
	<title>Re:Licences for OS</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1265298000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Perhaps the licences should be handed out to Operating Systems based on<br>&gt; compliance with web standards... I wonder if MS Windows would be given one?</p><p>An absolute requirement would be that the OS (pre-installed on the pc) be supplied by a "reputable" company.  Windows 7 would be grandfathered.  No others need apply (well, OSX might get a learner's permit).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Perhaps the licences should be handed out to Operating Systems based on &gt; compliance with web standards... I wonder if MS Windows would be given one ? An absolute requirement would be that the OS ( pre-installed on the pc ) be supplied by a " reputable " company .
Windows 7 would be grandfathered .
No others need apply ( well , OSX might get a learner 's permit ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Perhaps the licences should be handed out to Operating Systems based on&gt; compliance with web standards... I wonder if MS Windows would be given one?An absolute requirement would be that the OS (pre-installed on the pc) be supplied by a "reputable" company.
Windows 7 would be grandfathered.
No others need apply (well, OSX might get a learner's permit).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31032012</id>
	<title>Tinfoil hats ready?</title>
	<author>w0mprat</author>
	<datestamp>1265313420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Mundie and other experts have said there is a growing need to police the internet to clampdown on fraud, espionage and the spread of viruses." - From TFA
<br> <br>
A bit rich coming from the worlds largest purveyor virus vulnerable software, almost single handedly responsible for the back doors that enable the above three threats. Rampant viruses are a feature of the Microsoft software environment, and not any other.
<br> <br>
It sometimes makes me wonder (while tightening my tinfoil hat) if this is suspiciously convenient, as part of a plan to introduce a cyber police state. Ok, for sure, there are lots of interested parties out there pushing for this kind of thing - even quite overtly. Problem is though, for any such plan you need to have the worlds largest operating system vendor on side, which it seems, they do.
<br> <br>
Microsoft has no interest and now no reason to get it's security sorted out.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Mundie and other experts have said there is a growing need to police the internet to clampdown on fraud , espionage and the spread of viruses .
" - From TFA A bit rich coming from the worlds largest purveyor virus vulnerable software , almost single handedly responsible for the back doors that enable the above three threats .
Rampant viruses are a feature of the Microsoft software environment , and not any other .
It sometimes makes me wonder ( while tightening my tinfoil hat ) if this is suspiciously convenient , as part of a plan to introduce a cyber police state .
Ok , for sure , there are lots of interested parties out there pushing for this kind of thing - even quite overtly .
Problem is though , for any such plan you need to have the worlds largest operating system vendor on side , which it seems , they do .
Microsoft has no interest and now no reason to get it 's security sorted out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Mundie and other experts have said there is a growing need to police the internet to clampdown on fraud, espionage and the spread of viruses.
" - From TFA
 
A bit rich coming from the worlds largest purveyor virus vulnerable software, almost single handedly responsible for the back doors that enable the above three threats.
Rampant viruses are a feature of the Microsoft software environment, and not any other.
It sometimes makes me wonder (while tightening my tinfoil hat) if this is suspiciously convenient, as part of a plan to introduce a cyber police state.
Ok, for sure, there are lots of interested parties out there pushing for this kind of thing - even quite overtly.
Problem is though, for any such plan you need to have the worlds largest operating system vendor on side, which it seems, they do.
Microsoft has no interest and now no reason to get it's security sorted out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030866</id>
	<title>Cool! Built car analogy.</title>
	<author>countertrolling</author>
	<datestamp>1265303220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So then, what's the internet equivalent of driving down the (information) highway with your blinkers on? Will there be a vision test? Can I use my RIAADAR detector?</p><p>Gotta love Microsoft. They can't control themselves, so they need to control the users to cover up. It's like saying a 55mph speed limit is the solution for cars that blow up at 60.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So then , what 's the internet equivalent of driving down the ( information ) highway with your blinkers on ?
Will there be a vision test ?
Can I use my RIAADAR detector ? Got ta love Microsoft .
They ca n't control themselves , so they need to control the users to cover up .
It 's like saying a 55mph speed limit is the solution for cars that blow up at 60 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So then, what's the internet equivalent of driving down the (information) highway with your blinkers on?
Will there be a vision test?
Can I use my RIAADAR detector?Gotta love Microsoft.
They can't control themselves, so they need to control the users to cover up.
It's like saying a 55mph speed limit is the solution for cars that blow up at 60.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030324</id>
	<title>OS restriction and pervasive DRM</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265298120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They won't get away with Windows-only, but they could require that you get your OS from a certified vendor. For the Linux crowd that means Red Hat Enterprise Linux ($$$) and friends.</p><p>They could require some sort of DRM, perhaps with crypto signing that covers everything from the boot loader (checked by BIOS) down to the apps (only signed apps can make network connections).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They wo n't get away with Windows-only , but they could require that you get your OS from a certified vendor .
For the Linux crowd that means Red Hat Enterprise Linux ( $ $ $ ) and friends.They could require some sort of DRM , perhaps with crypto signing that covers everything from the boot loader ( checked by BIOS ) down to the apps ( only signed apps can make network connections ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They won't get away with Windows-only, but they could require that you get your OS from a certified vendor.
For the Linux crowd that means Red Hat Enterprise Linux ($$$) and friends.They could require some sort of DRM, perhaps with crypto signing that covers everything from the boot loader (checked by BIOS) down to the apps (only signed apps can make network connections).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029532</id>
	<title>1984 is not a manual</title>
	<author>afidel</author>
	<datestamp>1265292000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>It was supposed to be a tale of warning about the pitfalls of technology and big government, not a roadmap for where we should be heading. I swear there's a certain class of people that don't understand that concept or maybe they do and they just really hope they get to be the masters pet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It was supposed to be a tale of warning about the pitfalls of technology and big government , not a roadmap for where we should be heading .
I swear there 's a certain class of people that do n't understand that concept or maybe they do and they just really hope they get to be the masters pet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was supposed to be a tale of warning about the pitfalls of technology and big government, not a roadmap for where we should be heading.
I swear there's a certain class of people that don't understand that concept or maybe they do and they just really hope they get to be the masters pet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030774</id>
	<title>Re:OK, I see some value in here</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1265302440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>So what if the government issued an "Internet ID Card", with PKI Certs, etc, that would be used to secure email, transactions, etc? This is by no means a panacea, but as a factor in 2-factor ID, it might well cut down on some forms of malware.</i></p><p>I thought about pushing this in the 90's, but in the end people just hate that.  Unless you're going to mandate that nobody can send anonymous traffic at all, then people will still send anonymous messages.</p><p>Nothing prevents you from getting a CACert Web of Trust certificate now, if you want to start doing this kind of thing with your friends and family.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So what if the government issued an " Internet ID Card " , with PKI Certs , etc , that would be used to secure email , transactions , etc ?
This is by no means a panacea , but as a factor in 2-factor ID , it might well cut down on some forms of malware.I thought about pushing this in the 90 's , but in the end people just hate that .
Unless you 're going to mandate that nobody can send anonymous traffic at all , then people will still send anonymous messages.Nothing prevents you from getting a CACert Web of Trust certificate now , if you want to start doing this kind of thing with your friends and family .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what if the government issued an "Internet ID Card", with PKI Certs, etc, that would be used to secure email, transactions, etc?
This is by no means a panacea, but as a factor in 2-factor ID, it might well cut down on some forms of malware.I thought about pushing this in the 90's, but in the end people just hate that.
Unless you're going to mandate that nobody can send anonymous traffic at all, then people will still send anonymous messages.Nothing prevents you from getting a CACert Web of Trust certificate now, if you want to start doing this kind of thing with your friends and family.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029544</id>
	<title>Translation</title>
	<author>Bill\_the\_Engineer</author>
	<datestamp>1265292120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Craig Mundie, Microsoft's Chief Research and Strategy Officer, called for the creation of an 'Internet Driver's License' at the World Economic Forum in Davos, saying, 'If you want to drive a car you have to have a license to say that you are capable of driving a car, the car has to pass a test to say it is fit to drive and you have to have insurance.'</p></div> </blockquote><p>In other words, Windows doesn't suck - The users do.
</p><p>The drivers license analogy is being used to shift some of the blame from the OS to its users.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Craig Mundie , Microsoft 's Chief Research and Strategy Officer , called for the creation of an 'Internet Driver 's License ' at the World Economic Forum in Davos , saying , 'If you want to drive a car you have to have a license to say that you are capable of driving a car , the car has to pass a test to say it is fit to drive and you have to have insurance .
' In other words , Windows does n't suck - The users do .
The drivers license analogy is being used to shift some of the blame from the OS to its users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Craig Mundie, Microsoft's Chief Research and Strategy Officer, called for the creation of an 'Internet Driver's License' at the World Economic Forum in Davos, saying, 'If you want to drive a car you have to have a license to say that you are capable of driving a car, the car has to pass a test to say it is fit to drive and you have to have insurance.
' In other words, Windows doesn't suck - The users do.
The drivers license analogy is being used to shift some of the blame from the OS to its users.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030334</id>
	<title>Re:If you drunk e-mail...</title>
	<author>rtb61</author>
	<datestamp>1265298240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> Why is the word 'licence' so reminiscent of the typical activities M$. I would guess that they also want the issuing and charging for internet access licences to be privatised, lest 'teh evil gubernment' have excessive control over who can and cannot access the internet. That should obviously be left up to the corporations whose greed would not allow them the opportunity to charge you the internet access licence fee, especially when the fee would be based upon all the costs of supervising internet access, including private jets to visit the cities with naughty internet users, to pay for luxury yachts needed for accommodation at the secluded locations where internet abusers like to hide and of course the luxury mega mansions 'er' private tax deductible office and accommodation complexes. </p><p> I am sure private corporations wouldn't use it as a opportunity to kick anyone off the internet that disagrees with the latest PR=B$ marketing campaign. Nah, they'd just settle for a guilty (any accusation from any corporation) until you prove yourself innocent (a few thousand dollar court appearance, a few months latter, at your own experience), 'er' whoops we wrong so (no penalty) sorry, kind of system, which of course would exclude corporation from being disconnected.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is the word 'licence ' so reminiscent of the typical activities M $ .
I would guess that they also want the issuing and charging for internet access licences to be privatised , lest 'teh evil gubernment ' have excessive control over who can and can not access the internet .
That should obviously be left up to the corporations whose greed would not allow them the opportunity to charge you the internet access licence fee , especially when the fee would be based upon all the costs of supervising internet access , including private jets to visit the cities with naughty internet users , to pay for luxury yachts needed for accommodation at the secluded locations where internet abusers like to hide and of course the luxury mega mansions 'er ' private tax deductible office and accommodation complexes .
I am sure private corporations would n't use it as a opportunity to kick anyone off the internet that disagrees with the latest PR = B $ marketing campaign .
Nah , they 'd just settle for a guilty ( any accusation from any corporation ) until you prove yourself innocent ( a few thousand dollar court appearance , a few months latter , at your own experience ) , 'er ' whoops we wrong so ( no penalty ) sorry , kind of system , which of course would exclude corporation from being disconnected .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Why is the word 'licence' so reminiscent of the typical activities M$.
I would guess that they also want the issuing and charging for internet access licences to be privatised, lest 'teh evil gubernment' have excessive control over who can and cannot access the internet.
That should obviously be left up to the corporations whose greed would not allow them the opportunity to charge you the internet access licence fee, especially when the fee would be based upon all the costs of supervising internet access, including private jets to visit the cities with naughty internet users, to pay for luxury yachts needed for accommodation at the secluded locations where internet abusers like to hide and of course the luxury mega mansions 'er' private tax deductible office and accommodation complexes.
I am sure private corporations wouldn't use it as a opportunity to kick anyone off the internet that disagrees with the latest PR=B$ marketing campaign.
Nah, they'd just settle for a guilty (any accusation from any corporation) until you prove yourself innocent (a few thousand dollar court appearance, a few months latter, at your own experience), 'er' whoops we wrong so (no penalty) sorry, kind of system, which of course would exclude corporation from being disconnected.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31033028</id>
	<title>Funny all this crap comes from commercial actors</title>
	<author>amn108</author>
	<datestamp>1265371440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is almost funny to think that all if not initiatives to "do something about Internet" come from commercial players. Non-profit players have absolutely no issue with Internet as it is. Because nobody but the commercial players has anything to loose, in fact for most of us Internet functions just fine. In fact, it is the commercial lousy security that in the first place created the market for the botnets that move around gigabytes of SPAM every hour. It is the commercial lousy security that exposes those "without a driving license" to all seeming dangers of Internet. They have everything to gain from such "final" solution - indirect user identification usable for all sorts of power abuse, decreased attack on their servers by botnets and less money thus spent on maintaining firewalls, and finally since big commerce and government like to pat each other on the back, they will be favoured by that very government, the latter also gaining a lot from the internet driving license implementation. Like I said, funny how all these idiotic initiatives come from commercial actors.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is almost funny to think that all if not initiatives to " do something about Internet " come from commercial players .
Non-profit players have absolutely no issue with Internet as it is .
Because nobody but the commercial players has anything to loose , in fact for most of us Internet functions just fine .
In fact , it is the commercial lousy security that in the first place created the market for the botnets that move around gigabytes of SPAM every hour .
It is the commercial lousy security that exposes those " without a driving license " to all seeming dangers of Internet .
They have everything to gain from such " final " solution - indirect user identification usable for all sorts of power abuse , decreased attack on their servers by botnets and less money thus spent on maintaining firewalls , and finally since big commerce and government like to pat each other on the back , they will be favoured by that very government , the latter also gaining a lot from the internet driving license implementation .
Like I said , funny how all these idiotic initiatives come from commercial actors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is almost funny to think that all if not initiatives to "do something about Internet" come from commercial players.
Non-profit players have absolutely no issue with Internet as it is.
Because nobody but the commercial players has anything to loose, in fact for most of us Internet functions just fine.
In fact, it is the commercial lousy security that in the first place created the market for the botnets that move around gigabytes of SPAM every hour.
It is the commercial lousy security that exposes those "without a driving license" to all seeming dangers of Internet.
They have everything to gain from such "final" solution - indirect user identification usable for all sorts of power abuse, decreased attack on their servers by botnets and less money thus spent on maintaining firewalls, and finally since big commerce and government like to pat each other on the back, they will be favoured by that very government, the latter also gaining a lot from the internet driving license implementation.
Like I said, funny how all these idiotic initiatives come from commercial actors.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030062</id>
	<title>People die driving;they don't die on the internets</title>
	<author>mykos</author>
	<datestamp>1265295600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I feel MORE secure when people are required to learn rules before they drive.  I feel LESS secure when the government decides who can and can't communicate.</p><p>I can understand a license to drive, but a license to communicate is stupid...no...it's scary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I feel MORE secure when people are required to learn rules before they drive .
I feel LESS secure when the government decides who can and ca n't communicate.I can understand a license to drive , but a license to communicate is stupid...no...it 's scary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I feel MORE secure when people are required to learn rules before they drive.
I feel LESS secure when the government decides who can and can't communicate.I can understand a license to drive, but a license to communicate is stupid...no...it's scary.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31032648</id>
	<title>Re:we need a law?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265366040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's about DRM.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's about DRM .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's about DRM.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030968</id>
	<title>Umm, welcome to school</title>
	<author>holophrastic</author>
	<datestamp>1265304120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not that I support academic education in any way, but since educating children is mandatory, and curriculums can easily include internet use these days, and you're not going to place a minimum age limit for the licence, isn't this already covered?  Grandfather in my grandfather, and teach your children.  This isn't complicated.  Quite frankly, I wouldn't mind if you did the same with actual driving -- make it a mandatory course in school.  On the list of skills to get you a job, driving is way above most things -- even above typing for most industries.  Certainly above calculus.</p><p>But really, topping the list of reasons why I don't support academic schooling is that there are only two certainties in life; academic schooling doesn't teach anyone how to do their taxes, yet absolutely everybody needs to do them at least once per year -- I have to do mine 25 times per year because my corporate taxes for two businesses are done monthly.  But I will say this for academic schooling: it certainly taught me how to drop dead -- though I've yet to put it to use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not that I support academic education in any way , but since educating children is mandatory , and curriculums can easily include internet use these days , and you 're not going to place a minimum age limit for the licence , is n't this already covered ?
Grandfather in my grandfather , and teach your children .
This is n't complicated .
Quite frankly , I would n't mind if you did the same with actual driving -- make it a mandatory course in school .
On the list of skills to get you a job , driving is way above most things -- even above typing for most industries .
Certainly above calculus.But really , topping the list of reasons why I do n't support academic schooling is that there are only two certainties in life ; academic schooling does n't teach anyone how to do their taxes , yet absolutely everybody needs to do them at least once per year -- I have to do mine 25 times per year because my corporate taxes for two businesses are done monthly .
But I will say this for academic schooling : it certainly taught me how to drop dead -- though I 've yet to put it to use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not that I support academic education in any way, but since educating children is mandatory, and curriculums can easily include internet use these days, and you're not going to place a minimum age limit for the licence, isn't this already covered?
Grandfather in my grandfather, and teach your children.
This isn't complicated.
Quite frankly, I wouldn't mind if you did the same with actual driving -- make it a mandatory course in school.
On the list of skills to get you a job, driving is way above most things -- even above typing for most industries.
Certainly above calculus.But really, topping the list of reasons why I don't support academic schooling is that there are only two certainties in life; academic schooling doesn't teach anyone how to do their taxes, yet absolutely everybody needs to do them at least once per year -- I have to do mine 25 times per year because my corporate taxes for two businesses are done monthly.
But I will say this for academic schooling: it certainly taught me how to drop dead -- though I've yet to put it to use.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030532</id>
	<title>OK</title>
	<author>koan</author>
	<datestamp>1265300220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does Microsoft have a license for IE?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does Microsoft have a license for IE ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does Microsoft have a license for IE?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31033596</id>
	<title>Re:major loss for privacy, dissent</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265378940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree with you completely.</p><p>There are also several reasons to be posting as AC that has nothing to do with the opinion being disclosed.  Take for example<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. not recognizing a password and user name even after signing up for it twice or on untrusted sites where you have no idea where your information will end up.  I know that if I at least don't have the option to post anonymously then I'm not going to bother.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with you completely.There are also several reasons to be posting as AC that has nothing to do with the opinion being disclosed .
Take for example / .
not recognizing a password and user name even after signing up for it twice or on untrusted sites where you have no idea where your information will end up .
I know that if I at least do n't have the option to post anonymously then I 'm not going to bother .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with you completely.There are also several reasons to be posting as AC that has nothing to do with the opinion being disclosed.
Take for example /.
not recognizing a password and user name even after signing up for it twice or on untrusted sites where you have no idea where your information will end up.
I know that if I at least don't have the option to post anonymously then I'm not going to bother.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31032552</id>
	<title>The European Computer Drivers Licence</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265364900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The <a href="http://www.bcs.org/server.php?show=nav.5829" title="bcs.org" rel="nofollow">ECDL</a> [bcs.org]: Its been thought of already.</p><p>And its as much use as a chocolate teapot!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The ECDL [ bcs.org ] : Its been thought of already.And its as much use as a chocolate teapot !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The ECDL [bcs.org]: Its been thought of already.And its as much use as a chocolate teapot!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31043826</id>
	<title>Re:If you drunk e-mail...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265399160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So half slashdotters should be dead?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So half slashdotters should be dead ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So half slashdotters should be dead?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030452</id>
	<title>Re:1984 is not a manual</title>
	<author>hitmark</author>
	<datestamp>1265299500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>not just big government, but any big faceless organization. The reason the book do not touch on that much, is because the modern corporation was in its infancy when it was written, while totalitarian governments of some form or other had been causing problems for decades.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>not just big government , but any big faceless organization .
The reason the book do not touch on that much , is because the modern corporation was in its infancy when it was written , while totalitarian governments of some form or other had been causing problems for decades .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>not just big government, but any big faceless organization.
The reason the book do not touch on that much, is because the modern corporation was in its infancy when it was written, while totalitarian governments of some form or other had been causing problems for decades.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029996</id>
	<title>Re:Translation -- Still, a poor analogy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265295000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The reason people accept the requirement of needing to qualify for a driver's license is that the cost of improper automobile use can lead to death.  <br>
&nbsp; <br>Improper or untrained computer use has far lower risks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason people accept the requirement of needing to qualify for a driver 's license is that the cost of improper automobile use can lead to death .
  Improper or untrained computer use has far lower risks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason people accept the requirement of needing to qualify for a driver's license is that the cost of improper automobile use can lead to death.
  Improper or untrained computer use has far lower risks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31031930</id>
	<title>Re:From the email cited</title>
	<author>centuren</author>
	<datestamp>1265312340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>More to the point, who exactly believes that the ability to freely express our own ideas how we see fit and without any danger of being attacked and punished by it is somehow bad or even dangerous to anyone?  Who exactly is so afraid of free communication of ideas and the freedom to share information in order to be so desperate to beg any country's government to quench their citizen's ability to do that sort of thing?  To put it in other words, who is so desperately afraid of not only their own countrymen but also every country's populace?</p></div><p>Even if we assume that anonymity is an inherent part of freedom of expression, with the technology easily there, why would we be required to use the Internet in it's current form as the forum for that expression? The Internet certainly isn't designed for anonymity, and neither governments nor corporations would want it to change to such a state. Why not just let it go as corporate as it likes, and turn to an alternate system for anonymity that's been designed for open, anonymous public discourse? It's not like we need all these Javascript and CSS heavy websites to communicate ideas anyway.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>More to the point , who exactly believes that the ability to freely express our own ideas how we see fit and without any danger of being attacked and punished by it is somehow bad or even dangerous to anyone ?
Who exactly is so afraid of free communication of ideas and the freedom to share information in order to be so desperate to beg any country 's government to quench their citizen 's ability to do that sort of thing ?
To put it in other words , who is so desperately afraid of not only their own countrymen but also every country 's populace ? Even if we assume that anonymity is an inherent part of freedom of expression , with the technology easily there , why would we be required to use the Internet in it 's current form as the forum for that expression ?
The Internet certainly is n't designed for anonymity , and neither governments nor corporations would want it to change to such a state .
Why not just let it go as corporate as it likes , and turn to an alternate system for anonymity that 's been designed for open , anonymous public discourse ?
It 's not like we need all these Javascript and CSS heavy websites to communicate ideas anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More to the point, who exactly believes that the ability to freely express our own ideas how we see fit and without any danger of being attacked and punished by it is somehow bad or even dangerous to anyone?
Who exactly is so afraid of free communication of ideas and the freedom to share information in order to be so desperate to beg any country's government to quench their citizen's ability to do that sort of thing?
To put it in other words, who is so desperately afraid of not only their own countrymen but also every country's populace?Even if we assume that anonymity is an inherent part of freedom of expression, with the technology easily there, why would we be required to use the Internet in it's current form as the forum for that expression?
The Internet certainly isn't designed for anonymity, and neither governments nor corporations would want it to change to such a state.
Why not just let it go as corporate as it likes, and turn to an alternate system for anonymity that's been designed for open, anonymous public discourse?
It's not like we need all these Javascript and CSS heavy websites to communicate ideas anyway.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31032462</id>
	<title>Another tax</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265363520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is stupid for a number of reason. Even if this was implemented (which it never will be), it would end up being nothing but another fine to pay the government every few years for enjoying life.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is stupid for a number of reason .
Even if this was implemented ( which it never will be ) , it would end up being nothing but another fine to pay the government every few years for enjoying life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is stupid for a number of reason.
Even if this was implemented (which it never will be), it would end up being nothing but another fine to pay the government every few years for enjoying life.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029828</id>
	<title>The test will need to be free of M$ based question</title>
	<author>Joe The Dragon</author>
	<datestamp>1265293680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The test will need to be free of M$ based questions or any other vendor tied stuff the last thing that you need is for some Linux / apple / Crisco pro to fail over missing the M$ questions and the test and licenses better be free and not some kind of a fee based thing with M$ and others getting a kick back.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The test will need to be free of M $ based questions or any other vendor tied stuff the last thing that you need is for some Linux / apple / Crisco pro to fail over missing the M $ questions and the test and licenses better be free and not some kind of a fee based thing with M $ and others getting a kick back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The test will need to be free of M$ based questions or any other vendor tied stuff the last thing that you need is for some Linux / apple / Crisco pro to fail over missing the M$ questions and the test and licenses better be free and not some kind of a fee based thing with M$ and others getting a kick back.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030104</id>
	<title>Unsafe?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265295900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IE unsafe at any speed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IE unsafe at any speed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IE unsafe at any speed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029982</id>
	<title>Re:Translation</title>
	<author>turtleshadow</author>
	<datestamp>1265294880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft Products - Unsafe at anyspeed</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft Products - Unsafe at anyspeed</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft Products - Unsafe at anyspeed</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030542</id>
	<title>You must be this smart</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265300340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I knew I had seen this idea before...<br>http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20100131</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I knew I had seen this idea before...http : //ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/ ? id = 20100131</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I knew I had seen this idea before...http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20100131</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029814</id>
	<title>Bad analogy,  Mundie</title>
	<author>init-five</author>
	<datestamp>1265293620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>...the car has to pass a test to say it is fit to drive....</i> I'll get a license when Microsoft passes a test to say that Windows and IE are fit to drive on the Internet. <br>
For a moment let us ignore the roadkill from blue screens and worms by the millions; just try to get a license for IE to render any version of HTML per specifications.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...the car has to pass a test to say it is fit to drive.... I 'll get a license when Microsoft passes a test to say that Windows and IE are fit to drive on the Internet .
For a moment let us ignore the roadkill from blue screens and worms by the millions ; just try to get a license for IE to render any version of HTML per specifications .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...the car has to pass a test to say it is fit to drive.... I'll get a license when Microsoft passes a test to say that Windows and IE are fit to drive on the Internet.
For a moment let us ignore the roadkill from blue screens and worms by the millions; just try to get a license for IE to render any version of HTML per specifications.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029462</id>
	<title>Proof</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265291640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>that MS is just inviting crazy homeless people to come in and run their operations.</htmltext>
<tokenext>that MS is just inviting crazy homeless people to come in and run their operations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that MS is just inviting crazy homeless people to come in and run their operations.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030940</id>
	<title>Craig at it again...</title>
	<author>flyneye</author>
	<datestamp>1265303820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Poor Craig, he hasn't been wearing his crash helmet or taking his meds again.<br>He usually just panhandles outside Microsoft and pretends he's an employee.<br>They think he's charming so they take him inside and give him a cup of coffee and let him sit at an empty receptionist station and play with an old windows 95 computer. Then he gets on his bike and rides home.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; This time they've gone too far and taken him to the World Economic Forum as a joke. Later he was escorted from the premises for playing in the toilet in the womens room. Just how cruel and stupid do you have to be to work at Microsoft?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Poor Craig , he has n't been wearing his crash helmet or taking his meds again.He usually just panhandles outside Microsoft and pretends he 's an employee.They think he 's charming so they take him inside and give him a cup of coffee and let him sit at an empty receptionist station and play with an old windows 95 computer .
Then he gets on his bike and rides home .
          This time they 've gone too far and taken him to the World Economic Forum as a joke .
Later he was escorted from the premises for playing in the toilet in the womens room .
Just how cruel and stupid do you have to be to work at Microsoft ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Poor Craig, he hasn't been wearing his crash helmet or taking his meds again.He usually just panhandles outside Microsoft and pretends he's an employee.They think he's charming so they take him inside and give him a cup of coffee and let him sit at an empty receptionist station and play with an old windows 95 computer.
Then he gets on his bike and rides home.
          This time they've gone too far and taken him to the World Economic Forum as a joke.
Later he was escorted from the premises for playing in the toilet in the womens room.
Just how cruel and stupid do you have to be to work at Microsoft?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31034926</id>
	<title>Re:I agree</title>
	<author>Ant P.</author>
	<datestamp>1265388000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If every Windows user had to be educated enough to pass a license test, Microsoft would go out of business within months.</p><p>I'm all for this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If every Windows user had to be educated enough to pass a license test , Microsoft would go out of business within months.I 'm all for this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If every Windows user had to be educated enough to pass a license test, Microsoft would go out of business within months.I'm all for this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31034500</id>
	<title>Yet</title>
	<author>wzinc</author>
	<datestamp>1265385540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I like how he says, "internet use cannot <i>yet</i> cause death or dismemberment."</p><p>USB missile launchers exist; what's next?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I like how he says , " internet use can not yet cause death or dismemberment .
" USB missile launchers exist ; what 's next ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like how he says, "internet use cannot yet cause death or dismemberment.
"USB missile launchers exist; what's next?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029790</id>
	<title>Papers Please!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265293500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Papers Please!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Papers Please !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Papers Please!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31031676</id>
	<title>Does this also make ....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265309640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>  The manufacturer of very dangerous cars responsible?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The manufacturer of very dangerous cars responsible ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  The manufacturer of very dangerous cars responsible?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030658</id>
	<title>Apple is already implementing this!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265301300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple has already started requiring "developers licenses" to program for your Apple products. Now that they already have that in place it wouldn't take much to make an "internet license" next!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple has already started requiring " developers licenses " to program for your Apple products .
Now that they already have that in place it would n't take much to make an " internet license " next !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple has already started requiring "developers licenses" to program for your Apple products.
Now that they already have that in place it wouldn't take much to make an "internet license" next!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029838</id>
	<title>Here we go again</title>
	<author>mpc92</author>
	<datestamp>1265293800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Didn't MS already try to get everyone to register for an Internet 'Passport'?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't MS already try to get everyone to register for an Internet 'Passport ' ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't MS already try to get everyone to register for an Internet 'Passport'?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030508</id>
	<title>Re:we need a law?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265299980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Craig Mundie \_is\_ an idiot, and always have been.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Craig Mundie \ _is \ _ an idiot , and always have been .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Craig Mundie \_is\_ an idiot, and always have been.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030022</id>
	<title>Funny</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1265295240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I cannot count the number of times I have seen variations of this kind of idea here in the Comments section of Slashdot.  It's funny how the same idea stated by MS is quite suddenly reprehensible...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can not count the number of times I have seen variations of this kind of idea here in the Comments section of Slashdot .
It 's funny how the same idea stated by MS is quite suddenly reprehensible.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I cannot count the number of times I have seen variations of this kind of idea here in the Comments section of Slashdot.
It's funny how the same idea stated by MS is quite suddenly reprehensible...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31031870</id>
	<title>Re:we need a law?</title>
	<author>centuren</author>
	<datestamp>1265311740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>More importantly, this measure is not targeted at "bad guys".  When some idiot such as this Craig Mundie speaks about this concept of the "internet driver's license", what he is campaigning for is the ability to not only identify everyone who uses the internet but also the convenience of having any state's repressive power to ban anyone from the internet who disrespected any arbitrary rule these fools are trying to impose on the rest of the world.  And the thing is, we aren't talking about criminal acts, as these are already punished by imprisonment.  This sort of measure is intended to open the door for the ability to inflict arbitrary punishment on those who do not follow rules set forth by righteous idiots who believe they know better than the stupid masses.</p><p>But hey, let's call it "driver's license", as it's a very convenient term to associate with this oppressive measure as it's widely regarded by society as banal government grant.  This sort of totalitarian measure desperately needs a cuddly face to be able to fly.  Let's not mention what it really is: a corporate-tailored totalitarian attack on individual freedom intended to punish non-criminal acts which are frowned upon corporate execs such as mr Craig Mundie.</p></div><p>Since this isn't the first use of the "driver's license" analogy, it seems worth pointing out that if you don't get a driver's license (or it's revoked), a car will still start, the roads will still be there, stop lights will still work, and people will try just as hard not to crash into you. Even if you don't follow every traffic law, it's still only chance that you'll get pulled over and be penalised (and after you sort even that out, cars will still start, stop lights will still work, etc). The license to drive doesn't actually grant or deny access to driving around, and rarely authenticates you as a legal driver.</p><p>It's a bad analogy, period.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>More importantly , this measure is not targeted at " bad guys " .
When some idiot such as this Craig Mundie speaks about this concept of the " internet driver 's license " , what he is campaigning for is the ability to not only identify everyone who uses the internet but also the convenience of having any state 's repressive power to ban anyone from the internet who disrespected any arbitrary rule these fools are trying to impose on the rest of the world .
And the thing is , we are n't talking about criminal acts , as these are already punished by imprisonment .
This sort of measure is intended to open the door for the ability to inflict arbitrary punishment on those who do not follow rules set forth by righteous idiots who believe they know better than the stupid masses.But hey , let 's call it " driver 's license " , as it 's a very convenient term to associate with this oppressive measure as it 's widely regarded by society as banal government grant .
This sort of totalitarian measure desperately needs a cuddly face to be able to fly .
Let 's not mention what it really is : a corporate-tailored totalitarian attack on individual freedom intended to punish non-criminal acts which are frowned upon corporate execs such as mr Craig Mundie.Since this is n't the first use of the " driver 's license " analogy , it seems worth pointing out that if you do n't get a driver 's license ( or it 's revoked ) , a car will still start , the roads will still be there , stop lights will still work , and people will try just as hard not to crash into you .
Even if you do n't follow every traffic law , it 's still only chance that you 'll get pulled over and be penalised ( and after you sort even that out , cars will still start , stop lights will still work , etc ) .
The license to drive does n't actually grant or deny access to driving around , and rarely authenticates you as a legal driver.It 's a bad analogy , period .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More importantly, this measure is not targeted at "bad guys".
When some idiot such as this Craig Mundie speaks about this concept of the "internet driver's license", what he is campaigning for is the ability to not only identify everyone who uses the internet but also the convenience of having any state's repressive power to ban anyone from the internet who disrespected any arbitrary rule these fools are trying to impose on the rest of the world.
And the thing is, we aren't talking about criminal acts, as these are already punished by imprisonment.
This sort of measure is intended to open the door for the ability to inflict arbitrary punishment on those who do not follow rules set forth by righteous idiots who believe they know better than the stupid masses.But hey, let's call it "driver's license", as it's a very convenient term to associate with this oppressive measure as it's widely regarded by society as banal government grant.
This sort of totalitarian measure desperately needs a cuddly face to be able to fly.
Let's not mention what it really is: a corporate-tailored totalitarian attack on individual freedom intended to punish non-criminal acts which are frowned upon corporate execs such as mr Craig Mundie.Since this isn't the first use of the "driver's license" analogy, it seems worth pointing out that if you don't get a driver's license (or it's revoked), a car will still start, the roads will still be there, stop lights will still work, and people will try just as hard not to crash into you.
Even if you don't follow every traffic law, it's still only chance that you'll get pulled over and be penalised (and after you sort even that out, cars will still start, stop lights will still work, etc).
The license to drive doesn't actually grant or deny access to driving around, and rarely authenticates you as a legal driver.It's a bad analogy, period.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31034432</id>
	<title>Re:we need a law?</title>
	<author>Trailer Trash</author>
	<datestamp>1265385180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>More importantly, this measure is not targeted at "bad guys"</p></div></blockquote><p>Actually, it's likely the whole thing is a dog whistle that's targeting the Chinese government.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>More importantly , this measure is not targeted at " bad guys " Actually , it 's likely the whole thing is a dog whistle that 's targeting the Chinese government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More importantly, this measure is not targeted at "bad guys"Actually, it's likely the whole thing is a dog whistle that's targeting the Chinese government.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029500</id>
	<title>System administrator Driver's License</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265291760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Great idea, Microsoft! Even more, the Internet Driver's License should be followed by the "System Administrator Driver's License", so only people who know the risks present in Internet, and know their own computer OS, can run with Adminnistrator privileges.
<p>
Oh, wait...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Great idea , Microsoft !
Even more , the Internet Driver 's License should be followed by the " System Administrator Driver 's License " , so only people who know the risks present in Internet , and know their own computer OS , can run with Adminnistrator privileges .
Oh , wait.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great idea, Microsoft!
Even more, the Internet Driver's License should be followed by the "System Administrator Driver's License", so only people who know the risks present in Internet, and know their own computer OS, can run with Adminnistrator privileges.
Oh, wait...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31033300</id>
	<title>Re:Copyright protection</title>
	<author>ibsteve2u</author>
	<datestamp>1265375520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the most common way to lose it would be involve bittorrent...</p></div><p>Oh, I don't know - for some reason I think that posting complaints about Microsoft stuff like</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Thank you for using My.live.com. On March 15, 2010, My.live.com will be discontinued and all users redirected to My MSN. Please note that your settings, feeds and gadgets will not be migrated to MyMSN. To make MyMSN your homepage today, click here.</p></div><p>would be right up there, too.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the most common way to lose it would be involve bittorrent...Oh , I do n't know - for some reason I think that posting complaints about Microsoft stuff likeThank you for using My.live.com .
On March 15 , 2010 , My.live.com will be discontinued and all users redirected to My MSN .
Please note that your settings , feeds and gadgets will not be migrated to MyMSN .
To make MyMSN your homepage today , click here.would be right up there , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the most common way to lose it would be involve bittorrent...Oh, I don't know - for some reason I think that posting complaints about Microsoft stuff likeThank you for using My.live.com.
On March 15, 2010, My.live.com will be discontinued and all users redirected to My MSN.
Please note that your settings, feeds and gadgets will not be migrated to MyMSN.
To make MyMSN your homepage today, click here.would be right up there, too.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030100</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030742</id>
	<title>Re:Windows not road ready</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265302140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is essentially the ultimate rebuttal to any of this shit coming from jokers like the incompetents at Microsoft. If we had cars that drove themselves intelligently, we wouldn't need driver's licenses, except for those people who wanted to operate their vehicles on manual. If Microsoft could assemble an operating system competently, then there would be no need for the users to understand the ramifications of their actions. To be fair, it's not all Microsoft's fault; there is plenty of third-party software exacerbating their lack of security, and no other operating system is 100\% secure, either. For obvious reasons, it is likely impossible to ever make a truly secure general-purpose operating system. But it is also clear that much more can be done along those lines, and that Microsoft is not interested in doing it.</p><p>Of course, since <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/02/04/1442214" title="slashdot.org">Microsoft wants your personal data</a> [slashdot.org], to have and to hold, to dishonor and cherish, to abuse and sell for profit, perhaps they have an ulterior motive as pure as that of "Larry Ellison.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is essentially the ultimate rebuttal to any of this shit coming from jokers like the incompetents at Microsoft .
If we had cars that drove themselves intelligently , we would n't need driver 's licenses , except for those people who wanted to operate their vehicles on manual .
If Microsoft could assemble an operating system competently , then there would be no need for the users to understand the ramifications of their actions .
To be fair , it 's not all Microsoft 's fault ; there is plenty of third-party software exacerbating their lack of security , and no other operating system is 100 \ % secure , either .
For obvious reasons , it is likely impossible to ever make a truly secure general-purpose operating system .
But it is also clear that much more can be done along those lines , and that Microsoft is not interested in doing it.Of course , since Microsoft wants your personal data [ slashdot.org ] , to have and to hold , to dishonor and cherish , to abuse and sell for profit , perhaps they have an ulterior motive as pure as that of " Larry Ellison .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is essentially the ultimate rebuttal to any of this shit coming from jokers like the incompetents at Microsoft.
If we had cars that drove themselves intelligently, we wouldn't need driver's licenses, except for those people who wanted to operate their vehicles on manual.
If Microsoft could assemble an operating system competently, then there would be no need for the users to understand the ramifications of their actions.
To be fair, it's not all Microsoft's fault; there is plenty of third-party software exacerbating their lack of security, and no other operating system is 100\% secure, either.
For obvious reasons, it is likely impossible to ever make a truly secure general-purpose operating system.
But it is also clear that much more can be done along those lines, and that Microsoft is not interested in doing it.Of course, since Microsoft wants your personal data [slashdot.org], to have and to hold, to dishonor and cherish, to abuse and sell for profit, perhaps they have an ulterior motive as pure as that of "Larry Ellison.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31031880</id>
	<title>Rainbows End</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265311860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess the upshot is that if something like this happened, Vernor Vinge would have predicted it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess the upshot is that if something like this happened , Vernor Vinge would have predicted it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess the upshot is that if something like this happened, Vernor Vinge would have predicted it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31033970</id>
	<title>Re:If you drunk e-mail...</title>
	<author>Gorbag</author>
	<datestamp>1265382180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I kind of agree with Microsoft's solution, but applied to companies that supply OSes that connect to the internet, not individual users. Key is to make sure the licensing cost is borne by the developer as a progressive tax on sales, and requirements are sufficiently onerous (e.g. your OS must be formally validated to prove it cannot ever allow a computer to send spam meaning it has to be reimplemented from the ground up in a formal language) to cause general panic and Microsoft spreading a lot of money and free software around to help the whole idea go away.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I kind of agree with Microsoft 's solution , but applied to companies that supply OSes that connect to the internet , not individual users .
Key is to make sure the licensing cost is borne by the developer as a progressive tax on sales , and requirements are sufficiently onerous ( e.g .
your OS must be formally validated to prove it can not ever allow a computer to send spam meaning it has to be reimplemented from the ground up in a formal language ) to cause general panic and Microsoft spreading a lot of money and free software around to help the whole idea go away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I kind of agree with Microsoft's solution, but applied to companies that supply OSes that connect to the internet, not individual users.
Key is to make sure the licensing cost is borne by the developer as a progressive tax on sales, and requirements are sufficiently onerous (e.g.
your OS must be formally validated to prove it cannot ever allow a computer to send spam meaning it has to be reimplemented from the ground up in a formal language) to cause general panic and Microsoft spreading a lot of money and free software around to help the whole idea go away.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31031614</id>
	<title>Re:Criag Mundie wants to control you.</title>
	<author>pete6677</author>
	<datestamp>1265308920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe we should require a license for publicly expressing ideas to weed out damn fools like Craig who propose completely impractical bullshit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe we should require a license for publicly expressing ideas to weed out damn fools like Craig who propose completely impractical bullshit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe we should require a license for publicly expressing ideas to weed out damn fools like Craig who propose completely impractical bullshit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030326</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31047458</id>
	<title>Re:OK, I see some value in here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265489880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>So what if the government issued an "Internet ID Card", with PKI Certs, etc, that would be used to secure email, transactions, etc? This is by no means a panacea, but as a factor in 2-factor ID, it might well cut down on some forms of malware.</i> </p><p>Only if you're willing to miss all the email you get from countries not stupid enough to try this.</p><p>Do you really want to attach your name forever to anything you ever post or write?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So what if the government issued an " Internet ID Card " , with PKI Certs , etc , that would be used to secure email , transactions , etc ?
This is by no means a panacea , but as a factor in 2-factor ID , it might well cut down on some forms of malware .
Only if you 're willing to miss all the email you get from countries not stupid enough to try this.Do you really want to attach your name forever to anything you ever post or write ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what if the government issued an "Internet ID Card", with PKI Certs, etc, that would be used to secure email, transactions, etc?
This is by no means a panacea, but as a factor in 2-factor ID, it might well cut down on some forms of malware.
Only if you're willing to miss all the email you get from countries not stupid enough to try this.Do you really want to attach your name forever to anything you ever post or write?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029930</id>
	<title>What happened to the Libertarians?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265294460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Where are all of the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. libertarians? What, are you people on vacation today? This is the stupidest idea so far this year! How could a libertarian possibly even consider this? What next, a license to use a cell phone? A license to operate the computer itself? A license to operate household appliances? A license to use a garden hose?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Where are all of the / .
libertarians ? What , are you people on vacation today ?
This is the stupidest idea so far this year !
How could a libertarian possibly even consider this ?
What next , a license to use a cell phone ?
A license to operate the computer itself ?
A license to operate household appliances ?
A license to use a garden hose ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where are all of the /.
libertarians? What, are you people on vacation today?
This is the stupidest idea so far this year!
How could a libertarian possibly even consider this?
What next, a license to use a cell phone?
A license to operate the computer itself?
A license to operate household appliances?
A license to use a garden hose?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029490</id>
	<title>Solution in search of a problem</title>
	<author>jmorris42</author>
	<datestamp>1265291760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Considering that enforcing a license requirement just here in the US would be nigh on impossible without rethinking everything and that the odds of doing anything of the sort worldwide is less than zero I'm left wondering just what problem this idea is intended to solve?</p><p>Hint, it ain't any problem we users have and it ain't a problem the network operators are having.  And since the practice of allowing Microsoft products to connect to the Internet is the bulk of the spam/zombie/malware problem I guess we would license every host as well as user.  Any any license scheme that permitted Microsoft crap to operate would be considered toothless and any that banned them would get called 'draconian.'  No win scenario.  The only winning move is not to play.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Considering that enforcing a license requirement just here in the US would be nigh on impossible without rethinking everything and that the odds of doing anything of the sort worldwide is less than zero I 'm left wondering just what problem this idea is intended to solve ? Hint , it ai n't any problem we users have and it ai n't a problem the network operators are having .
And since the practice of allowing Microsoft products to connect to the Internet is the bulk of the spam/zombie/malware problem I guess we would license every host as well as user .
Any any license scheme that permitted Microsoft crap to operate would be considered toothless and any that banned them would get called 'draconian .
' No win scenario .
The only winning move is not to play .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Considering that enforcing a license requirement just here in the US would be nigh on impossible without rethinking everything and that the odds of doing anything of the sort worldwide is less than zero I'm left wondering just what problem this idea is intended to solve?Hint, it ain't any problem we users have and it ain't a problem the network operators are having.
And since the practice of allowing Microsoft products to connect to the Internet is the bulk of the spam/zombie/malware problem I guess we would license every host as well as user.
Any any license scheme that permitted Microsoft crap to operate would be considered toothless and any that banned them would get called 'draconian.
'  No win scenario.
The only winning move is not to play.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31032558</id>
	<title>Re:Windows not road ready</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1265365020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>lacks the basic network security features of Unix systems.</p></div><p>Wait, what?  I know in the past windows security was a joke, but what basic network security features does it lack?  In Windows 7 you don't run as administrator by default, and it comes with a firewall.  Permission levels have been there for a long time.  What security features are you talking about?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>lacks the basic network security features of Unix systems.Wait , what ?
I know in the past windows security was a joke , but what basic network security features does it lack ?
In Windows 7 you do n't run as administrator by default , and it comes with a firewall .
Permission levels have been there for a long time .
What security features are you talking about ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>lacks the basic network security features of Unix systems.Wait, what?
I know in the past windows security was a joke, but what basic network security features does it lack?
In Windows 7 you don't run as administrator by default, and it comes with a firewall.
Permission levels have been there for a long time.
What security features are you talking about?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030512</id>
	<title>Re:we need a law?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1265300040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <em>S</em>ince when <em>are</em> laws <em>meant to</em> stop the bad guys?</p></div><p>There. Fixed that for ya.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since when are laws meant to stop the bad guys ? There .
Fixed that for ya .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Since when are laws meant to stop the bad guys?There.
Fixed that for ya.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029536</id>
	<title>major loss for privacy, dissent</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265292060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Although Google, et al can chip away at our privacy this would completely stifle free speech and dissent.<br><br>I know that some view ACs and their ilk as idiots clogging up discourse, but for a flip side of the coin how about the efforts to 'Out' Prop 8 contributors in Calif so they can be harrassed by gay activists?<br><br>-Not that I supported prop 8, but I do mod ACs up if they have something useful/interesting to say.<br><br>On the other hand, I don't disagree that there should perhaps be some required qualifications for hosting/administering websites, dealing with credit card transactions, userdbs, etc, but that is very different than (what I think) is being proposed.<br><br>I'm just sayin'</htmltext>
<tokenext>Although Google , et al can chip away at our privacy this would completely stifle free speech and dissent.I know that some view ACs and their ilk as idiots clogging up discourse , but for a flip side of the coin how about the efforts to 'Out ' Prop 8 contributors in Calif so they can be harrassed by gay activists ? -Not that I supported prop 8 , but I do mod ACs up if they have something useful/interesting to say.On the other hand , I do n't disagree that there should perhaps be some required qualifications for hosting/administering websites , dealing with credit card transactions , userdbs , etc , but that is very different than ( what I think ) is being proposed.I 'm just sayin'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Although Google, et al can chip away at our privacy this would completely stifle free speech and dissent.I know that some view ACs and their ilk as idiots clogging up discourse, but for a flip side of the coin how about the efforts to 'Out' Prop 8 contributors in Calif so they can be harrassed by gay activists?-Not that I supported prop 8, but I do mod ACs up if they have something useful/interesting to say.On the other hand, I don't disagree that there should perhaps be some required qualifications for hosting/administering websites, dealing with credit card transactions, userdbs, etc, but that is very different than (what I think) is being proposed.I'm just sayin'</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029444</id>
	<title>Just what I always wanted</title>
	<author>Droce</author>
	<datestamp>1265291520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now I can tell someone they fail at the internet!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now I can tell someone they fail at the internet !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now I can tell someone they fail at the internet!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030052</id>
	<title>Better idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous Struct</author>
	<datestamp>1265295540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey, what if we pour acid in our eyes and stare at the sun?</p><p>No, seriously... it's a better idea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , what if we pour acid in our eyes and stare at the sun ? No , seriously... it 's a better idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, what if we pour acid in our eyes and stare at the sun?No, seriously... it's a better idea.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31031066</id>
	<title>Re:Translation</title>
	<author>straponego</author>
	<datestamp>1265304720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So what he's saying is: "Pretty much everybody who buys windows is a moron."<br><br>Come on, the guy has a legitimate point.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So what he 's saying is : " Pretty much everybody who buys windows is a moron .
" Come on , the guy has a legitimate point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what he's saying is: "Pretty much everybody who buys windows is a moron.
"Come on, the guy has a legitimate point.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31033846</id>
	<title>He stole my idea!</title>
	<author>singingjim1</author>
	<datestamp>1265381220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Since my days of doing phone tech support for Gateway computers (when Win 95 just came out) I've been saying that people need to have some type of license that would allow them to operate a computer. While I get all the privacy, big brother, etc. issues, some people should just plain not be allowed to "drive" a computer. Yes, flaws in OS and browser software allows for the nasties to exist in the first place, but it's clueless and careless users who perpetuate these nasties far more and far worse than the rest of us with half a clue about this stuff.  <p>I'm not sayin' he shoulda killed the ignorant user, but I understand.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since my days of doing phone tech support for Gateway computers ( when Win 95 just came out ) I 've been saying that people need to have some type of license that would allow them to operate a computer .
While I get all the privacy , big brother , etc .
issues , some people should just plain not be allowed to " drive " a computer .
Yes , flaws in OS and browser software allows for the nasties to exist in the first place , but it 's clueless and careless users who perpetuate these nasties far more and far worse than the rest of us with half a clue about this stuff .
I 'm not sayin ' he shoulda killed the ignorant user , but I understand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since my days of doing phone tech support for Gateway computers (when Win 95 just came out) I've been saying that people need to have some type of license that would allow them to operate a computer.
While I get all the privacy, big brother, etc.
issues, some people should just plain not be allowed to "drive" a computer.
Yes, flaws in OS and browser software allows for the nasties to exist in the first place, but it's clueless and careless users who perpetuate these nasties far more and far worse than the rest of us with half a clue about this stuff.
I'm not sayin' he shoulda killed the ignorant user, but I understand.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030682</id>
	<title>OS &amp; browser vendors also</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265301540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about a license for OS and browser vendors to assure, with penalties, that the OS and browser are BUG FREE to indemnify us dumb users from the vendors fuck ups. Like 17 year old DOS bugs, recurring IE holes and service packs that are re branded as NEW OS versions with a price tag. How about finishing fixing the current OS before releasing a new one or not killing an old version, that works, to force us into buying the new buggy version. I would say there is plenty of room for discussion about all of these issues and we certainly need some regulation of software vendor business practices, maybe the politicians would like to get involved, just imagine the opportunity there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about a license for OS and browser vendors to assure , with penalties , that the OS and browser are BUG FREE to indemnify us dumb users from the vendors fuck ups .
Like 17 year old DOS bugs , recurring IE holes and service packs that are re branded as NEW OS versions with a price tag .
How about finishing fixing the current OS before releasing a new one or not killing an old version , that works , to force us into buying the new buggy version .
I would say there is plenty of room for discussion about all of these issues and we certainly need some regulation of software vendor business practices , maybe the politicians would like to get involved , just imagine the opportunity there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about a license for OS and browser vendors to assure, with penalties, that the OS and browser are BUG FREE to indemnify us dumb users from the vendors fuck ups.
Like 17 year old DOS bugs, recurring IE holes and service packs that are re branded as NEW OS versions with a price tag.
How about finishing fixing the current OS before releasing a new one or not killing an old version, that works, to force us into buying the new buggy version.
I would say there is plenty of room for discussion about all of these issues and we certainly need some regulation of software vendor business practices, maybe the politicians would like to get involved, just imagine the opportunity there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31035002</id>
	<title>Re:Ham radio</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265388540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Even if the test is virtually unfailable, the overall sense of earned-privilege vs. god-given-right seems to add a few percent to the general level of maturity you get.</p></div><p>Licensing for drivers says otherwise.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if the test is virtually unfailable , the overall sense of earned-privilege vs. god-given-right seems to add a few percent to the general level of maturity you get.Licensing for drivers says otherwise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if the test is virtually unfailable, the overall sense of earned-privilege vs. god-given-right seems to add a few percent to the general level of maturity you get.Licensing for drivers says otherwise.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030166</id>
	<title>To go along with the commercial pilots license</title>
	<author>presidenteloco</author>
	<datestamp>1265296500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>required to safely operate MS-Windows?</p><p><a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/B747-cockpit.jpg" title="wikimedia.org">http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/B747-cockpit.jpg</a> [wikimedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>required to safely operate MS-Windows ? http : //upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/B747-cockpit.jpg [ wikimedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>required to safely operate MS-Windows?http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/B747-cockpit.jpg [wikimedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029612</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot is getting out of hand</title>
	<author>piemcfly</author>
	<datestamp>1265292420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A redirected URL even.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/suicide</htmltext>
<tokenext>A redirected URL even .
/suicide</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A redirected URL even.
/suicide</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030614</id>
	<title>Re:Translation</title>
	<author>arminw</author>
	<datestamp>1265300820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>....The drivers license analogy is being used to shift some of the blame from the OS to its users.....</p><p>The analogy holds true, because most accidents by far are caused by faulty drivers, not by faulty cars. This harebrained idea will not prevent Internet crime, any more than drivers licenses have prevented car accidents.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>....The drivers license analogy is being used to shift some of the blame from the OS to its users.....The analogy holds true , because most accidents by far are caused by faulty drivers , not by faulty cars .
This harebrained idea will not prevent Internet crime , any more than drivers licenses have prevented car accidents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>....The drivers license analogy is being used to shift some of the blame from the OS to its users.....The analogy holds true, because most accidents by far are caused by faulty drivers, not by faulty cars.
This harebrained idea will not prevent Internet crime, any more than drivers licenses have prevented car accidents.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029960</id>
	<title>Man behind the M$ curtain...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265294640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"Craig Mundie, Microsoft's Chief Research and Strategy Officer...</p></div><p>Oh, the irony.  In the history of this beloved yet hated company, there has never been so much explained in so few words...</p><p>This idea is so asinine that I can't really tell if this guy was drunk, high, or just plain stupid when he came up with it.  In fact, it is so asinine that if it were to ever come to light, his would be the first one I would revoke.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Craig Mundie , Microsoft 's Chief Research and Strategy Officer...Oh , the irony .
In the history of this beloved yet hated company , there has never been so much explained in so few words...This idea is so asinine that I ca n't really tell if this guy was drunk , high , or just plain stupid when he came up with it .
In fact , it is so asinine that if it were to ever come to light , his would be the first one I would revoke .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Craig Mundie, Microsoft's Chief Research and Strategy Officer...Oh, the irony.
In the history of this beloved yet hated company, there has never been so much explained in so few words...This idea is so asinine that I can't really tell if this guy was drunk, high, or just plain stupid when he came up with it.
In fact, it is so asinine that if it were to ever come to light, his would be the first one I would revoke.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31033096</id>
	<title>got a driver</title>
	<author>Kuraz</author>
	<datestamp>1265372640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>so i don't need my own driving license</htmltext>
<tokenext>so i do n't need my own driving license</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so i don't need my own driving license</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029782</id>
	<title>This from the company who made IE</title>
	<author>Arancaytar</author>
	<datestamp>1265293440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Excuse me, why is anyone listening to what MS has to say about Internet security, again?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Excuse me , why is anyone listening to what MS has to say about Internet security , again ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Excuse me, why is anyone listening to what MS has to say about Internet security, again?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31031380</id>
	<title>Re:we need a law?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265307060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since the story doesn't have any links to what he actually said, here is the closest thing I can find by someone who was actually there (and is incompletely quoted in TFA):<br>http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2010/01/30/drivers-licenses-for-the-internet/</p><p>"Are you allowed to walk down the street with no one knowing who you are? Absolutely. Are you allowed to walk into a bank vault and still not give your name? Hardly.<br>It's easy to envision the same sort of differentiated structure for the Internet, Mundie said. He didn't get into examples, so here's one of mine. If you want to go to Time.com and read all about what's going on in the world, that's fine. No one needs to know who you are. But if you want to set up a site to accept credit-card donations for earthquake victims in Haiti? Well, you're going to have to show your ID for that."</p><p>Hmm. Not quite as terrifying, huh? Actually, pretty much exactly what your bank already requires for you to view your account details. And he isn't advocating using it just to use the internet, which is what virtually every poster here is assuming.</p><p>Now, I also think the idea of centralizing identification is stupid, but this is really just Craig Mundie re-hashing the concept of Hailstorm, which already crashed and burned spectacularly:<br>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/30/microsoft\_generva\_hailstorm/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since the story does n't have any links to what he actually said , here is the closest thing I can find by someone who was actually there ( and is incompletely quoted in TFA ) : http : //curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2010/01/30/drivers-licenses-for-the-internet/ " Are you allowed to walk down the street with no one knowing who you are ?
Absolutely. Are you allowed to walk into a bank vault and still not give your name ?
Hardly.It 's easy to envision the same sort of differentiated structure for the Internet , Mundie said .
He did n't get into examples , so here 's one of mine .
If you want to go to Time.com and read all about what 's going on in the world , that 's fine .
No one needs to know who you are .
But if you want to set up a site to accept credit-card donations for earthquake victims in Haiti ?
Well , you 're going to have to show your ID for that. " Hmm .
Not quite as terrifying , huh ?
Actually , pretty much exactly what your bank already requires for you to view your account details .
And he is n't advocating using it just to use the internet , which is what virtually every poster here is assuming.Now , I also think the idea of centralizing identification is stupid , but this is really just Craig Mundie re-hashing the concept of Hailstorm , which already crashed and burned spectacularly : http : //www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/30/microsoft \ _generva \ _hailstorm/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since the story doesn't have any links to what he actually said, here is the closest thing I can find by someone who was actually there (and is incompletely quoted in TFA):http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2010/01/30/drivers-licenses-for-the-internet/"Are you allowed to walk down the street with no one knowing who you are?
Absolutely. Are you allowed to walk into a bank vault and still not give your name?
Hardly.It's easy to envision the same sort of differentiated structure for the Internet, Mundie said.
He didn't get into examples, so here's one of mine.
If you want to go to Time.com and read all about what's going on in the world, that's fine.
No one needs to know who you are.
But if you want to set up a site to accept credit-card donations for earthquake victims in Haiti?
Well, you're going to have to show your ID for that."Hmm.
Not quite as terrifying, huh?
Actually, pretty much exactly what your bank already requires for you to view your account details.
And he isn't advocating using it just to use the internet, which is what virtually every poster here is assuming.Now, I also think the idea of centralizing identification is stupid, but this is really just Craig Mundie re-hashing the concept of Hailstorm, which already crashed and burned spectacularly:http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/30/microsoft\_generva\_hailstorm/</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31032792</id>
	<title>If you can't see why it's a bad idea</title>
	<author>Nicolas MONNET</author>
	<datestamp>1265368020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you shouldn't be allowed on the internet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you should n't be allowed on the internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you shouldn't be allowed on the internet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029906</id>
	<title>Can they be more subtle?</title>
	<author>Magdalene</author>
	<datestamp>1265294340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just another attempt by  to regulate and/or control the internet, I can just bet that he has a shiny Powerpoint presentation all prepped about how suited MS would be to manage the corporate planning and data management.</p><p>About as subtle as Vlad and the Count soliciting for charitable donations :</p><p>"to de Blood bank... I mean Red Cross, yes. No, you don't hawe to come in, ve vill be ower.. , Ve Vill send an agent by right avay! Oh yes it is wery conwenient for you, Ve know exactly vhere you are, I mean, ve hawe your address yes. Thank you for agreeing to be ovr wicte.. heh donor!"</p><p>Right down to the 'mvahaha!' and the obligatory Thunder and Lightning.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just another attempt by to regulate and/or control the internet , I can just bet that he has a shiny Powerpoint presentation all prepped about how suited MS would be to manage the corporate planning and data management.About as subtle as Vlad and the Count soliciting for charitable donations : " to de Blood bank... I mean Red Cross , yes .
No , you do n't hawe to come in , ve vill be ower.. , Ve Vill send an agent by right avay !
Oh yes it is wery conwenient for you , Ve know exactly vhere you are , I mean , ve hawe your address yes .
Thank you for agreeing to be ovr wicte.. heh donor !
" Right down to the 'mvahaha !
' and the obligatory Thunder and Lightning .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just another attempt by  to regulate and/or control the internet, I can just bet that he has a shiny Powerpoint presentation all prepped about how suited MS would be to manage the corporate planning and data management.About as subtle as Vlad and the Count soliciting for charitable donations :"to de Blood bank... I mean Red Cross, yes.
No, you don't hawe to come in, ve vill be ower.. , Ve Vill send an agent by right avay!
Oh yes it is wery conwenient for you, Ve know exactly vhere you are, I mean, ve hawe your address yes.
Thank you for agreeing to be ovr wicte.. heh donor!
"Right down to the 'mvahaha!
' and the obligatory Thunder and Lightning.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31031006</id>
	<title>Re:It's been proposed before, and it still won't w</title>
	<author>jmorris42</author>
	<datestamp>1265304360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; US government is prohibited from demanding that people obtain permission before speaking..</p><p>Somebody might want to clue in (lord knows he could use a clue about something) the POTUS.  You know, the asshat/constitutional law professor that denounced the recent SCOTUS decision to their faces.  And while you are at it you might want to clue in the asshat that ran against him in the '08 election.  You probably remember the guy, the oathbreaker who co-authored the bill that is (thankfully) being (too) slowly dismembered by the courts.  And don't forget the idiot! who signed McCain-Feingold while admitting it was unconstitutional or the guy who ran against Bush in '04 who is singing along from the progressive hymnal about the need to DO SOMETHING about the court decision.  And don't forget 'all right thinking people' such as the NYT, CNN, WashPost, HuffPost, etc. who are all pissing and moaning about it and trying, with a straight face, to whip up an effort up to outright repeal the 1st Amendment if it can't be twisted into saying what they want it to say.</p><p>So no, I wouldn't count on our elected leaders to hold to their oath and defend our right to speak without asking their permission first and yes I'm just a little pissed off about that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; US government is prohibited from demanding that people obtain permission before speaking..Somebody might want to clue in ( lord knows he could use a clue about something ) the POTUS .
You know , the asshat/constitutional law professor that denounced the recent SCOTUS decision to their faces .
And while you are at it you might want to clue in the asshat that ran against him in the '08 election .
You probably remember the guy , the oathbreaker who co-authored the bill that is ( thankfully ) being ( too ) slowly dismembered by the courts .
And do n't forget the idiot !
who signed McCain-Feingold while admitting it was unconstitutional or the guy who ran against Bush in '04 who is singing along from the progressive hymnal about the need to DO SOMETHING about the court decision .
And do n't forget 'all right thinking people ' such as the NYT , CNN , WashPost , HuffPost , etc .
who are all pissing and moaning about it and trying , with a straight face , to whip up an effort up to outright repeal the 1st Amendment if it ca n't be twisted into saying what they want it to say.So no , I would n't count on our elected leaders to hold to their oath and defend our right to speak without asking their permission first and yes I 'm just a little pissed off about that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; US government is prohibited from demanding that people obtain permission before speaking..Somebody might want to clue in (lord knows he could use a clue about something) the POTUS.
You know, the asshat/constitutional law professor that denounced the recent SCOTUS decision to their faces.
And while you are at it you might want to clue in the asshat that ran against him in the '08 election.
You probably remember the guy, the oathbreaker who co-authored the bill that is (thankfully) being (too) slowly dismembered by the courts.
And don't forget the idiot!
who signed McCain-Feingold while admitting it was unconstitutional or the guy who ran against Bush in '04 who is singing along from the progressive hymnal about the need to DO SOMETHING about the court decision.
And don't forget 'all right thinking people' such as the NYT, CNN, WashPost, HuffPost, etc.
who are all pissing and moaning about it and trying, with a straight face, to whip up an effort up to outright repeal the 1st Amendment if it can't be twisted into saying what they want it to say.So no, I wouldn't count on our elected leaders to hold to their oath and defend our right to speak without asking their permission first and yes I'm just a little pissed off about that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029636</id>
	<title>No license for having children</title>
	<author>Dan667</author>
	<datestamp>1265292540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seems like there are a lot of more important ones that should get priority.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems like there are a lot of more important ones that should get priority .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems like there are a lot of more important ones that should get priority.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31031320</id>
	<title>Re:An easier solution</title>
	<author>NotBornYesterday</author>
	<datestamp>1265306640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, that would be incredibly helpful on occasion.  Are you talking about overwriting with random bits, or just "deleting" everything?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , that would be incredibly helpful on occasion .
Are you talking about overwriting with random bits , or just " deleting " everything ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, that would be incredibly helpful on occasion.
Are you talking about overwriting with random bits, or just "deleting" everything?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030176</id>
	<title>New Microsoft project?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265296560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>*** internet use cannot yet cause death or dismemberment like car accidents can ***</p><p>Maybe he knows something about an upcoming Microsoft project?!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>* * * internet use can not yet cause death or dismemberment like car accidents can * * * Maybe he knows something about an upcoming Microsoft project ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>*** internet use cannot yet cause death or dismemberment like car accidents can ***Maybe he knows something about an upcoming Microsoft project?
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31033038</id>
	<title>Seriously?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265371560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I want what he smoked.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I want what he smoked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I want what he smoked.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029540</id>
	<title>Lack of innovation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265292060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If this is an attempt at innovation, it's quite pathetic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If this is an attempt at innovation , it 's quite pathetic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this is an attempt at innovation, it's quite pathetic.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31033012</id>
	<title>We need an ACID test for security</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265371140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The mere existence of the ACID test greatly improved browsers. A easy to run security test could have the same effect on operating systems. Manufacturers would try to out-do each others and end users would benefit.</p><p>The problem is creating a good test that anyone can run and creates a score that is comparable to others.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The mere existence of the ACID test greatly improved browsers .
A easy to run security test could have the same effect on operating systems .
Manufacturers would try to out-do each others and end users would benefit.The problem is creating a good test that anyone can run and creates a score that is comparable to others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The mere existence of the ACID test greatly improved browsers.
A easy to run security test could have the same effect on operating systems.
Manufacturers would try to out-do each others and end users would benefit.The problem is creating a good test that anyone can run and creates a score that is comparable to others.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030792</id>
	<title>Who's in charge of the test?</title>
	<author>feranick</author>
	<datestamp>1265302620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Assuming this "Internet driver license" is a good idea, I wonder who should do the preparation, who should do the testing, and what type of office should hand out the certification. Should we have MS itself handling the preparation? Or Google? Or the government? Regardless of your thoughts on who should control, Internet is just a medium, like TV. Teaching how to use automatically put limits on the ability to experiment, to discover and to adjust to a new medium. Afterall, nobody thought us how to use a TV, or a phone. If you are rude or misbehave, then you will pay for it sooner of later, not in money, but in social skills.<br> <br>

So count me off. I rather give someone a PC with a browser and a few directions on how to start. The rest should remain totally in the end of the user.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Assuming this " Internet driver license " is a good idea , I wonder who should do the preparation , who should do the testing , and what type of office should hand out the certification .
Should we have MS itself handling the preparation ?
Or Google ?
Or the government ?
Regardless of your thoughts on who should control , Internet is just a medium , like TV .
Teaching how to use automatically put limits on the ability to experiment , to discover and to adjust to a new medium .
Afterall , nobody thought us how to use a TV , or a phone .
If you are rude or misbehave , then you will pay for it sooner of later , not in money , but in social skills .
So count me off .
I rather give someone a PC with a browser and a few directions on how to start .
The rest should remain totally in the end of the user .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Assuming this "Internet driver license" is a good idea, I wonder who should do the preparation, who should do the testing, and what type of office should hand out the certification.
Should we have MS itself handling the preparation?
Or Google?
Or the government?
Regardless of your thoughts on who should control, Internet is just a medium, like TV.
Teaching how to use automatically put limits on the ability to experiment, to discover and to adjust to a new medium.
Afterall, nobody thought us how to use a TV, or a phone.
If you are rude or misbehave, then you will pay for it sooner of later, not in money, but in social skills.
So count me off.
I rather give someone a PC with a browser and a few directions on how to start.
The rest should remain totally in the end of the user.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029578</id>
	<title>Not a bad idea ...</title>
	<author>goose-incarnated</author>
	<datestamp>1265292300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>... if it's limited to people who *want to use windows*<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>... if it 's limited to people who * want to use windows * : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... if it's limited to people who *want to use windows* :-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029710</id>
	<title>Licences for OS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265292960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps the licences should be handed out to Operating Systems based on compliance with web standards... I wonder if MS Windows would be given one?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps the licences should be handed out to Operating Systems based on compliance with web standards... I wonder if MS Windows would be given one ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps the licences should be handed out to Operating Systems based on compliance with web standards... I wonder if MS Windows would be given one?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31031240</id>
	<title>Re:Great segue</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265306160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a MSFTie, I have to agree, unfortunately. This kind of idiot drivel is precisely what earns us so much bad rep that, no matter how hard engineers try to do their best, they can't overcome the public image which worsens every time one of the brass opens his fucking mouth. This here reminds me of that other moron, the one who launched MSN Mobile Music, and was <a href="http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/245859/q-a-microsoft-defends-return-to-drm" title="pcpro.co.uk" rel="nofollow">so damn proud</a> [pcpro.co.uk] about one of the worst DRM schemes on the market. I mean, what the fuck? You don't literally tell your customers that you're going to make them suck up it all the way <b>and</b> pay for it, and then go ahead and advise to enjoy the taste while it lasts! Not when all two people who were even bothering to listen to your drivel will just shrug, tell you to fuck off, and go to iTMS instead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a MSFTie , I have to agree , unfortunately .
This kind of idiot drivel is precisely what earns us so much bad rep that , no matter how hard engineers try to do their best , they ca n't overcome the public image which worsens every time one of the brass opens his fucking mouth .
This here reminds me of that other moron , the one who launched MSN Mobile Music , and was so damn proud [ pcpro.co.uk ] about one of the worst DRM schemes on the market .
I mean , what the fuck ?
You do n't literally tell your customers that you 're going to make them suck up it all the way and pay for it , and then go ahead and advise to enjoy the taste while it lasts !
Not when all two people who were even bothering to listen to your drivel will just shrug , tell you to fuck off , and go to iTMS instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a MSFTie, I have to agree, unfortunately.
This kind of idiot drivel is precisely what earns us so much bad rep that, no matter how hard engineers try to do their best, they can't overcome the public image which worsens every time one of the brass opens his fucking mouth.
This here reminds me of that other moron, the one who launched MSN Mobile Music, and was so damn proud [pcpro.co.uk] about one of the worst DRM schemes on the market.
I mean, what the fuck?
You don't literally tell your customers that you're going to make them suck up it all the way and pay for it, and then go ahead and advise to enjoy the taste while it lasts!
Not when all two people who were even bothering to listen to your drivel will just shrug, tell you to fuck off, and go to iTMS instead.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030118</id>
	<title>Fix That for you</title>
	<author>1mck</author>
	<datestamp>1265296020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Fix that for you - Craig Mundie: Microsoft's Chief Thief and Rip-Officer</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fix that for you - Craig Mundie : Microsoft 's Chief Thief and Rip-Officer</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fix that for you - Craig Mundie: Microsoft's Chief Thief and Rip-Officer</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029630</id>
	<title>Hey Guys</title>
	<author>chappers1</author>
	<datestamp>1265292480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Click on this <a href="http://www.goatse.org/" title="goatse.org" rel="nofollow">Cool Link</a> [goatse.org] , it's really cool.



<br> <br>Oh you clicked? Sorry, you failed. You are now banned from the Internet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Click on this Cool Link [ goatse.org ] , it 's really cool .
Oh you clicked ?
Sorry , you failed .
You are now banned from the Internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Click on this Cool Link [goatse.org] , it's really cool.
Oh you clicked?
Sorry, you failed.
You are now banned from the Internet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030038</id>
	<title>Re:Licences for OS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265295420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They'd just do what they did with the openXML standard, buy out the votes, hijack the committee, and declare their implementation, whatever it may be--the standard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 'd just do what they did with the openXML standard , buy out the votes , hijack the committee , and declare their implementation , whatever it may be--the standard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They'd just do what they did with the openXML standard, buy out the votes, hijack the committee, and declare their implementation, whatever it may be--the standard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31033272</id>
	<title>Re:Cui Bono?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265375100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not to mention the slew of license-related patents to be filed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to mention the slew of license-related patents to be filed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to mention the slew of license-related patents to be filed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030100</id>
	<title>Copyright protection</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265295840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Something tells me that if there was a license required for internet use the most common way to lose it would be involve bittorrent...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Something tells me that if there was a license required for internet use the most common way to lose it would be involve bittorrent.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Something tells me that if there was a license required for internet use the most common way to lose it would be involve bittorrent...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029654</id>
	<title>Stupid suggestion =/= serious threat</title>
	<author>interkin3tic</author>
	<datestamp>1265292600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article linked in the article posted here provides <a href="http://rawstory.com/2010/01/agency-calls-global-cyberwarfare-treaty-drivers-license-web-users/" title="rawstory.com">some context</a> [rawstory.com].  He seemed to have been talking about this as a way of preventing cyber attacks, you'd have your license revoked if your computer was compromised and could be used in an attack.  MS seems to have been trying to cover their asses: "It's not our fault, if we would just put this intrusive system in place, which has no chance of working, but more importantly would never be funded and never built, then the problem will be solved."  The next time a problem with MS products creates a serious problem, they'll say "We told you so!  If you had just put up a billion dollars to make the drivers license system, it might not have completely failed, and this could have been avoided!  Your fault!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article linked in the article posted here provides some context [ rawstory.com ] .
He seemed to have been talking about this as a way of preventing cyber attacks , you 'd have your license revoked if your computer was compromised and could be used in an attack .
MS seems to have been trying to cover their asses : " It 's not our fault , if we would just put this intrusive system in place , which has no chance of working , but more importantly would never be funded and never built , then the problem will be solved .
" The next time a problem with MS products creates a serious problem , they 'll say " We told you so !
If you had just put up a billion dollars to make the drivers license system , it might not have completely failed , and this could have been avoided !
Your fault !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article linked in the article posted here provides some context [rawstory.com].
He seemed to have been talking about this as a way of preventing cyber attacks, you'd have your license revoked if your computer was compromised and could be used in an attack.
MS seems to have been trying to cover their asses: "It's not our fault, if we would just put this intrusive system in place, which has no chance of working, but more importantly would never be funded and never built, then the problem will be solved.
"  The next time a problem with MS products creates a serious problem, they'll say "We told you so!
If you had just put up a billion dollars to make the drivers license system, it might not have completely failed, and this could have been avoided!
Your fault!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31032982</id>
	<title>Re:OK, I see some value in here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265370780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a good idea, as long as it was optional. I'd really like to see all emails encrypted, that way email that's encrypted properly could be whitelisted resulting in fewer false positives on spam filters.</p><p>But I'd still like to post to forums anonymously when I want to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a good idea , as long as it was optional .
I 'd really like to see all emails encrypted , that way email that 's encrypted properly could be whitelisted resulting in fewer false positives on spam filters.But I 'd still like to post to forums anonymously when I want to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a good idea, as long as it was optional.
I'd really like to see all emails encrypted, that way email that's encrypted properly could be whitelisted resulting in fewer false positives on spam filters.But I'd still like to post to forums anonymously when I want to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030812</id>
	<title>Re:OK, I see some value in here</title>
	<author>LordLucless</author>
	<datestamp>1265302800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What you're talking about is not what the article is talking about. They article is talking about a mandatory license before being allowed online.<br>
<br>
You're talking about a cert issued by the government to secure optional transactions.<br>
<br>
What you suggest makes some kind of sense. What the article suggests, doesn't. FWIW, drivers are licensed because the roads are public property, and therefore the public (government) can restrict who drives on it. The fees from the licenses are ostensibly used for the maintenance of infrastructure.<br>
<br>
The internet infrastructure is primarily private property, and the owners already restrict who "drives" on it (whoever pays access fees). Considering that the infrastructure companies already took public funds for developing their infrastructure, and haven't, giving them more seems particularly stupid.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What you 're talking about is not what the article is talking about .
They article is talking about a mandatory license before being allowed online .
You 're talking about a cert issued by the government to secure optional transactions .
What you suggest makes some kind of sense .
What the article suggests , does n't .
FWIW , drivers are licensed because the roads are public property , and therefore the public ( government ) can restrict who drives on it .
The fees from the licenses are ostensibly used for the maintenance of infrastructure .
The internet infrastructure is primarily private property , and the owners already restrict who " drives " on it ( whoever pays access fees ) .
Considering that the infrastructure companies already took public funds for developing their infrastructure , and have n't , giving them more seems particularly stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What you're talking about is not what the article is talking about.
They article is talking about a mandatory license before being allowed online.
You're talking about a cert issued by the government to secure optional transactions.
What you suggest makes some kind of sense.
What the article suggests, doesn't.
FWIW, drivers are licensed because the roads are public property, and therefore the public (government) can restrict who drives on it.
The fees from the licenses are ostensibly used for the maintenance of infrastructure.
The internet infrastructure is primarily private property, and the owners already restrict who "drives" on it (whoever pays access fees).
Considering that the infrastructure companies already took public funds for developing their infrastructure, and haven't, giving them more seems particularly stupid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31034602</id>
	<title>Re:OK, I see some value in here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265386140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think I'll take my chances with the malware, thank you very much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think I 'll take my chances with the malware , thank you very much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think I'll take my chances with the malware, thank you very much.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030988</id>
	<title>Re:It's been proposed before, and it still won't w</title>
	<author>countertrolling</author>
	<datestamp>1265304240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bad idea or not, it's already being practiced in <a href="http://www.burmalibrary.org/reg.burma/archives/200104/msg00073.html" title="burmalibrary.org" rel="nofollow">some places</a> [burmalibrary.org] (chapters 9 and 10, near the bottom)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bad idea or not , it 's already being practiced in some places [ burmalibrary.org ] ( chapters 9 and 10 , near the bottom )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bad idea or not, it's already being practiced in some places [burmalibrary.org] (chapters 9 and 10, near the bottom)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31034548</id>
	<title>Wait a second</title>
	<author>Stregano</author>
	<datestamp>1265385720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Doesn't this mean it will be easier to track activity online?<br> <br>
I don't even want my roommates to know which websites I go to let alone M$.<br> <br>
I hope M$ like looking at logs upon logs of me going to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>./ and looking at skeezy porn</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't this mean it will be easier to track activity online ?
I do n't even want my roommates to know which websites I go to let alone M $ .
I hope M $ like looking at logs upon logs of me going to ./ and looking at skeezy porn</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't this mean it will be easier to track activity online?
I don't even want my roommates to know which websites I go to let alone M$.
I hope M$ like looking at logs upon logs of me going to ./ and looking at skeezy porn</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029754</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot is getting out of hand</title>
	<author>Interoperable</author>
	<datestamp>1265293200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree. Posting a link to a third-hand source should get you a demerit on your internet licence.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree .
Posting a link to a third-hand source should get you a demerit on your internet licence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.
Posting a link to a third-hand source should get you a demerit on your internet licence.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029482</id>
	<title>This is the Stupidest thing I have ever Heard!!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265291700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>WTF a licence to use the Interwebs, that is bullshit and it will never happen. that is like saying you must have a licence to use a phone, or write a letter. how retarded is this guy any why is it news worthy?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>WTF a licence to use the Interwebs , that is bullshit and it will never happen .
that is like saying you must have a licence to use a phone , or write a letter .
how retarded is this guy any why is it news worthy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WTF a licence to use the Interwebs, that is bullshit and it will never happen.
that is like saying you must have a licence to use a phone, or write a letter.
how retarded is this guy any why is it news worthy?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029934</id>
	<title>Try #2: How about "moron-alyzer" test for the Web?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265294520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A license would never work, but, how about something that can be implemented in software, sort of like a breathalyzer test for a car that locks out the ignition?</p><p>We need some kind of "moron-alyzer" test that locks out your internet access in case of stupidity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A license would never work , but , how about something that can be implemented in software , sort of like a breathalyzer test for a car that locks out the ignition ? We need some kind of " moron-alyzer " test that locks out your internet access in case of stupidity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A license would never work, but, how about something that can be implemented in software, sort of like a breathalyzer test for a car that locks out the ignition?We need some kind of "moron-alyzer" test that locks out your internet access in case of stupidity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31032140</id>
	<title>Re:Licences for OS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265401980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Something tells me they wouldn't have much trouble purchasing the organization in charge of issuing the licenses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Something tells me they would n't have much trouble purchasing the organization in charge of issuing the licenses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Something tells me they wouldn't have much trouble purchasing the organization in charge of issuing the licenses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31036798</id>
	<title>I like where this is going</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265396100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>For starters, internet use cannot <b>yet</b> cause death or dismemberment</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For starters , internet use can not yet cause death or dismemberment</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For starters, internet use cannot yet cause death or dismemberment
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030058</id>
	<title>First License goes to</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265295540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I nominate the banker who got caught surfing porn at work on live T.V. to hold the first license.</p><p>I also think that installing M$ software on should count as a point against you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I nominate the banker who got caught surfing porn at work on live T.V .
to hold the first license.I also think that installing M $ software on should count as a point against you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I nominate the banker who got caught surfing porn at work on live T.V.
to hold the first license.I also think that installing M$ software on should count as a point against you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31033248</id>
	<title>NO!</title>
	<author>IchBinEinPenguin</author>
	<datestamp>1265374920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It will be like a 'real' drivers license.</p><p>First it will be used to determine eligibility to 'drive'.</p><p>Then it will be used to determine age.</p><p>then Identity</p><p>The it will morph into RealID.</p><p>As much as I like the idea of finally ending the eternal September this will not work, it will instead morph into another control mechanism.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It will be like a 'real ' drivers license.First it will be used to determine eligibility to 'drive'.Then it will be used to determine age.then IdentityThe it will morph into RealID.As much as I like the idea of finally ending the eternal September this will not work , it will instead morph into another control mechanism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It will be like a 'real' drivers license.First it will be used to determine eligibility to 'drive'.Then it will be used to determine age.then IdentityThe it will morph into RealID.As much as I like the idea of finally ending the eternal September this will not work, it will instead morph into another control mechanism.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030400</id>
	<title>Sounds good</title>
	<author>daveime</author>
	<datestamp>1265299020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm okay with the idea of Internet Driving Licenses for users, provided they also implement MOT tests for Operating Systems.</p><p>(For those of you outside UK, the MOT is the yearly checkup of your car by a qualified mechanic, to make sure it's roadworthy).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm okay with the idea of Internet Driving Licenses for users , provided they also implement MOT tests for Operating Systems .
( For those of you outside UK , the MOT is the yearly checkup of your car by a qualified mechanic , to make sure it 's roadworthy ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm okay with the idea of Internet Driving Licenses for users, provided they also implement MOT tests for Operating Systems.
(For those of you outside UK, the MOT is the yearly checkup of your car by a qualified mechanic, to make sure it's roadworthy).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31033064</id>
	<title>Re:It's only a *tad* bit flawed...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265372160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Quick nitpick; having a properly formatted unordered list (bullet-point list) and then using numbers is madness. Why don't you use an ordered list? The HTML is </p><blockquote><div><p> <tt>&lt;ol&gt;<br>&lt;li&gt; Item 1&lt;/li&gt;<br>&lt;li&gt; Item the second &lt;/li&gt;<br>&lt;li&gt; Blah blah blah &lt;/li&gt;<br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>....<br>&lt;/ol&gt;</tt></p></div> </blockquote><p>I mean, it's only two letters different from what you're already doing ("ol" instead of "ul"), it look better and it saves you typing the n)s.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Quick nitpick ; having a properly formatted unordered list ( bullet-point list ) and then using numbers is madness .
Why do n't you use an ordered list ?
The HTML is Item 1 Item the second Blah blah blah .... I mean , it 's only two letters different from what you 're already doing ( " ol " instead of " ul " ) , it look better and it saves you typing the n ) s .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quick nitpick; having a properly formatted unordered list (bullet-point list) and then using numbers is madness.
Why don't you use an ordered list?
The HTML is   Item 1 Item the second  Blah blah blah  .... I mean, it's only two letters different from what you're already doing ("ol" instead of "ul"), it look better and it saves you typing the n)s.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029980</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030316</id>
	<title>License and Registration please.</title>
	<author>DynaSoar</author>
	<datestamp>1265298060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry, officer, I don't have my registration with me.</p><p>That's alright, we can look it up through the Department of Machine Verification database.</p><p>[mumble mumble radio static squelch mumble]</p><p>I'll have to ask you top step out from behind the keyboard.</p><p>What's the matter officer?</p><p>This operating system license is for an obsolete OS and you're driving the latest model. Either you have a forged license or you're driving stolen software.</p><p>But office, I...</p><p>Keep your hands where I can see them! Get off that chair and get on the ground! ON THE GROUND. HANDS BEHIND YOUR HEAD.</p><p>[A bit over dramatic perhaps, but it's the only real reason to have a 'license'. After all, that is the name of the certificate with the serial number that's on the wrapper. It's yet another level of Genuine Admonishment.]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , officer , I do n't have my registration with me.That 's alright , we can look it up through the Department of Machine Verification database .
[ mumble mumble radio static squelch mumble ] I 'll have to ask you top step out from behind the keyboard.What 's the matter officer ? This operating system license is for an obsolete OS and you 're driving the latest model .
Either you have a forged license or you 're driving stolen software.But office , I...Keep your hands where I can see them !
Get off that chair and get on the ground !
ON THE GROUND .
HANDS BEHIND YOUR HEAD .
[ A bit over dramatic perhaps , but it 's the only real reason to have a 'license' .
After all , that is the name of the certificate with the serial number that 's on the wrapper .
It 's yet another level of Genuine Admonishment .
]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, officer, I don't have my registration with me.That's alright, we can look it up through the Department of Machine Verification database.
[mumble mumble radio static squelch mumble]I'll have to ask you top step out from behind the keyboard.What's the matter officer?This operating system license is for an obsolete OS and you're driving the latest model.
Either you have a forged license or you're driving stolen software.But office, I...Keep your hands where I can see them!
Get off that chair and get on the ground!
ON THE GROUND.
HANDS BEHIND YOUR HEAD.
[A bit over dramatic perhaps, but it's the only real reason to have a 'license'.
After all, that is the name of the certificate with the serial number that's on the wrapper.
It's yet another level of Genuine Admonishment.
]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030424</id>
	<title>International licences...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265299260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't live in the US, does this mean i can't use american sites?</p><p>This also brings into question- much like the different classes of licence for vehicle transmission, will their be browser-specific licences ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't live in the US , does this mean i ca n't use american sites ? This also brings into question- much like the different classes of licence for vehicle transmission , will their be browser-specific licences ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't live in the US, does this mean i can't use american sites?This also brings into question- much like the different classes of licence for vehicle transmission, will their be browser-specific licences ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029510</id>
	<title>Great segue</title>
	<author>thethibs</author>
	<datestamp>1265291880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Craig Mundie is making Dick Brass' point about Microsoft losing its competent people.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Craig Mundie is making Dick Brass ' point about Microsoft losing its competent people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Craig Mundie is making Dick Brass' point about Microsoft losing its competent people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029968</id>
	<title>Windows not road ready</title>
	<author>gig</author>
	<datestamp>1265294760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's no way Windows would pass any kind of Internet-readiness test, it gets viruses and lacks the basic network security features of Unix systems. So it is weird to hear this guy say our Internet "cars" need certification.</p><p>Do you think you need to take a test to use an iPad? The reason so many XP are out there is the massive user training to go to a newer Windows nets no productivity benefit, yet people trade in their old phones for iPhone and without any training the Web browser and a couple of key apps make them immediately more productive.</p><p>Apple is working hard so computing is easy, the Unix community is working hard so computing is safe, and Microsoft says you need to take a test and get a license.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's no way Windows would pass any kind of Internet-readiness test , it gets viruses and lacks the basic network security features of Unix systems .
So it is weird to hear this guy say our Internet " cars " need certification.Do you think you need to take a test to use an iPad ?
The reason so many XP are out there is the massive user training to go to a newer Windows nets no productivity benefit , yet people trade in their old phones for iPhone and without any training the Web browser and a couple of key apps make them immediately more productive.Apple is working hard so computing is easy , the Unix community is working hard so computing is safe , and Microsoft says you need to take a test and get a license .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's no way Windows would pass any kind of Internet-readiness test, it gets viruses and lacks the basic network security features of Unix systems.
So it is weird to hear this guy say our Internet "cars" need certification.Do you think you need to take a test to use an iPad?
The reason so many XP are out there is the massive user training to go to a newer Windows nets no productivity benefit, yet people trade in their old phones for iPhone and without any training the Web browser and a couple of key apps make them immediately more productive.Apple is working hard so computing is easy, the Unix community is working hard so computing is safe, and Microsoft says you need to take a test and get a license.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029684</id>
	<title>Doh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265292780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Simply a dumb idea. NeXT.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Simply a dumb idea .
NeXT .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Simply a dumb idea.
NeXT.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030370</id>
	<title>Re:we need a law?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265298600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>More importantly, this measure is not targeted at "bad guys".  [...] what he is campaigning for is the ability to not only identify everyone who uses the internet but also the convenience of having any state's repressive power to ban anyone from the internet who disrespected any arbitrary rule these fools are trying to impose on the rest of the world.  And the thing is, we aren't talking about criminal acts, as these are already punished by imprisonment.</p></div><p>Ah, but it's the not "bad enough" to arrest, just combersome to find and "fine heavily" guys they want: this is how they plan to fight SPAM. The [yes, they] "Can spam" act didn't do anything to catch the bad guys, and that whole stamped email ($$$)  thing hasn't taken off. Pray tell, who shall start charging for these internet licenses, becoming a flavor of WWW domain registrars? MS will fight to own this right. Shall we have to get M$ certified to do so? It's bad enough that crappy things like CompTIA A+ certs will stop being valid for a lifetime... the MS certs for even professionals have to be renewed. They would invent some new MS cert, of course, and now I be relicensed in MS stuff for every new version of their OS. What's more, Windows is not the whole internet, but if they were to charge, they'll likely section into different certificate strengths... Picture a "pr0n certification module" costing more than a "hotmail basic" or "p2p platinum" one. Ugh.</p><p>I bet nobody here thought splitting the OS versions into Basic, Business, Ultimate and Vistas 9000 others would be forgotten if MS (or anyone looking to charge you twice, thrice... really) becomes regulators to the web. Oh well. Posting AC... I won't take the credit, as this plan won't get off the ground for another generation when China is a stronger world economic / oppressive power and Islam has grown larger throughout the world. They might even fight futuristic wars over who regulates this new 'world passport,' if I may say so myself.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>More importantly , this measure is not targeted at " bad guys " .
[ ... ] what he is campaigning for is the ability to not only identify everyone who uses the internet but also the convenience of having any state 's repressive power to ban anyone from the internet who disrespected any arbitrary rule these fools are trying to impose on the rest of the world .
And the thing is , we are n't talking about criminal acts , as these are already punished by imprisonment.Ah , but it 's the not " bad enough " to arrest , just combersome to find and " fine heavily " guys they want : this is how they plan to fight SPAM .
The [ yes , they ] " Can spam " act did n't do anything to catch the bad guys , and that whole stamped email ( $ $ $ ) thing has n't taken off .
Pray tell , who shall start charging for these internet licenses , becoming a flavor of WWW domain registrars ?
MS will fight to own this right .
Shall we have to get M $ certified to do so ?
It 's bad enough that crappy things like CompTIA A + certs will stop being valid for a lifetime... the MS certs for even professionals have to be renewed .
They would invent some new MS cert , of course , and now I be relicensed in MS stuff for every new version of their OS .
What 's more , Windows is not the whole internet , but if they were to charge , they 'll likely section into different certificate strengths... Picture a " pr0n certification module " costing more than a " hotmail basic " or " p2p platinum " one .
Ugh.I bet nobody here thought splitting the OS versions into Basic , Business , Ultimate and Vistas 9000 others would be forgotten if MS ( or anyone looking to charge you twice , thrice... really ) becomes regulators to the web .
Oh well .
Posting AC... I wo n't take the credit , as this plan wo n't get off the ground for another generation when China is a stronger world economic / oppressive power and Islam has grown larger throughout the world .
They might even fight futuristic wars over who regulates this new 'world passport, ' if I may say so myself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More importantly, this measure is not targeted at "bad guys".
[...] what he is campaigning for is the ability to not only identify everyone who uses the internet but also the convenience of having any state's repressive power to ban anyone from the internet who disrespected any arbitrary rule these fools are trying to impose on the rest of the world.
And the thing is, we aren't talking about criminal acts, as these are already punished by imprisonment.Ah, but it's the not "bad enough" to arrest, just combersome to find and "fine heavily" guys they want: this is how they plan to fight SPAM.
The [yes, they] "Can spam" act didn't do anything to catch the bad guys, and that whole stamped email ($$$)  thing hasn't taken off.
Pray tell, who shall start charging for these internet licenses, becoming a flavor of WWW domain registrars?
MS will fight to own this right.
Shall we have to get M$ certified to do so?
It's bad enough that crappy things like CompTIA A+ certs will stop being valid for a lifetime... the MS certs for even professionals have to be renewed.
They would invent some new MS cert, of course, and now I be relicensed in MS stuff for every new version of their OS.
What's more, Windows is not the whole internet, but if they were to charge, they'll likely section into different certificate strengths... Picture a "pr0n certification module" costing more than a "hotmail basic" or "p2p platinum" one.
Ugh.I bet nobody here thought splitting the OS versions into Basic, Business, Ultimate and Vistas 9000 others would be forgotten if MS (or anyone looking to charge you twice, thrice... really) becomes regulators to the web.
Oh well.
Posting AC... I won't take the credit, as this plan won't get off the ground for another generation when China is a stronger world economic / oppressive power and Islam has grown larger throughout the world.
They might even fight futuristic wars over who regulates this new 'world passport,' if I may say so myself.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030420</id>
	<title>China's influence</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265299200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft is the ultimate corporate whore.  It will do ANYTHING for money.  Google gets hacked and complains, while Microsoft sucks up to the hacker with its missing-tooth grin and says, "Hey, honey, come hack me."</p><p>Of course it's easy for Microsoft to see the world through China-colored glasses, when its vision is clouded by dancing sugarplum visions of money going from China to it instead of Google.</p><p>Wait a few days, and you'll probably read some quote from a Microsoft executive recommending running over people with tanks in large squares.  Amd he'll posit it as though it were the most reasonable thing in the world.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft is the ultimate corporate whore .
It will do ANYTHING for money .
Google gets hacked and complains , while Microsoft sucks up to the hacker with its missing-tooth grin and says , " Hey , honey , come hack me .
" Of course it 's easy for Microsoft to see the world through China-colored glasses , when its vision is clouded by dancing sugarplum visions of money going from China to it instead of Google.Wait a few days , and you 'll probably read some quote from a Microsoft executive recommending running over people with tanks in large squares .
Amd he 'll posit it as though it were the most reasonable thing in the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft is the ultimate corporate whore.
It will do ANYTHING for money.
Google gets hacked and complains, while Microsoft sucks up to the hacker with its missing-tooth grin and says, "Hey, honey, come hack me.
"Of course it's easy for Microsoft to see the world through China-colored glasses, when its vision is clouded by dancing sugarplum visions of money going from China to it instead of Google.Wait a few days, and you'll probably read some quote from a Microsoft executive recommending running over people with tanks in large squares.
Amd he'll posit it as though it were the most reasonable thing in the world.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030326</id>
	<title>Criag Mundie wants to control you.</title>
	<author>Jackie\_Chan\_Fan</author>
	<datestamp>1265298180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There you go.</p><p>Fuck you Criag Mundie. Fuck you in your tiny dick hole, you elitist, ruling class, piece of shit. Shall we require government licenses to use our toasters and our televisions so that we will never burn our toast, and will be capable of understanding that not all TV, including the news is real, or good for us?</p><p>What the fuck Criag. Die in a fire.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There you go.Fuck you Criag Mundie .
Fuck you in your tiny dick hole , you elitist , ruling class , piece of shit .
Shall we require government licenses to use our toasters and our televisions so that we will never burn our toast , and will be capable of understanding that not all TV , including the news is real , or good for us ? What the fuck Criag .
Die in a fire .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There you go.Fuck you Criag Mundie.
Fuck you in your tiny dick hole, you elitist, ruling class, piece of shit.
Shall we require government licenses to use our toasters and our televisions so that we will never burn our toast, and will be capable of understanding that not all TV, including the news is real, or good for us?What the fuck Criag.
Die in a fire.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31032944</id>
	<title>Re:System administrator Driver's License</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265370060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why not a License which describes that any Operative System to which the manufacturer (MS,Apple,etc) publicly disclose that some patches aren't urgent to be banned<br>from driving on the internet ?<br>Because some of M$ "cars" wouldn't pass close inspection anyways<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not a License which describes that any Operative System to which the manufacturer ( MS,Apple,etc ) publicly disclose that some patches are n't urgent to be bannedfrom driving on the internet ? Because some of M $ " cars " would n't pass close inspection anyways ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not a License which describes that any Operative System to which the manufacturer (MS,Apple,etc) publicly disclose that some patches aren't urgent to be bannedfrom driving on the internet ?Because some of M$ "cars" wouldn't pass close inspection anyways ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31031792</id>
	<title>TAXES</title>
	<author>syrce</author>
	<datestamp>1265310840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hell no, this is just a stepping stone to start taxing the internet!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hell no , this is just a stepping stone to start taxing the internet !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hell no, this is just a stepping stone to start taxing the internet!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030220</id>
	<title>Microsoft is on the way down.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265296980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Exactly. It worked only because of special circumstances which will never again be repeated.

<br> <br> <i>"Craig Mundie, Microsoft's Chief Research and Strategy Officer, called for the creation of an 'Internet Driver's License' "</i>

<br> <br>Maybe all the really intelligent people left Microsoft a long time ago.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
It worked only because of special circumstances which will never again be repeated .
" Craig Mundie , Microsoft 's Chief Research and Strategy Officer , called for the creation of an 'Internet Driver 's License ' " Maybe all the really intelligent people left Microsoft a long time ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
It worked only because of special circumstances which will never again be repeated.
"Craig Mundie, Microsoft's Chief Research and Strategy Officer, called for the creation of an 'Internet Driver's License' "

 Maybe all the really intelligent people left Microsoft a long time ago.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31059694</id>
	<title>The end of september?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265636640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Finally!<br>Think of a world without topposting, no more broken citations in email,<br>people actually learning to use that big button on the right that<br>magically breaks lines!<br>Think of a world where everyone reads the FAQ and the Fine Manual before<br>asking relevant and on-topic questions!<br>Think of the utopia with webdevelopers that knows and follows standards so<br>that websites can be used with the browser of your choice!<br>Finally september can be put to rest and we can see a new spring and summer<br>on the interwebs!<br>Wait a minute, Craig Mundie? Microsoft? Eh, crap...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Finally ! Think of a world without topposting , no more broken citations in email,people actually learning to use that big button on the right thatmagically breaks lines ! Think of a world where everyone reads the FAQ and the Fine Manual beforeasking relevant and on-topic questions ! Think of the utopia with webdevelopers that knows and follows standards sothat websites can be used with the browser of your choice ! Finally september can be put to rest and we can see a new spring and summeron the interwebs ! Wait a minute , Craig Mundie ?
Microsoft ? Eh , crap.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Finally!Think of a world without topposting, no more broken citations in email,people actually learning to use that big button on the right thatmagically breaks lines!Think of a world where everyone reads the FAQ and the Fine Manual beforeasking relevant and on-topic questions!Think of the utopia with webdevelopers that knows and follows standards sothat websites can be used with the browser of your choice!Finally september can be put to rest and we can see a new spring and summeron the interwebs!Wait a minute, Craig Mundie?
Microsoft? Eh, crap...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31031946</id>
	<title>Re:If you drunk e-mail...</title>
	<author>mwvdlee</author>
	<datestamp>1265312400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree with Microsoft.</p><p>And just like you wouldn't be allowed to drive a more dangerous vehicle like a truck or a bus on a basic driver's license, so should you only be allowed to drive operating systems like  on a basic driver's license.</p><p>This way the requirements for a basic driver's license could safely drop to "do you know how to avoid using Windows?".</p><p>Browsing the web using Windows should require several years of additional training.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with Microsoft.And just like you would n't be allowed to drive a more dangerous vehicle like a truck or a bus on a basic driver 's license , so should you only be allowed to drive operating systems like on a basic driver 's license.This way the requirements for a basic driver 's license could safely drop to " do you know how to avoid using Windows ?
" .Browsing the web using Windows should require several years of additional training .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with Microsoft.And just like you wouldn't be allowed to drive a more dangerous vehicle like a truck or a bus on a basic driver's license, so should you only be allowed to drive operating systems like  on a basic driver's license.This way the requirements for a basic driver's license could safely drop to "do you know how to avoid using Windows?
".Browsing the web using Windows should require several years of additional training.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030244</id>
	<title>accidents</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265297340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Of course, there are quite a few problems with this. For starters, internet use cannot yet cause death or dismemberment like car accidents can</p> </div><p>Well, not YET. But wait until you see what WGA for Windows 8 can do!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , there are quite a few problems with this .
For starters , internet use can not yet cause death or dismemberment like car accidents can Well , not YET .
But wait until you see what WGA for Windows 8 can do !</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Of course, there are quite a few problems with this.
For starters, internet use cannot yet cause death or dismemberment like car accidents can Well, not YET.
But wait until you see what WGA for Windows 8 can do!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030600</id>
	<title>Might be OK</title>
	<author>cromar</author>
	<datestamp>1265300760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You know, if it's not mandatory and someone can actually come up with a non-falsifiable way to do it (hahahaha), that's fine with me.  I don't want to give out my "ID" to Slashdot or YouTube, for example, but it would be nice for things like eBay or etsy and other online retailers/merchants.  It would also be pretty handy if you had the option to use it on certain sites like Slasdhot or YouTube or FaceBook or your personal/business web page so that it could be searchable and instantly allow you to give some level of confidence to people as to who you are.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , if it 's not mandatory and someone can actually come up with a non-falsifiable way to do it ( hahahaha ) , that 's fine with me .
I do n't want to give out my " ID " to Slashdot or YouTube , for example , but it would be nice for things like eBay or etsy and other online retailers/merchants .
It would also be pretty handy if you had the option to use it on certain sites like Slasdhot or YouTube or FaceBook or your personal/business web page so that it could be searchable and instantly allow you to give some level of confidence to people as to who you are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, if it's not mandatory and someone can actually come up with a non-falsifiable way to do it (hahahaha), that's fine with me.
I don't want to give out my "ID" to Slashdot or YouTube, for example, but it would be nice for things like eBay or etsy and other online retailers/merchants.
It would also be pretty handy if you had the option to use it on certain sites like Slasdhot or YouTube or FaceBook or your personal/business web page so that it could be searchable and instantly allow you to give some level of confidence to people as to who you are.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31034562</id>
	<title>Re:major loss for privacy, dissent</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265385780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Quit with that stupid just sayin shit</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Quit with that stupid just sayin shit</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quit with that stupid just sayin shit</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31034194</id>
	<title>Re:Licences for OS</title>
	<author>sharkey</author>
	<datestamp>1265383740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Unsafe At Any Bitrate?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unsafe At Any Bitrate ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unsafe At Any Bitrate?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31032464</id>
	<title>How about...</title>
	<author>hazydave</author>
	<datestamp>1265363520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>.. a driver's license to release operating systems. Think of all the time and effort the world would have been spared, had Microsoft actually had to study up on this, fail several times, and MAYBE get their learner's permit at some point. It would have eliminated MS-DOS and, while I think the NT kernel would pass fine, we would have been spared the horrible arcane way the Windows GUI works.</p><p>But I think he really means an internet fingerprint... any activity you do online can be uniquely traced back to you. That's what this clown is really talking about. Only, like a "license" it works two-ways... not only can you be traced, but you can be blocked, based on your ID, as well. Maybe, er... "passport" is the word he was looking for. Oh, yeah, that's right.. this is the guy who was pushing Microsoft Passport years back. Also the one who was going around in the early 00's and maybe late 90's attacking the FOSS movement every chance he got.</p><p>So, I retract "clown" and replace it with "ass-clown". No reason to listen to him about this any more than anything else the guy's ever had to say. When he talks, it's in an attempt to make money for Microsoft at the expense of the public.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>.. a driver 's license to release operating systems .
Think of all the time and effort the world would have been spared , had Microsoft actually had to study up on this , fail several times , and MAYBE get their learner 's permit at some point .
It would have eliminated MS-DOS and , while I think the NT kernel would pass fine , we would have been spared the horrible arcane way the Windows GUI works.But I think he really means an internet fingerprint... any activity you do online can be uniquely traced back to you .
That 's what this clown is really talking about .
Only , like a " license " it works two-ways... not only can you be traced , but you can be blocked , based on your ID , as well .
Maybe , er... " passport " is the word he was looking for .
Oh , yeah , that 's right.. this is the guy who was pushing Microsoft Passport years back .
Also the one who was going around in the early 00 's and maybe late 90 's attacking the FOSS movement every chance he got.So , I retract " clown " and replace it with " ass-clown " .
No reason to listen to him about this any more than anything else the guy 's ever had to say .
When he talks , it 's in an attempt to make money for Microsoft at the expense of the public .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.. a driver's license to release operating systems.
Think of all the time and effort the world would have been spared, had Microsoft actually had to study up on this, fail several times, and MAYBE get their learner's permit at some point.
It would have eliminated MS-DOS and, while I think the NT kernel would pass fine, we would have been spared the horrible arcane way the Windows GUI works.But I think he really means an internet fingerprint... any activity you do online can be uniquely traced back to you.
That's what this clown is really talking about.
Only, like a "license" it works two-ways... not only can you be traced, but you can be blocked, based on your ID, as well.
Maybe, er... "passport" is the word he was looking for.
Oh, yeah, that's right.. this is the guy who was pushing Microsoft Passport years back.
Also the one who was going around in the early 00's and maybe late 90's attacking the FOSS movement every chance he got.So, I retract "clown" and replace it with "ass-clown".
No reason to listen to him about this any more than anything else the guy's ever had to say.
When he talks, it's in an attempt to make money for Microsoft at the expense of the public.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31032540</id>
	<title>There's already a driving licence - the ECDL/ICDL</title>
	<author>rklrkl</author>
	<datestamp>1265364660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm surprised Mundie didn't use Wikipedia (Not Invented Here?) before he spouted off - there's already a driving licence for computers at least (though it strangely doesn't include Internet 'skills') called the<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European\_Computer\_Driving\_Licence" title="wikipedia.org">European Computer Driving Licence</a> [wikipedia.org] or ECDL for short. Although it started in Europe, it's spread worldwide ("European" becomes "International", so it's then known as ICDL) to 148 countries, including the <a href="http://www.icdlus.org/" title="icdlus.org">US</a> [icdlus.org].</p><p>I seem to remember that it's very Microsoft-oriented though - the courses typically involve MS applications and probably don't consider alternatives (OpenOffice.org etc.) at all. I guess that makes it even more ironic that Mundle didn't refer to it. And, no, I've never taken the ECDL/ICDL so does that mean I'm guilty of "computing without a licence"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm surprised Mundie did n't use Wikipedia ( Not Invented Here ?
) before he spouted off - there 's already a driving licence for computers at least ( though it strangely does n't include Internet 'skills ' ) called theEuropean Computer Driving Licence [ wikipedia.org ] or ECDL for short .
Although it started in Europe , it 's spread worldwide ( " European " becomes " International " , so it 's then known as ICDL ) to 148 countries , including the US [ icdlus.org ] .I seem to remember that it 's very Microsoft-oriented though - the courses typically involve MS applications and probably do n't consider alternatives ( OpenOffice.org etc .
) at all .
I guess that makes it even more ironic that Mundle did n't refer to it .
And , no , I 've never taken the ECDL/ICDL so does that mean I 'm guilty of " computing without a licence " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm surprised Mundie didn't use Wikipedia (Not Invented Here?
) before he spouted off - there's already a driving licence for computers at least (though it strangely doesn't include Internet 'skills') called theEuropean Computer Driving Licence [wikipedia.org] or ECDL for short.
Although it started in Europe, it's spread worldwide ("European" becomes "International", so it's then known as ICDL) to 148 countries, including the US [icdlus.org].I seem to remember that it's very Microsoft-oriented though - the courses typically involve MS applications and probably don't consider alternatives (OpenOffice.org etc.
) at all.
I guess that makes it even more ironic that Mundle didn't refer to it.
And, no, I've never taken the ECDL/ICDL so does that mean I'm guilty of "computing without a licence"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030782</id>
	<title>Re:we need a law?</title>
	<author>Thoguth</author>
	<datestamp>1265302560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know, this isn't really a response to you, but while reading your post it occurred to me that any company *can* make a network that sits on top of the internet, to which all those rules apply.  If Microsoft wants to create a Microsoft network of some kind, they can implement any restriction they want<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... maybe the licensed, approved-user-only model will be compelling. With the XBox, MS already controls a platform pretty well, and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... well, to tell the truth, XBoxLive or whatever the network is that you play games on <i>is</i> a MS only network that MS controls the hardware and the access to. So if MS really believes in it, why not require a license to access the MS Xbox internet?</p><p>Man, a license for the internet<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... the stupidity, it burns.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , this is n't really a response to you , but while reading your post it occurred to me that any company * can * make a network that sits on top of the internet , to which all those rules apply .
If Microsoft wants to create a Microsoft network of some kind , they can implement any restriction they want ... maybe the licensed , approved-user-only model will be compelling .
With the XBox , MS already controls a platform pretty well , and ... well , to tell the truth , XBoxLive or whatever the network is that you play games on is a MS only network that MS controls the hardware and the access to .
So if MS really believes in it , why not require a license to access the MS Xbox internet ? Man , a license for the internet ... the stupidity , it burns .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, this isn't really a response to you, but while reading your post it occurred to me that any company *can* make a network that sits on top of the internet, to which all those rules apply.
If Microsoft wants to create a Microsoft network of some kind, they can implement any restriction they want ... maybe the licensed, approved-user-only model will be compelling.
With the XBox, MS already controls a platform pretty well, and ... well, to tell the truth, XBoxLive or whatever the network is that you play games on is a MS only network that MS controls the hardware and the access to.
So if MS really believes in it, why not require a license to access the MS Xbox internet?Man, a license for the internet ... the stupidity, it burns.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31044008</id>
	<title>Wacko</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265489580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is this some sort of Microsoft insider joke gone bad? I mean seriously, this guy must have missed a few doses of his  medication.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this some sort of Microsoft insider joke gone bad ?
I mean seriously , this guy must have missed a few doses of his medication .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this some sort of Microsoft insider joke gone bad?
I mean seriously, this guy must have missed a few doses of his  medication.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31031178</id>
	<title>Re:It's been proposed before, and it still won't w</title>
	<author>RichM</author>
	<datestamp>1265305680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It would probably be illegal for the US government to require "drivers licenses" for general Internet use.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Absolutely, the INTERNATIONALnetwork.<br>
The moment any nation controls that, well we've lost. (and I'm looking at you, Network Solutions)<br>
<tt>richard@lara:~$ whois root-servers.net<br>
<br>
Whois Server Version 2.0<br>
<br>
Domain names in the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.com and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net domains can now be registered<br>
with many different competing registrars. Go to <a href="http://www.internic.net/" title="internic.net">http://www.internic.net/</a> [internic.net] <br>
for detailed information.<br>
<br>
   Domain Name: ROOT-SERVERS.NET<br>
   Registrar: NETWORK SOLUTIONS, LLC.<br>
   Whois Server: whois.networksolutions.com<br>
   Referral URL: <a href="http://www.networksolutions.com/" title="networksolutions.com">http://www.networksolutions.com/</a> [networksolutions.com] <br>
   Name Server: A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET<br>
   Name Server: F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET<br>
   Name Server: J.ROOT-SERVERS.NET<br>
   Name Server: K.ROOT-SERVERS.NET<br>
   Status: serverDeleteProhibited<br>
   Status: serverTransferProhibited<br>
   [etc]<br>
<br>
</tt></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It would probably be illegal for the US government to require " drivers licenses " for general Internet use .
Absolutely , the INTERNATIONALnetwork .
The moment any nation controls that , well we 've lost .
( and I 'm looking at you , Network Solutions ) richard @ lara : ~ $ whois root-servers.net Whois Server Version 2.0 Domain names in the .com and .net domains can now be registered with many different competing registrars .
Go to http : //www.internic.net/ [ internic.net ] for detailed information .
Domain Name : ROOT-SERVERS.NET Registrar : NETWORK SOLUTIONS , LLC .
Whois Server : whois.networksolutions.com Referral URL : http : //www.networksolutions.com/ [ networksolutions.com ] Name Server : A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET Name Server : F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET Name Server : J.ROOT-SERVERS.NET Name Server : K.ROOT-SERVERS.NET Status : serverDeleteProhibited Status : serverTransferProhibited [ etc ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would probably be illegal for the US government to require "drivers licenses" for general Internet use.
Absolutely, the INTERNATIONALnetwork.
The moment any nation controls that, well we've lost.
(and I'm looking at you, Network Solutions)
richard@lara:~$ whois root-servers.net

Whois Server Version 2.0

Domain names in the .com and .net domains can now be registered
with many different competing registrars.
Go to http://www.internic.net/ [internic.net] 
for detailed information.
Domain Name: ROOT-SERVERS.NET
   Registrar: NETWORK SOLUTIONS, LLC.
Whois Server: whois.networksolutions.com
   Referral URL: http://www.networksolutions.com/ [networksolutions.com] 
   Name Server: A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET
   Name Server: F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET
   Name Server: J.ROOT-SERVERS.NET
   Name Server: K.ROOT-SERVERS.NET
   Status: serverDeleteProhibited
   Status: serverTransferProhibited
   [etc]


	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31033584</id>
	<title>Re:If you drunk e-mail...</title>
	<author>morphevs</author>
	<datestamp>1265378880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>MS has never been for Open SOurce...it just dont pay that well<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)<br>and everyone can see theyr fuckups..not too good for publicity</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>MS has never been for Open SOurce...it just dont pay that well : ) and everyone can see theyr fuckups..not too good for publicity</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MS has never been for Open SOurce...it just dont pay that well :)and everyone can see theyr fuckups..not too good for publicity</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31032806</id>
	<title>Internet drivers license, or internet IQ tests?</title>
	<author>mcocke</author>
	<datestamp>1265368140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Remember when you needed to be able to make a modem work and set up some fairly complex software in order to get online?  The "average" person you found online back then was considerably more reasonable, well-behaved, and plain old intelligent than you run into online today.  Sounds to me like he's suggesting a return to those days - and I could seriously get behind that idea!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember when you needed to be able to make a modem work and set up some fairly complex software in order to get online ?
The " average " person you found online back then was considerably more reasonable , well-behaved , and plain old intelligent than you run into online today .
Sounds to me like he 's suggesting a return to those days - and I could seriously get behind that idea !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember when you needed to be able to make a modem work and set up some fairly complex software in order to get online?
The "average" person you found online back then was considerably more reasonable, well-behaved, and plain old intelligent than you run into online today.
Sounds to me like he's suggesting a return to those days - and I could seriously get behind that idea!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030268</id>
	<title>An extension to the idea</title>
	<author>sustik</author>
	<datestamp>1265297580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it would be even better if we mandate a security licence for designing, implementing and deploying operating systems/web browsers/etc that access the network.</p><p>For example, if you tried that for a couple of decades and could not get it right, then maybe your licence should be revoked and reinstated only after proving you code correct and only in a limited market first.  (For example, desktops only, no laptops, no wireless etc.)</p><p>I really hope this will get traction!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it would be even better if we mandate a security licence for designing , implementing and deploying operating systems/web browsers/etc that access the network.For example , if you tried that for a couple of decades and could not get it right , then maybe your licence should be revoked and reinstated only after proving you code correct and only in a limited market first .
( For example , desktops only , no laptops , no wireless etc .
) I really hope this will get traction !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it would be even better if we mandate a security licence for designing, implementing and deploying operating systems/web browsers/etc that access the network.For example, if you tried that for a couple of decades and could not get it right, then maybe your licence should be revoked and reinstated only after proving you code correct and only in a limited market first.
(For example, desktops only, no laptops, no wireless etc.
)I really hope this will get traction!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030492
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029754
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31032792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31031122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31044370
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31031232
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31031468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31034352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31034562
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31031380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030452
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31031676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31043826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030310
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31034926
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31032068
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31032586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31033584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030038
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31032988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31031946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31033300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030334
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31039052
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030204
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31032418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31031066
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31031526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31050538
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31032498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31033796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31031554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030222
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31034194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31031746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31031614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31034430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31033064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31034432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31033596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31047458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030370
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31034602
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31032982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31032246
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31033970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31031784
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030422
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31032944
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31033272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31032512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31033630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31034742
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030812
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31033886
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31031930
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31032888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31036032
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31032140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030742
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31031240
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31031468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31032058
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029954
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31031178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31032648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31031320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31035002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31031870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31031006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31031008
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_2249241_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31032558
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_2249241.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029462
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030910
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_2249241.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030136
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_2249241.33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029434
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31032988
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030492
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029826
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31031526
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029936
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31043826
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31031676
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029784
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31032418
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31032068
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31033584
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31033970
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030334
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31031468
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31032058
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31034352
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030220
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31031946
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31044370
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_2249241.46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029562
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31034926
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_2249241.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029786
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_2249241.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030406
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_2249241.41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029770
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_2249241.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029684
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029954
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_2249241.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029680
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_2249241.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029444
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030490
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_2249241.37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030792
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_2249241.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029930
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_2249241.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029928
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31031554
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31033886
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31039052
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31032498
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_2249241.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31032540
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_2249241.42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029968
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030742
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030608
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31032512
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31032558
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_2249241.38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029640
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_2249241.32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029654
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_2249241.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029960
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_2249241.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029456
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029754
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029894
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029612
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_2249241.48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030268
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_2249241.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029710
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030038
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31034194
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030310
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030422
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31032140
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_2249241.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030068
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31031320
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_2249241.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029476
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029888
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31031930
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030366
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31032246
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029934
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_2249241.43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029500
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31034742
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31032944
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_2249241.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029536
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31034562
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31031746
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31031008
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31033596
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030140
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_2249241.39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029822
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31032586
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_2249241.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030100
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31033300
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_2249241.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31032462
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_2249241.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029636
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_2249241.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030062
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_2249241.34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029552
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030502
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31035002
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31032792
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030158
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_2249241.47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029672
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030318
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030564
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31032888
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_2249241.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029510
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31036032
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31031240
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_2249241.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029642
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_2249241.44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029580
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31031006
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31031178
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030988
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_2249241.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029482
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_2249241.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029490
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_2249241.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030022
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_2249241.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029544
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030614
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030578
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31031066
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029996
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029982
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31031122
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_2249241.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030130
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_2249241.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029464
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029840
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31033796
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31034432
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030508
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030370
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31031870
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030222
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030204
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31031380
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030782
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31032648
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030420
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030512
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030984
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_2249241.45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029524
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31033272
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31033630
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030516
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_2249241.35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030326
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31031614
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31031232
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_2249241.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030940
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_2249241.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029980
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31033064
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_2249241.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029768
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030300
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030774
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030812
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31032982
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31050538
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31031784
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31034430
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31034602
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31047458
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_2249241.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029532
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31030452
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_2249241.40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029782
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_2249241.36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029530
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029878
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_2249241.49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_2249241.31029998
</commentlist>
</conversation>
