<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_05_0440247</id>
	<title>Routine DNA Tests For Newborns Mean Looming Privacy Problems</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1265375580000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>pogopop77 writes <i>"CNN has an interesting story about how newborn babies in the United States are <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/04/baby.dna.government/index.html">routinely screened for a panel of genetic diseases</a>. Since the testing is mandated by the government, it's often done without the parents' consent.  However, many states store that DNA information indefinitely, and even make it available to researchers with little or no privacy safeguards.  Sometimes even the names are attached!  Here is information on <a href="http://tinyurl.com/statedna">state-by-state policies</a> (PDF) of the handling of the DNA information."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>pogopop77 writes " CNN has an interesting story about how newborn babies in the United States are routinely screened for a panel of genetic diseases .
Since the testing is mandated by the government , it 's often done without the parents ' consent .
However , many states store that DNA information indefinitely , and even make it available to researchers with little or no privacy safeguards .
Sometimes even the names are attached !
Here is information on state-by-state policies ( PDF ) of the handling of the DNA information .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>pogopop77 writes "CNN has an interesting story about how newborn babies in the United States are routinely screened for a panel of genetic diseases.
Since the testing is mandated by the government, it's often done without the parents' consent.
However, many states store that DNA information indefinitely, and even make it available to researchers with little or no privacy safeguards.
Sometimes even the names are attached!
Here is information on state-by-state policies (PDF) of the handling of the DNA information.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31035048</id>
	<title>Re:The important part of the article</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1265388780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IMO there should be no health insurance companies. Get rid of them and have the government pay for your health care, and our costs (the highest in the world) will drop to where more civilized countries' costs are, and our health will be markedly improved. Your higher taxes will more than be made up by not having to pay insurance premiums.</p><p>We have the most expensive health care in the world, but by no metric do we have the best care. I blame private insurance. I had hopes for Obama, but his version of health care "reform" seems to me nothing but a gift to the insurance companies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IMO there should be no health insurance companies .
Get rid of them and have the government pay for your health care , and our costs ( the highest in the world ) will drop to where more civilized countries ' costs are , and our health will be markedly improved .
Your higher taxes will more than be made up by not having to pay insurance premiums.We have the most expensive health care in the world , but by no metric do we have the best care .
I blame private insurance .
I had hopes for Obama , but his version of health care " reform " seems to me nothing but a gift to the insurance companies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IMO there should be no health insurance companies.
Get rid of them and have the government pay for your health care, and our costs (the highest in the world) will drop to where more civilized countries' costs are, and our health will be markedly improved.
Your higher taxes will more than be made up by not having to pay insurance premiums.We have the most expensive health care in the world, but by no metric do we have the best care.
I blame private insurance.
I had hopes for Obama, but his version of health care "reform" seems to me nothing but a gift to the insurance companies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31044410</id>
	<title>Re:The important part of the article</title>
	<author>Maow</author>
	<datestamp>1265455080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Brown says if the hospital had first asked her permission to test Isabel, now 10 months old, she might have chosen to pay for it out of pocket so the results wouldn't be known to the insurance company."</p></div><p>Isn't this a breach of informed consent?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Brown says if the hospital had first asked her permission to test Isabel , now 10 months old , she might have chosen to pay for it out of pocket so the results would n't be known to the insurance company .
" Is n't this a breach of informed consent ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Brown says if the hospital had first asked her permission to test Isabel, now 10 months old, she might have chosen to pay for it out of pocket so the results wouldn't be known to the insurance company.
"Isn't this a breach of informed consent?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31036610</id>
	<title>Re:The important part of the article</title>
	<author>nawitus</author>
	<datestamp>1265395260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What a good reason to switch to free health care.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What a good reason to switch to free health care .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What a good reason to switch to free health care.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033768</id>
	<title>Opt out</title>
	<author>Wonko the Sane</author>
	<datestamp>1265380500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At least one state, Texas, allows parents to opt out of the screenings.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At least one state , Texas , allows parents to opt out of the screenings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least one state, Texas, allows parents to opt out of the screenings.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033666</id>
	<title>Uninsurable</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265379660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The article touches on insurance but I fear this particular part more than the privacy concerns:<p><div class="quote"><p>Since health insurance paid for Isabel's genetic screening, her positive test for a cystic fibrosis gene is now on the record with her insurance company, and the Browns are concerned this could hurt her in the future.</p></div><p>And if the disease is considered genetic by the medical community like Alzheimer's or even high cholesterol, is it going to affect her descendants through the ages forthcoming when they try to get insurance?   Already you have people with <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/05/14/preexisting.condition.insurance/index.html" title="cnn.com">pre-existing conditions finding it hard to get insurance</a> [cnn.com] but I fear of a future where health care crises are addressed by increasing fees passed on to people with genetic disorders and diseases that they not only have no control over but also don't even suffer from yet.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The article touches on insurance but I fear this particular part more than the privacy concerns : Since health insurance paid for Isabel 's genetic screening , her positive test for a cystic fibrosis gene is now on the record with her insurance company , and the Browns are concerned this could hurt her in the future.And if the disease is considered genetic by the medical community like Alzheimer 's or even high cholesterol , is it going to affect her descendants through the ages forthcoming when they try to get insurance ?
Already you have people with pre-existing conditions finding it hard to get insurance [ cnn.com ] but I fear of a future where health care crises are addressed by increasing fees passed on to people with genetic disorders and diseases that they not only have no control over but also do n't even suffer from yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article touches on insurance but I fear this particular part more than the privacy concerns:Since health insurance paid for Isabel's genetic screening, her positive test for a cystic fibrosis gene is now on the record with her insurance company, and the Browns are concerned this could hurt her in the future.And if the disease is considered genetic by the medical community like Alzheimer's or even high cholesterol, is it going to affect her descendants through the ages forthcoming when they try to get insurance?
Already you have people with pre-existing conditions finding it hard to get insurance [cnn.com] but I fear of a future where health care crises are addressed by increasing fees passed on to people with genetic disorders and diseases that they not only have no control over but also don't even suffer from yet.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31036854</id>
	<title>Re:Uninsurable</title>
	<author>Rich0</author>
	<datestamp>1265396340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, you have two choices:</p><p>1.  Compulsory insurance / universal coverage.  EVERYBODY buys it (or the government just taxes them for the cost of it if they refuse).<br>2.  Denial of pre-existing conditions (genetic or otherwise).</p><p>Take your pick.  If you try to require coverage of pre-existing conditions but don't force people to pay for a policy, then people can wait until after they get sick to buy insurance.  In this particular case, somebody who is genetically likely to have some cronic sickness can beef up their insurance before they even get symptoms.  That means that insurance companies on the whole end up with more coverage for sicker people and less coverage for healthier people on average, and rates have to skyrocket until nobody can afford coverage at all, and then they all go bankrupt.</p><p>As diagnostics improve (especially genetics) I think we're going to be stuck with #1 no matter what.  As technology improves the uncertainties go down and instead of people having a 10\% risk of X they have either a 0.0001\% risk or a 99.9999\% risk.</p><p>Note that nationalized health care is effectively #1.  Also, note that you can have #1 in any number of financing models (everybody pays the same, rich pay more, poor get it free, etc).  #1 only speaks to people not being able to opt out of coverage and payment responsibility however that ends up being allocated.</p><p>Anything other than #1 or #2 is fantasy.  Sure, I'm all for cutting costs, and that can lower the costs to people under either #1 or #2, but fundamentally even the most efficient insurance and care operation cannot be sustained without picking one or the other (unless you have government bailouts, but those are effectively #1 anyway since they end up covering the people who wouldn't otherwise be covered).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , you have two choices : 1 .
Compulsory insurance / universal coverage .
EVERYBODY buys it ( or the government just taxes them for the cost of it if they refuse ) .2 .
Denial of pre-existing conditions ( genetic or otherwise ) .Take your pick .
If you try to require coverage of pre-existing conditions but do n't force people to pay for a policy , then people can wait until after they get sick to buy insurance .
In this particular case , somebody who is genetically likely to have some cronic sickness can beef up their insurance before they even get symptoms .
That means that insurance companies on the whole end up with more coverage for sicker people and less coverage for healthier people on average , and rates have to skyrocket until nobody can afford coverage at all , and then they all go bankrupt.As diagnostics improve ( especially genetics ) I think we 're going to be stuck with # 1 no matter what .
As technology improves the uncertainties go down and instead of people having a 10 \ % risk of X they have either a 0.0001 \ % risk or a 99.9999 \ % risk.Note that nationalized health care is effectively # 1 .
Also , note that you can have # 1 in any number of financing models ( everybody pays the same , rich pay more , poor get it free , etc ) .
# 1 only speaks to people not being able to opt out of coverage and payment responsibility however that ends up being allocated.Anything other than # 1 or # 2 is fantasy .
Sure , I 'm all for cutting costs , and that can lower the costs to people under either # 1 or # 2 , but fundamentally even the most efficient insurance and care operation can not be sustained without picking one or the other ( unless you have government bailouts , but those are effectively # 1 anyway since they end up covering the people who would n't otherwise be covered ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, you have two choices:1.
Compulsory insurance / universal coverage.
EVERYBODY buys it (or the government just taxes them for the cost of it if they refuse).2.
Denial of pre-existing conditions (genetic or otherwise).Take your pick.
If you try to require coverage of pre-existing conditions but don't force people to pay for a policy, then people can wait until after they get sick to buy insurance.
In this particular case, somebody who is genetically likely to have some cronic sickness can beef up their insurance before they even get symptoms.
That means that insurance companies on the whole end up with more coverage for sicker people and less coverage for healthier people on average, and rates have to skyrocket until nobody can afford coverage at all, and then they all go bankrupt.As diagnostics improve (especially genetics) I think we're going to be stuck with #1 no matter what.
As technology improves the uncertainties go down and instead of people having a 10\% risk of X they have either a 0.0001\% risk or a 99.9999\% risk.Note that nationalized health care is effectively #1.
Also, note that you can have #1 in any number of financing models (everybody pays the same, rich pay more, poor get it free, etc).
#1 only speaks to people not being able to opt out of coverage and payment responsibility however that ends up being allocated.Anything other than #1 or #2 is fantasy.
Sure, I'm all for cutting costs, and that can lower the costs to people under either #1 or #2, but fundamentally even the most efficient insurance and care operation cannot be sustained without picking one or the other (unless you have government bailouts, but those are effectively #1 anyway since they end up covering the people who wouldn't otherwise be covered).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31039348</id>
	<title>Re:Insurance</title>
	<author>Carnildo</author>
	<datestamp>1265364240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If you already have an expensive condition, the concept of insurance no longer applies to you. It is no longer possible to pool your risk. At that point, you are looking for a SUBSIDY.</p></div></blockquote><p>Let's say I get in an auto accident requiring a quarter-million dollars of treatment.  Let's say further that I don't have insurance.  What I'm looking for is a LOAN secured against my expected future earnings, but no bank in the world offers that.  That's where insurance should come in: I get the treatment I need, and the insurance company spreads the risk that I'll die before repaying the "loan" among all the people they cover.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you already have an expensive condition , the concept of insurance no longer applies to you .
It is no longer possible to pool your risk .
At that point , you are looking for a SUBSIDY.Let 's say I get in an auto accident requiring a quarter-million dollars of treatment .
Let 's say further that I do n't have insurance .
What I 'm looking for is a LOAN secured against my expected future earnings , but no bank in the world offers that .
That 's where insurance should come in : I get the treatment I need , and the insurance company spreads the risk that I 'll die before repaying the " loan " among all the people they cover .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you already have an expensive condition, the concept of insurance no longer applies to you.
It is no longer possible to pool your risk.
At that point, you are looking for a SUBSIDY.Let's say I get in an auto accident requiring a quarter-million dollars of treatment.
Let's say further that I don't have insurance.
What I'm looking for is a LOAN secured against my expected future earnings, but no bank in the world offers that.
That's where insurance should come in: I get the treatment I need, and the insurance company spreads the risk that I'll die before repaying the "loan" among all the people they cover.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034280</id>
	<title>Re:Insurance</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1265384280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But this isn't about getting insurance after your house has burned down or you've got the disease. It's about genetics that might make you more likely to show a condition. Plus there's the difference that if you build a new house, you can still get new insurance for that - you're not branded for life as uninsurable.</p><p>Insurance is a gamble for both sides - but it's one sided if they get to look at the cards you are carrying, which should be your private information.</p><p>The better analogy would be buying a house, and then after that someone saying "Oh by the way, we've done tests on you, and no insurance company will offer you house insurance, ever". But even for houses, the situation isn't that stupid - in the UK at least, you need to make sure insurance is arranged before you buy the house (if you want a mortgage, at least). Surely someone's health is even more important?</p><p>How exactly do you propose a baby gets insurance "before" their signs of disease show, if you count their DNA as already having the disease?. Someone's health is not like a house which can be replaced. The other problem is that even if DNA tests aren't routine, people who might benefit from them are deterred from getting them - because of insurance, you're better off not knowing.</p><p>These are all reasons why relying on laissez-faire private insurance for health is a bad idea - either there should be Government offered insurance, healthcare, and/or laws that regulate what information private insurance companies can access or use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But this is n't about getting insurance after your house has burned down or you 've got the disease .
It 's about genetics that might make you more likely to show a condition .
Plus there 's the difference that if you build a new house , you can still get new insurance for that - you 're not branded for life as uninsurable.Insurance is a gamble for both sides - but it 's one sided if they get to look at the cards you are carrying , which should be your private information.The better analogy would be buying a house , and then after that someone saying " Oh by the way , we 've done tests on you , and no insurance company will offer you house insurance , ever " .
But even for houses , the situation is n't that stupid - in the UK at least , you need to make sure insurance is arranged before you buy the house ( if you want a mortgage , at least ) .
Surely someone 's health is even more important ? How exactly do you propose a baby gets insurance " before " their signs of disease show , if you count their DNA as already having the disease ? .
Someone 's health is not like a house which can be replaced .
The other problem is that even if DNA tests are n't routine , people who might benefit from them are deterred from getting them - because of insurance , you 're better off not knowing.These are all reasons why relying on laissez-faire private insurance for health is a bad idea - either there should be Government offered insurance , healthcare , and/or laws that regulate what information private insurance companies can access or use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But this isn't about getting insurance after your house has burned down or you've got the disease.
It's about genetics that might make you more likely to show a condition.
Plus there's the difference that if you build a new house, you can still get new insurance for that - you're not branded for life as uninsurable.Insurance is a gamble for both sides - but it's one sided if they get to look at the cards you are carrying, which should be your private information.The better analogy would be buying a house, and then after that someone saying "Oh by the way, we've done tests on you, and no insurance company will offer you house insurance, ever".
But even for houses, the situation isn't that stupid - in the UK at least, you need to make sure insurance is arranged before you buy the house (if you want a mortgage, at least).
Surely someone's health is even more important?How exactly do you propose a baby gets insurance "before" their signs of disease show, if you count their DNA as already having the disease?.
Someone's health is not like a house which can be replaced.
The other problem is that even if DNA tests aren't routine, people who might benefit from them are deterred from getting them - because of insurance, you're better off not knowing.These are all reasons why relying on laissez-faire private insurance for health is a bad idea - either there should be Government offered insurance, healthcare, and/or laws that regulate what information private insurance companies can access or use.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31037366</id>
	<title>Re:From someone who does Genetic Testing</title>
	<author>MobyDisk</author>
	<datestamp>1265398620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>No one is out to get you. No one has the time or energy to get you. Life is not CSI.</p></div><p>This is a common fallacy.  Nobody is \_currently\_ out to get you, and it is \_currently\_ too expensive to do so.  But as soon as it either becomes cheap enough (for example - if there was a universal system for storing this information, like Obama has proposed, or if future computers make it easy to search this stuff) or if someone was out to get you (you are running for public office, you pissed-off someone important, you get a lot of money) then suddenly the economics of the situation change.</p><p>To use another example - this is why the government should not be allowed to wiretap phones or email without a warrant.  When the laws were put into place, it would have been absurdly expensive to have someone or some machine filter through phone calls or voice mails or emails to determine who was a potential terrorist.  And why would they want to when there was no perceived threat?  But 2001 arrives, and now there is a perceived value in doing it, and technology like carnivore makes it easy to do.  So all of a sudden something that was not a concern is now a real possibility.</p><p>We should do what is right, and protect information, even if we think that it is not likely to be abused.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No one is out to get you .
No one has the time or energy to get you .
Life is not CSI.This is a common fallacy .
Nobody is \ _currently \ _ out to get you , and it is \ _currently \ _ too expensive to do so .
But as soon as it either becomes cheap enough ( for example - if there was a universal system for storing this information , like Obama has proposed , or if future computers make it easy to search this stuff ) or if someone was out to get you ( you are running for public office , you pissed-off someone important , you get a lot of money ) then suddenly the economics of the situation change.To use another example - this is why the government should not be allowed to wiretap phones or email without a warrant .
When the laws were put into place , it would have been absurdly expensive to have someone or some machine filter through phone calls or voice mails or emails to determine who was a potential terrorist .
And why would they want to when there was no perceived threat ?
But 2001 arrives , and now there is a perceived value in doing it , and technology like carnivore makes it easy to do .
So all of a sudden something that was not a concern is now a real possibility.We should do what is right , and protect information , even if we think that it is not likely to be abused .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No one is out to get you.
No one has the time or energy to get you.
Life is not CSI.This is a common fallacy.
Nobody is \_currently\_ out to get you, and it is \_currently\_ too expensive to do so.
But as soon as it either becomes cheap enough (for example - if there was a universal system for storing this information, like Obama has proposed, or if future computers make it easy to search this stuff) or if someone was out to get you (you are running for public office, you pissed-off someone important, you get a lot of money) then suddenly the economics of the situation change.To use another example - this is why the government should not be allowed to wiretap phones or email without a warrant.
When the laws were put into place, it would have been absurdly expensive to have someone or some machine filter through phone calls or voice mails or emails to determine who was a potential terrorist.
And why would they want to when there was no perceived threat?
But 2001 arrives, and now there is a perceived value in doing it, and technology like carnivore makes it easy to do.
So all of a sudden something that was not a concern is now a real possibility.We should do what is right, and protect information, even if we think that it is not likely to be abused.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034038</id>
	<title>New Hampshire decreased duration</title>
	<author>Orga</author>
	<datestamp>1265382780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I noticed New Hampshire used to be listed as indefinitely and now is listed as 6 months.  Anyone know the details behind that decision?

Too expensive? Privacy concerns?

I for one can't wait to be able to test a supervirus against a broad base of peoples DNA's to make sure it hits just the right markers I want it to. (Do I need to clarify that is a joke?)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I noticed New Hampshire used to be listed as indefinitely and now is listed as 6 months .
Anyone know the details behind that decision ?
Too expensive ?
Privacy concerns ?
I for one ca n't wait to be able to test a supervirus against a broad base of peoples DNA 's to make sure it hits just the right markers I want it to .
( Do I need to clarify that is a joke ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I noticed New Hampshire used to be listed as indefinitely and now is listed as 6 months.
Anyone know the details behind that decision?
Too expensive?
Privacy concerns?
I for one can't wait to be able to test a supervirus against a broad base of peoples DNA's to make sure it hits just the right markers I want it to.
(Do I need to clarify that is a joke?
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034434</id>
	<title>I don't see the problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265385180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to worry about.</p><p>Think of the children.</p><p>Are you all terrorists or something?</p><p>Yours sincerely</p><p>Mr Stupid</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 've got nothing to hide , you 've got nothing to worry about.Think of the children.Are you all terrorists or something ? Yours sincerelyMr Stupid</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to worry about.Think of the children.Are you all terrorists or something?Yours sincerelyMr Stupid</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31041464</id>
	<title>Have you ever donated blood?</title>
	<author>steelersteve13</author>
	<datestamp>1265375700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or blood products? Been in hospital recently, where they drew blood? Or took out a body part?

How do you know your DNA isn't already on file? And being used against you?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or blood products ?
Been in hospital recently , where they drew blood ?
Or took out a body part ?
How do you know your DNA is n't already on file ?
And being used against you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or blood products?
Been in hospital recently, where they drew blood?
Or took out a body part?
How do you know your DNA isn't already on file?
And being used against you?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033916</id>
	<title>Re:From someone who does Genetic Testing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265381700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>My wife does molecular and cytogenetic testing.  This was her reaction:</p><p>"Over reaction.  Yes the state labs keep blood spots...I don't know when anyone would ever want to go back and get a sample with someone's name on it unless they were working on a gene that is on the newborn screening panel.  They legally can not use genetic testing to prevent you from getting a job or insurance..and who would.  It would take more time and money than it's worth to get that information from a newborn screening card. Everyone is told about newborn screening and everyone has the opportunity to decline.  It's a matter of whether you are actually paying attention to what is happening with your child.  If you don't understand you have a responsibility to speak up.  Newborn screening is important...research on deidentified samples is important.  No one is out to get you.  No one has the time or energy to get you.  Life is not CSI."</p></div><p>Oh well then. That is settled. Nothing to worry about. Cool. By the way, I have setup cameras outside your bedroom window and have been taping the sex acts you and your wife have been involved in. Since there are laws that outlaw rape, murder, etc nobody that I distribute this to will getdo anything to her...and who would..  No one is out to get you. Life is not CSI.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My wife does molecular and cytogenetic testing .
This was her reaction : " Over reaction .
Yes the state labs keep blood spots...I do n't know when anyone would ever want to go back and get a sample with someone 's name on it unless they were working on a gene that is on the newborn screening panel .
They legally can not use genetic testing to prevent you from getting a job or insurance..and who would .
It would take more time and money than it 's worth to get that information from a newborn screening card .
Everyone is told about newborn screening and everyone has the opportunity to decline .
It 's a matter of whether you are actually paying attention to what is happening with your child .
If you do n't understand you have a responsibility to speak up .
Newborn screening is important...research on deidentified samples is important .
No one is out to get you .
No one has the time or energy to get you .
Life is not CSI .
" Oh well then .
That is settled .
Nothing to worry about .
Cool. By the way , I have setup cameras outside your bedroom window and have been taping the sex acts you and your wife have been involved in .
Since there are laws that outlaw rape , murder , etc nobody that I distribute this to will getdo anything to her...and who would.. No one is out to get you .
Life is not CSI .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My wife does molecular and cytogenetic testing.
This was her reaction:"Over reaction.
Yes the state labs keep blood spots...I don't know when anyone would ever want to go back and get a sample with someone's name on it unless they were working on a gene that is on the newborn screening panel.
They legally can not use genetic testing to prevent you from getting a job or insurance..and who would.
It would take more time and money than it's worth to get that information from a newborn screening card.
Everyone is told about newborn screening and everyone has the opportunity to decline.
It's a matter of whether you are actually paying attention to what is happening with your child.
If you don't understand you have a responsibility to speak up.
Newborn screening is important...research on deidentified samples is important.
No one is out to get you.
No one has the time or energy to get you.
Life is not CSI.
"Oh well then.
That is settled.
Nothing to worry about.
Cool. By the way, I have setup cameras outside your bedroom window and have been taping the sex acts you and your wife have been involved in.
Since there are laws that outlaw rape, murder, etc nobody that I distribute this to will getdo anything to her...and who would..  No one is out to get you.
Life is not CSI.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31036920</id>
	<title>Re:names egregious, but not relevant</title>
	<author>Rich0</author>
	<datestamp>1265396640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yup - I once worked on an IT project that dealt with voluntarily collected samples from patients.  While knowing the health of the donor was useful information it was pretty-much universally the case that NOBODY wanted the stuff to be personally identifiable - to the level of near paranoia.</p><p>If you discard any data that could be considered private you eliminate any concern of mishandling of data and any grounds for lawsuits, data-leaks, etc.  You also get out of a ton of regulation.</p><p>Now, designing databases to have all kinds of information sources available and NOT be able to do the appropriate joins is an interesting task - especially if you want to still be able to keep the data reasonably clean (how do you prevent dups without IDs, etc)...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yup - I once worked on an IT project that dealt with voluntarily collected samples from patients .
While knowing the health of the donor was useful information it was pretty-much universally the case that NOBODY wanted the stuff to be personally identifiable - to the level of near paranoia.If you discard any data that could be considered private you eliminate any concern of mishandling of data and any grounds for lawsuits , data-leaks , etc .
You also get out of a ton of regulation.Now , designing databases to have all kinds of information sources available and NOT be able to do the appropriate joins is an interesting task - especially if you want to still be able to keep the data reasonably clean ( how do you prevent dups without IDs , etc ) .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yup - I once worked on an IT project that dealt with voluntarily collected samples from patients.
While knowing the health of the donor was useful information it was pretty-much universally the case that NOBODY wanted the stuff to be personally identifiable - to the level of near paranoia.If you discard any data that could be considered private you eliminate any concern of mishandling of data and any grounds for lawsuits, data-leaks, etc.
You also get out of a ton of regulation.Now, designing databases to have all kinds of information sources available and NOT be able to do the appropriate joins is an interesting task - especially if you want to still be able to keep the data reasonably clean (how do you prevent dups without IDs, etc)...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31038714</id>
	<title>Re:The important part of the article</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265361240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>explain this down syndrome like symptoms. Did your doctor say it was downs syndrome when you got screened or did he said it was like downs syndrome cause I always thought it was clear cut with testing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>explain this down syndrome like symptoms .
Did your doctor say it was downs syndrome when you got screened or did he said it was like downs syndrome cause I always thought it was clear cut with testing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>explain this down syndrome like symptoms.
Did your doctor say it was downs syndrome when you got screened or did he said it was like downs syndrome cause I always thought it was clear cut with testing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034460</id>
	<title>Damn it somebody even posted...</title>
	<author>ls671</author>
	<datestamp>1265385300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Damn it, some hospital staff even posted a rotating picture of my own personal DNA on Wikipedia. What can I do about this ? Can I force them to remove it ?</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ADN\_animation.gif" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ADN\_animation.gif</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Damn it , some hospital staff even posted a rotating picture of my own personal DNA on Wikipedia .
What can I do about this ?
Can I force them to remove it ? http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File : ADN \ _animation.gif [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Damn it, some hospital staff even posted a rotating picture of my own personal DNA on Wikipedia.
What can I do about this ?
Can I force them to remove it ?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ADN\_animation.gif [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033640</id>
	<title>GATTACA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265379420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It will start with insurance companies discriminating against people who are more susceptible to diseases based on DNA.</p><p>On the plus side we can all feel safe that the caring benevolent government can track down all those pesky criminals and terrorists and pirates.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It will start with insurance companies discriminating against people who are more susceptible to diseases based on DNA.On the plus side we can all feel safe that the caring benevolent government can track down all those pesky criminals and terrorists and pirates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It will start with insurance companies discriminating against people who are more susceptible to diseases based on DNA.On the plus side we can all feel safe that the caring benevolent government can track down all those pesky criminals and terrorists and pirates.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034126</id>
	<title>Re:Insurance</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265383260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>if you get insurance from your employer than they will cover existing conditions</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>if you get insurance from your employer than they will cover existing conditions</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if you get insurance from your employer than they will cover existing conditions</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034004</id>
	<title>End run</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265382600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, women should start having babies at home.  Pretty soon some screeching group will come along demanding parents have a say in their babies tests.  Or, maybe some screeching group will demand the government outlaw having babies outside a hospital.  A government sanctioned hospital.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , women should start having babies at home .
Pretty soon some screeching group will come along demanding parents have a say in their babies tests .
Or , maybe some screeching group will demand the government outlaw having babies outside a hospital .
A government sanctioned hospital .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, women should start having babies at home.
Pretty soon some screeching group will come along demanding parents have a say in their babies tests.
Or, maybe some screeching group will demand the government outlaw having babies outside a hospital.
A government sanctioned hospital.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033790</id>
	<title>Devil's Advocate</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265380680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So I'm not really for the keeping of names attached to the genetic material.  BUT I have to agree with the researchers that this is an invaluable dataset for genetic research which by all accounts is the future of many medical breakthroughs.  So, assuming the genetic material has the names removed and has the geographical information limited to what county it is from (though in some counties in my home state of OK that might still be too specific) then I don't see a problem with this particular part of the story.</p><p>Let me be clear though, I don't think genetic material attached to a child's record should be stored by the state for any real (&gt;1 yr) length of time.  I do support the idea that all children are tested for genetic diseases at birth.  I would amend the law to notify the parents that it happens though and notify them of their rights regarding the genetic material.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So I 'm not really for the keeping of names attached to the genetic material .
BUT I have to agree with the researchers that this is an invaluable dataset for genetic research which by all accounts is the future of many medical breakthroughs .
So , assuming the genetic material has the names removed and has the geographical information limited to what county it is from ( though in some counties in my home state of OK that might still be too specific ) then I do n't see a problem with this particular part of the story.Let me be clear though , I do n't think genetic material attached to a child 's record should be stored by the state for any real ( &gt; 1 yr ) length of time .
I do support the idea that all children are tested for genetic diseases at birth .
I would amend the law to notify the parents that it happens though and notify them of their rights regarding the genetic material .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So I'm not really for the keeping of names attached to the genetic material.
BUT I have to agree with the researchers that this is an invaluable dataset for genetic research which by all accounts is the future of many medical breakthroughs.
So, assuming the genetic material has the names removed and has the geographical information limited to what county it is from (though in some counties in my home state of OK that might still be too specific) then I don't see a problem with this particular part of the story.Let me be clear though, I don't think genetic material attached to a child's record should be stored by the state for any real (&gt;1 yr) length of time.
I do support the idea that all children are tested for genetic diseases at birth.
I would amend the law to notify the parents that it happens though and notify them of their rights regarding the genetic material.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034032</id>
	<title>Re:The important part of the article</title>
	<author>sjs132</author>
	<datestamp>1265382720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b> <i>"Lots of people probably don't mind "the government" keeping their DNA on file.... </i> </b></p><p>I mind... The last grovernment that tried to use genetics to modify it's society of illness didn't have the technology,<br>so they just resorted to gassing millions of the "unfit" to protect the chosen.</p><p>If you kill the baby before birth because of a genetic code defect, it is the same result.   Just less gas and mass of bodies,<br>but the results are the same.  Case in point, both my children had Downs Syndrome like symptoms.   If the "lives" program were<br>implemented as suggested by Rahm Emanuel then I would not have two wonderful children.   Did they have downs?  Nope, just similar<br>gene issues, but mentally they are higher than their peers.</p><p>Now granted, the PDF references the DBS (Dried Blood Spot) test, but the in womb testing was also pushed by the gyny before the<br>children were born along with "Counseling"...   Pretty "standard" test from talking to other parents.  You have the option to<br>opt-out, but one could easily see that option being eliminated if the "cost" could be justified by the long term health care savings<br>of the terminated "unfit" pregnancies.</p><p>Even our current president stated:</p><p><i>I've got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals.<br>But if they make a mistake, I don't want them <b>punished</b> with a baby.</i></p><p>But I guess he wouldn't want to teach them to take responsiblities for their actions... no reason to teach that anymore.</p><p>I guess I'll get off my soapbox now...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Lots of people probably do n't mind " the government " keeping their DNA on file.... I mind... The last grovernment that tried to use genetics to modify it 's society of illness did n't have the technology,so they just resorted to gassing millions of the " unfit " to protect the chosen.If you kill the baby before birth because of a genetic code defect , it is the same result .
Just less gas and mass of bodies,but the results are the same .
Case in point , both my children had Downs Syndrome like symptoms .
If the " lives " program wereimplemented as suggested by Rahm Emanuel then I would not have two wonderful children .
Did they have downs ?
Nope , just similargene issues , but mentally they are higher than their peers.Now granted , the PDF references the DBS ( Dried Blood Spot ) test , but the in womb testing was also pushed by the gyny before thechildren were born along with " Counseling " ... Pretty " standard " test from talking to other parents .
You have the option toopt-out , but one could easily see that option being eliminated if the " cost " could be justified by the long term health care savingsof the terminated " unfit " pregnancies.Even our current president stated : I 've got two daughters .
9 years old and 6 years old .
I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals.But if they make a mistake , I do n't want them punished with a baby.But I guess he would n't want to teach them to take responsiblities for their actions... no reason to teach that anymore.I guess I 'll get off my soapbox now.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> "Lots of people probably don't mind "the government" keeping their DNA on file....  I mind... The last grovernment that tried to use genetics to modify it's society of illness didn't have the technology,so they just resorted to gassing millions of the "unfit" to protect the chosen.If you kill the baby before birth because of a genetic code defect, it is the same result.
Just less gas and mass of bodies,but the results are the same.
Case in point, both my children had Downs Syndrome like symptoms.
If the "lives" program wereimplemented as suggested by Rahm Emanuel then I would not have two wonderful children.
Did they have downs?
Nope, just similargene issues, but mentally they are higher than their peers.Now granted, the PDF references the DBS (Dried Blood Spot) test, but the in womb testing was also pushed by the gyny before thechildren were born along with "Counseling"...   Pretty "standard" test from talking to other parents.
You have the option toopt-out, but one could easily see that option being eliminated if the "cost" could be justified by the long term health care savingsof the terminated "unfit" pregnancies.Even our current president stated:I've got two daughters.
9 years old and 6 years old.
I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals.But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby.But I guess he wouldn't want to teach them to take responsiblities for their actions... no reason to teach that anymore.I guess I'll get off my soapbox now...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034078</id>
	<title>Re:From someone who does Genetic Testing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265382900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>They legally can not <b>currently</b> use genetic testing to prevent you from getting a job or insurance</p></div></blockquote><p>Fixed that for you.  It's really just a question of how much lobbyists will have to pay to be allowed to do end runs around GINA.  For a baby born now, they've got 70+ years to manage it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They legally can not currently use genetic testing to prevent you from getting a job or insuranceFixed that for you .
It 's really just a question of how much lobbyists will have to pay to be allowed to do end runs around GINA .
For a baby born now , they 've got 70 + years to manage it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They legally can not currently use genetic testing to prevent you from getting a job or insuranceFixed that for you.
It's really just a question of how much lobbyists will have to pay to be allowed to do end runs around GINA.
For a baby born now, they've got 70+ years to manage it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033824</id>
	<title>From someone who does Genetic Testing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265381040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My wife does molecular and cytogenetic testing.  This was her reaction:</p><p>"Over reaction.  Yes the state labs keep blood spots...I don't know when anyone would ever want to go back and get a sample with someone's name on it unless they were working on a gene that is on the newborn screening panel.  They legally can not use genetic testing to prevent you from getting a job or insurance..and who would.  It would take more time and money than it's worth to get that information from a newborn screening card. Everyone is told about newborn screening and everyone has the opportunity to decline.  It's a matter of whether you are actually paying attention to what is happening with your child.  If you don't understand you have a responsibility to speak up.  Newborn screening is important...research on deidentified samples is important.  No one is out to get you.  No one has the time or energy to get you.  Life is not CSI."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My wife does molecular and cytogenetic testing .
This was her reaction : " Over reaction .
Yes the state labs keep blood spots...I do n't know when anyone would ever want to go back and get a sample with someone 's name on it unless they were working on a gene that is on the newborn screening panel .
They legally can not use genetic testing to prevent you from getting a job or insurance..and who would .
It would take more time and money than it 's worth to get that information from a newborn screening card .
Everyone is told about newborn screening and everyone has the opportunity to decline .
It 's a matter of whether you are actually paying attention to what is happening with your child .
If you do n't understand you have a responsibility to speak up .
Newborn screening is important...research on deidentified samples is important .
No one is out to get you .
No one has the time or energy to get you .
Life is not CSI .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My wife does molecular and cytogenetic testing.
This was her reaction:"Over reaction.
Yes the state labs keep blood spots...I don't know when anyone would ever want to go back and get a sample with someone's name on it unless they were working on a gene that is on the newborn screening panel.
They legally can not use genetic testing to prevent you from getting a job or insurance..and who would.
It would take more time and money than it's worth to get that information from a newborn screening card.
Everyone is told about newborn screening and everyone has the opportunity to decline.
It's a matter of whether you are actually paying attention to what is happening with your child.
If you don't understand you have a responsibility to speak up.
Newborn screening is important...research on deidentified samples is important.
No one is out to get you.
No one has the time or energy to get you.
Life is not CSI.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033938</id>
	<title>Personally</title>
	<author>Dunbal</author>
	<datestamp>1265381940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think that the real issue is privacy. After all, DNA is so easy to obtain that if someone is determined to do it, it's a simple task. No, I think the real issue is the cost of collecting, storing and analyzing this mountain of data. Exactly what are the benefits supposed to be, versus the costs involved? Do we really want to pay for all of this? Is it going to maintain roads, or prevent crime?</p><p>Of course there's the possibility of charging for access to this database, as researchers would have a bona-fide interest in volumes of DNA data. But what happened to the ethics, here? Was consent given for this information to be released, and was compensation given to the owner of the DNA? Governments are known for their ability to create money (and debt!) out of thin air, but usually you can't get something for free.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think that the real issue is privacy .
After all , DNA is so easy to obtain that if someone is determined to do it , it 's a simple task .
No , I think the real issue is the cost of collecting , storing and analyzing this mountain of data .
Exactly what are the benefits supposed to be , versus the costs involved ?
Do we really want to pay for all of this ?
Is it going to maintain roads , or prevent crime ? Of course there 's the possibility of charging for access to this database , as researchers would have a bona-fide interest in volumes of DNA data .
But what happened to the ethics , here ?
Was consent given for this information to be released , and was compensation given to the owner of the DNA ?
Governments are known for their ability to create money ( and debt !
) out of thin air , but usually you ca n't get something for free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think that the real issue is privacy.
After all, DNA is so easy to obtain that if someone is determined to do it, it's a simple task.
No, I think the real issue is the cost of collecting, storing and analyzing this mountain of data.
Exactly what are the benefits supposed to be, versus the costs involved?
Do we really want to pay for all of this?
Is it going to maintain roads, or prevent crime?Of course there's the possibility of charging for access to this database, as researchers would have a bona-fide interest in volumes of DNA data.
But what happened to the ethics, here?
Was consent given for this information to be released, and was compensation given to the owner of the DNA?
Governments are known for their ability to create money (and debt!
) out of thin air, but usually you can't get something for free.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033800</id>
	<title>Gattaca</title>
	<author>Andypcguy</author>
	<datestamp>1265380740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Welcome to GATTACA!  It's both scarry and inspiring at the same time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Welcome to GATTACA !
It 's both scarry and inspiring at the same time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Welcome to GATTACA!
It's both scarry and inspiring at the same time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31037214</id>
	<title>Re:Insurance</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1265397960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>How exactly do you propose a baby gets insurance "before" their signs of disease show, if you count their DNA as already having the disease?. </i></p><p>If you have a genetic test, test the fetus before birth.  If it's positive, abort it. Allowing a child with a serious disease to be born is as bad as intentionally inflicting that disease on an infant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How exactly do you propose a baby gets insurance " before " their signs of disease show , if you count their DNA as already having the disease ? .
If you have a genetic test , test the fetus before birth .
If it 's positive , abort it .
Allowing a child with a serious disease to be born is as bad as intentionally inflicting that disease on an infant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How exactly do you propose a baby gets insurance "before" their signs of disease show, if you count their DNA as already having the disease?.
If you have a genetic test, test the fetus before birth.
If it's positive, abort it.
Allowing a child with a serious disease to be born is as bad as intentionally inflicting that disease on an infant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034280</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033882</id>
	<title>Ehhh...</title>
	<author>Pojut</author>
	<datestamp>1265381520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>See, I wouldn't have a problem with this sort of thing if the government wasn't already so shady.  But with the way things are...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>See , I would n't have a problem with this sort of thing if the government was n't already so shady .
But with the way things are.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See, I wouldn't have a problem with this sort of thing if the government wasn't already so shady.
But with the way things are...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31036174</id>
	<title>Re:Opt out</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265393580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Texas also allows parents to opt-out of vaccinations and still send their kids to public schools.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Texas also allows parents to opt-out of vaccinations and still send their kids to public schools .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Texas also allows parents to opt-out of vaccinations and still send their kids to public schools.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31036248</id>
	<title>Re:The day will come when this is used maliciously</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265393820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The finger scanners at Disneyworld are a farce.  Seriously, they don't scan a thing, they pure security theater.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The finger scanners at Disneyworld are a farce .
Seriously , they do n't scan a thing , they pure security theater .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The finger scanners at Disneyworld are a farce.
Seriously, they don't scan a thing, they pure security theater.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31037700</id>
	<title>Re:From someone who does Genetic Testing</title>
	<author>RebootKid</author>
	<datestamp>1265400360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As an aside, not completely accurate.<br>
<br>
I was technically given the choice, but it was really no choice at all.<br>
It was 3am after my wife was in labor for 28 hours, it ended in an emergency C-Section.<br>
<br>
When I declined the testing, they started telling me about their policies that would basically deny my newborn, who was already in a dangerous place, certain care.<br>
<br>
Because I objected to their actions so much, we got a new doctor, new hospital, new everything for child #2.<br>
This was a scheduled C-section. <br>
They came at 2am to do the tests, and when I tried to decline, I was again given the run-around, told that care would be with-held, etc.<br>
<br>
I was legally given the choice, but not practically given the choice. I even went to the local news station with my story, but they showed no interest.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As an aside , not completely accurate .
I was technically given the choice , but it was really no choice at all .
It was 3am after my wife was in labor for 28 hours , it ended in an emergency C-Section .
When I declined the testing , they started telling me about their policies that would basically deny my newborn , who was already in a dangerous place , certain care .
Because I objected to their actions so much , we got a new doctor , new hospital , new everything for child # 2 .
This was a scheduled C-section .
They came at 2am to do the tests , and when I tried to decline , I was again given the run-around , told that care would be with-held , etc .
I was legally given the choice , but not practically given the choice .
I even went to the local news station with my story , but they showed no interest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As an aside, not completely accurate.
I was technically given the choice, but it was really no choice at all.
It was 3am after my wife was in labor for 28 hours, it ended in an emergency C-Section.
When I declined the testing, they started telling me about their policies that would basically deny my newborn, who was already in a dangerous place, certain care.
Because I objected to their actions so much, we got a new doctor, new hospital, new everything for child #2.
This was a scheduled C-section.
They came at 2am to do the tests, and when I tried to decline, I was again given the run-around, told that care would be with-held, etc.
I was legally given the choice, but not practically given the choice.
I even went to the local news station with my story, but they showed no interest.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31035670</id>
	<title>Re:From someone who does Genetic Testing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265391660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Spoken exactly like someone who benefits from this attack on liberty.</p><p>Irrespective of whether they use it against you personally, there is no justification for the practice. However you try to spin it, government is the aggressor here, and the citizen is the victim.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Spoken exactly like someone who benefits from this attack on liberty.Irrespective of whether they use it against you personally , there is no justification for the practice .
However you try to spin it , government is the aggressor here , and the citizen is the victim .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Spoken exactly like someone who benefits from this attack on liberty.Irrespective of whether they use it against you personally, there is no justification for the practice.
However you try to spin it, government is the aggressor here, and the citizen is the victim.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31035184</id>
	<title>Re:Uninsurable</title>
	<author>ckaminski</author>
	<datestamp>1265389380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let me phrase this a different way.<br><br>In the 1st world, it's rare for someone to out and out DIE of hunger, yet there are plenty of people who can't afford food.  Health-care should be the same way, no one should die because they don't get preventative treatment.<br><br>I'm not necessarily arguing for heroic measures should my heart lung and spleen all fail at once, but dammit, someone should need their foot amputated and dead kidneys because they were too poor to afford their insulin. (does diabetes kill kidneys?  I have no idea).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me phrase this a different way.In the 1st world , it 's rare for someone to out and out DIE of hunger , yet there are plenty of people who ca n't afford food .
Health-care should be the same way , no one should die because they do n't get preventative treatment.I 'm not necessarily arguing for heroic measures should my heart lung and spleen all fail at once , but dammit , someone should need their foot amputated and dead kidneys because they were too poor to afford their insulin .
( does diabetes kill kidneys ?
I have no idea ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let me phrase this a different way.In the 1st world, it's rare for someone to out and out DIE of hunger, yet there are plenty of people who can't afford food.
Health-care should be the same way, no one should die because they don't get preventative treatment.I'm not necessarily arguing for heroic measures should my heart lung and spleen all fail at once, but dammit, someone should need their foot amputated and dead kidneys because they were too poor to afford their insulin.
(does diabetes kill kidneys?
I have no idea).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31041176</id>
	<title>Homebirth</title>
	<author>jdavidb</author>
	<datestamp>1265373660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Good thing my children were born at home, in my own bed, delivered by midwives who don't like sweeping government programs any more than I do.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Good thing my children were born at home , in my own bed , delivered by midwives who do n't like sweeping government programs any more than I do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good thing my children were born at home, in my own bed, delivered by midwives who don't like sweeping government programs any more than I do.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033690</id>
	<title>names egregious, but not relevant</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265379780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sadly, a genotype fingerprint of just 24 well-selected markers is enough to differentiate an individual, with an error rate far lower than 1/ # of people on the planet.  So while having names attached to samples is ethically deplorable, in practice it doesn't really even matter.  I do genetic research, and the first thing we do is de-identify samples in the database.  When we get samples from other sites with names still on them, we get pissed at the site.  It's just sloppy, and certainly doesn't help the research.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sadly , a genotype fingerprint of just 24 well-selected markers is enough to differentiate an individual , with an error rate far lower than 1/ # of people on the planet .
So while having names attached to samples is ethically deplorable , in practice it does n't really even matter .
I do genetic research , and the first thing we do is de-identify samples in the database .
When we get samples from other sites with names still on them , we get pissed at the site .
It 's just sloppy , and certainly does n't help the research .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sadly, a genotype fingerprint of just 24 well-selected markers is enough to differentiate an individual, with an error rate far lower than 1/ # of people on the planet.
So while having names attached to samples is ethically deplorable, in practice it doesn't really even matter.
I do genetic research, and the first thing we do is de-identify samples in the database.
When we get samples from other sites with names still on them, we get pissed at the site.
It's just sloppy, and certainly doesn't help the research.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31037154</id>
	<title>Re:From someone who does Genetic Testing</title>
	<author>fulldecent</author>
	<datestamp>1265397780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt; No one has the time or energy to get you. Life is not CSI.</p><p>Clearly, your wife has never seen the lifecycle of maintaining a database:</p><p>1. Collect data into database<br>2. Maintain database<br>3. Some outside authority requires access to said data; fork() and goto 1<br>4. Goto 2<br>5. Decommission database</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; No one has the time or energy to get you .
Life is not CSI.Clearly , your wife has never seen the lifecycle of maintaining a database : 1 .
Collect data into database2 .
Maintain database3 .
Some outside authority requires access to said data ; fork ( ) and goto 14 .
Goto 25 .
Decommission database</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt; No one has the time or energy to get you.
Life is not CSI.Clearly, your wife has never seen the lifecycle of maintaining a database:1.
Collect data into database2.
Maintain database3.
Some outside authority requires access to said data; fork() and goto 14.
Goto 25.
Decommission database</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034580</id>
	<title>Re:The important part of the article</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265385960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The last grovernment that tried to use genetics to modify it's society of illness didn't have the technology, so they just resorted to gassing millions of the "unfit" to protect the chosen.</p></div></blockquote><p>The Nazis were just more vigorously implementing a eugenics concept that originated in the U.S., where <a href="http://hnn.us/articles/1796.html" title="hnn.us" rel="nofollow">compulary sterilization was carried out on over 60,000 people</a> [hnn.us]. (The SCOTUS okayed this in Buck v. Bell, which <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-06-23-eugenics-carrie-buck\_N.htm" title="usatoday.com" rel="nofollow">has not been overturned</a> [usatoday.com].)</p><blockquote><div><p>If you kill the baby before birth because of a genetic code defect, it is the same result. Just less gas and mass of bodies, but the results are the same.</p></div></blockquote><p>You can't kill a "baby" before it's born., because it's not a "baby" yet. It's a fetus, embryo, blastocyst, or zygote. The distinction is very important: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preimplantation\_genetic\_diagnosis" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">selecting which of several embryos to implant in order to avoid creating a person with a genetic disorder</a> [wikipedia.org], is not the same as killing a three month old infant.</p><blockquote><div><p>If the "lives" program were implemented as suggested by Rahm Emanuel then I would not have two wonderful children.</p></div></blockquote><p>Sorry, you lost me here. Are you suggesting that Rahm Emanuel has been advocating some sort of forced eugenics program? Link, please?</p><blockquote><div><p>Did they have downs? Nope, just similar gene issues, but mentally they are higher than their peers.</p></div></blockquote><p>What the heck is "similar" to trisomy 21? Down's syndrome is not a subtle genetic alteration, it's a whole extra copy of a chromosome.</p><blockquote><div><p>But I guess he wouldn't want to teach them to take responsiblities for their actions... no reason to teach that anymore.</p></div></blockquote><p>Aborting a fetus rather than having a baby you can't properly care for, is responsible behavior. (Of course using contraception and not getting pregnant in the first place is even more responsible.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The last grovernment that tried to use genetics to modify it 's society of illness did n't have the technology , so they just resorted to gassing millions of the " unfit " to protect the chosen.The Nazis were just more vigorously implementing a eugenics concept that originated in the U.S. , where compulary sterilization was carried out on over 60,000 people [ hnn.us ] .
( The SCOTUS okayed this in Buck v. Bell , which has not been overturned [ usatoday.com ] .
) If you kill the baby before birth because of a genetic code defect , it is the same result .
Just less gas and mass of bodies , but the results are the same.You ca n't kill a " baby " before it 's born. , because it 's not a " baby " yet .
It 's a fetus , embryo , blastocyst , or zygote .
The distinction is very important : selecting which of several embryos to implant in order to avoid creating a person with a genetic disorder [ wikipedia.org ] , is not the same as killing a three month old infant.If the " lives " program were implemented as suggested by Rahm Emanuel then I would not have two wonderful children.Sorry , you lost me here .
Are you suggesting that Rahm Emanuel has been advocating some sort of forced eugenics program ?
Link , please ? Did they have downs ?
Nope , just similar gene issues , but mentally they are higher than their peers.What the heck is " similar " to trisomy 21 ?
Down 's syndrome is not a subtle genetic alteration , it 's a whole extra copy of a chromosome.But I guess he would n't want to teach them to take responsiblities for their actions... no reason to teach that anymore.Aborting a fetus rather than having a baby you ca n't properly care for , is responsible behavior .
( Of course using contraception and not getting pregnant in the first place is even more responsible .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The last grovernment that tried to use genetics to modify it's society of illness didn't have the technology, so they just resorted to gassing millions of the "unfit" to protect the chosen.The Nazis were just more vigorously implementing a eugenics concept that originated in the U.S., where compulary sterilization was carried out on over 60,000 people [hnn.us].
(The SCOTUS okayed this in Buck v. Bell, which has not been overturned [usatoday.com].
)If you kill the baby before birth because of a genetic code defect, it is the same result.
Just less gas and mass of bodies, but the results are the same.You can't kill a "baby" before it's born., because it's not a "baby" yet.
It's a fetus, embryo, blastocyst, or zygote.
The distinction is very important: selecting which of several embryos to implant in order to avoid creating a person with a genetic disorder [wikipedia.org], is not the same as killing a three month old infant.If the "lives" program were implemented as suggested by Rahm Emanuel then I would not have two wonderful children.Sorry, you lost me here.
Are you suggesting that Rahm Emanuel has been advocating some sort of forced eugenics program?
Link, please?Did they have downs?
Nope, just similar gene issues, but mentally they are higher than their peers.What the heck is "similar" to trisomy 21?
Down's syndrome is not a subtle genetic alteration, it's a whole extra copy of a chromosome.But I guess he wouldn't want to teach them to take responsiblities for their actions... no reason to teach that anymore.Aborting a fetus rather than having a baby you can't properly care for, is responsible behavior.
(Of course using contraception and not getting pregnant in the first place is even more responsible.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033904</id>
	<title>Baby DNA should be like baby fingerprints</title>
	<author>davidwr</author>
	<datestamp>1265381640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Parents SHOULD get their babies tested for major genetic illnesses, they SHOULD get their kids fingerprinted and footprinted, and they SHOULD have current dental x-rays and photographs available.</p><p>But the parents should be the only ones who have long-term copies of this data.</p><p>By the way, many public school systems keep photographs of children long-term - your kid's high school probably has his kindergarten photo in the kid's "permanent record."  Schools usually destroy "permanent records" several years after graduation, keeping only transcripts and basic demographic data e.g. race, gender, name, birthdate, student ID# (which may be the SS#), last known address, etc., ditching all or almost all conduct and academic records that aren't on the transcripts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Parents SHOULD get their babies tested for major genetic illnesses , they SHOULD get their kids fingerprinted and footprinted , and they SHOULD have current dental x-rays and photographs available.But the parents should be the only ones who have long-term copies of this data.By the way , many public school systems keep photographs of children long-term - your kid 's high school probably has his kindergarten photo in the kid 's " permanent record .
" Schools usually destroy " permanent records " several years after graduation , keeping only transcripts and basic demographic data e.g .
race , gender , name , birthdate , student ID # ( which may be the SS # ) , last known address , etc. , ditching all or almost all conduct and academic records that are n't on the transcripts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Parents SHOULD get their babies tested for major genetic illnesses, they SHOULD get their kids fingerprinted and footprinted, and they SHOULD have current dental x-rays and photographs available.But the parents should be the only ones who have long-term copies of this data.By the way, many public school systems keep photographs of children long-term - your kid's high school probably has his kindergarten photo in the kid's "permanent record.
"  Schools usually destroy "permanent records" several years after graduation, keeping only transcripts and basic demographic data e.g.
race, gender, name, birthdate, student ID# (which may be the SS#), last known address, etc., ditching all or almost all conduct and academic records that aren't on the transcripts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31036990</id>
	<title>Re:From someone who does Genetic Testing</title>
	<author>Rich0</author>
	<datestamp>1265397060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Plus, this ignores the other side of the case - if you KNOW your kid will never get cystic fibrosis, why pay for insurance that covers that disease?  If you KNOW your kid will be diabetic (most likely), why not go ahead and buy the super-deluxe no-copay/no-limit health plan?</p><p>Insurance only works in the absence of knowledge by BOTH parties.  Genetic testing makes true insurance impossible.</p><p>Now you can still have socialized medicine, and many people call it "insurance" but that really isn't what it is.  A kid born with a bad heart valve or whatever doesn't need insurance - they need health care.  In the US, for a number of reasons, the one has become synonymous with the other.  What most people think of as "insurance" is just a discount buying plan so that you're not taken advantage of by price-gouging hospitals and doctors/etc.</p><p>Note, this isn't intended as a criticism of either private insurance or socialized medicine.  The problem we as a society has it that most people don't really appreciate what both of these things really are, and what their inherent pros/cons are.  The fact that people with a profit motive (from insurers to vendors to doctors to everybody else) bribe politicians left and right doesn't help to clarify things either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Plus , this ignores the other side of the case - if you KNOW your kid will never get cystic fibrosis , why pay for insurance that covers that disease ?
If you KNOW your kid will be diabetic ( most likely ) , why not go ahead and buy the super-deluxe no-copay/no-limit health plan ? Insurance only works in the absence of knowledge by BOTH parties .
Genetic testing makes true insurance impossible.Now you can still have socialized medicine , and many people call it " insurance " but that really is n't what it is .
A kid born with a bad heart valve or whatever does n't need insurance - they need health care .
In the US , for a number of reasons , the one has become synonymous with the other .
What most people think of as " insurance " is just a discount buying plan so that you 're not taken advantage of by price-gouging hospitals and doctors/etc.Note , this is n't intended as a criticism of either private insurance or socialized medicine .
The problem we as a society has it that most people do n't really appreciate what both of these things really are , and what their inherent pros/cons are .
The fact that people with a profit motive ( from insurers to vendors to doctors to everybody else ) bribe politicians left and right does n't help to clarify things either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Plus, this ignores the other side of the case - if you KNOW your kid will never get cystic fibrosis, why pay for insurance that covers that disease?
If you KNOW your kid will be diabetic (most likely), why not go ahead and buy the super-deluxe no-copay/no-limit health plan?Insurance only works in the absence of knowledge by BOTH parties.
Genetic testing makes true insurance impossible.Now you can still have socialized medicine, and many people call it "insurance" but that really isn't what it is.
A kid born with a bad heart valve or whatever doesn't need insurance - they need health care.
In the US, for a number of reasons, the one has become synonymous with the other.
What most people think of as "insurance" is just a discount buying plan so that you're not taken advantage of by price-gouging hospitals and doctors/etc.Note, this isn't intended as a criticism of either private insurance or socialized medicine.
The problem we as a society has it that most people don't really appreciate what both of these things really are, and what their inherent pros/cons are.
The fact that people with a profit motive (from insurers to vendors to doctors to everybody else) bribe politicians left and right doesn't help to clarify things either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034274</id>
	<title>Re:CSI</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265384280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>No chance this will be used to solve crimes CSI-style, right?</p></div><p>Haven't you seen Super Bad.  Crime scenes are not covered in semen, sorry.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No chance this will be used to solve crimes CSI-style , right ? Have n't you seen Super Bad .
Crime scenes are not covered in semen , sorry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No chance this will be used to solve crimes CSI-style, right?Haven't you seen Super Bad.
Crime scenes are not covered in semen, sorry.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31035526</id>
	<title>Re:The important part of the article</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265391060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby.</p></div><p>That's one of the more sickening things about our society. When having a child can be considered a detriment, something is wrong with us.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals .
But if they make a mistake , I do n't want them punished with a baby.That 's one of the more sickening things about our society .
When having a child can be considered a detriment , something is wrong with us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals.
But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby.That's one of the more sickening things about our society.
When having a child can be considered a detriment, something is wrong with us.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034606</id>
	<title>Re:GATTACA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265386140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hitler would be proud. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action\_T4" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Aktion T4</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>Some land of the free, huh?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hitler would be proud .
Aktion T4 [ wikipedia.org ] Some land of the free , huh ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hitler would be proud.
Aktion T4 [wikipedia.org]Some land of the free, huh?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034300</id>
	<title>Re:Insurance</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265384460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Which is why the concept of health insurance is wrong.

The able should pay for the needing. That's how civilised society works and that's how health care works in many European countries.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Which is why the concept of health insurance is wrong .
The able should pay for the needing .
That 's how civilised society works and that 's how health care works in many European countries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which is why the concept of health insurance is wrong.
The able should pay for the needing.
That's how civilised society works and that's how health care works in many European countries.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31035466</id>
	<title>DNA Policy &amp; Law in Michigan</title>
	<author>hawleyal</author>
	<datestamp>1265390820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Consent is not required for newborns in Michigan.</p><p><a href="http://www.migeneticsconnection.org/policy.shtml" title="migeneticsconnection.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.migeneticsconnection.org/policy.shtml</a> [migeneticsconnection.org]</p><p><a href="http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(ijqt3onmavdo2255ke3jhrbe))/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&amp;objectname=mcl-333-5431" title="mi.gov" rel="nofollow">http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(ijqt3onmavdo2255ke3jhrbe))/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&amp;objectname=mcl-333-5431</a> [mi.gov]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Consent is not required for newborns in Michigan.http : //www.migeneticsconnection.org/policy.shtml [ migeneticsconnection.org ] http : //www.legislature.mi.gov/ ( S ( ijqt3onmavdo2255ke3jhrbe ) ) /mileg.aspx ? page = getobject&amp;objectname = mcl-333-5431 [ mi.gov ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Consent is not required for newborns in Michigan.http://www.migeneticsconnection.org/policy.shtml [migeneticsconnection.org]http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(ijqt3onmavdo2255ke3jhrbe))/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&amp;objectname=mcl-333-5431 [mi.gov]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033828</id>
	<title>Re:GATTACA</title>
	<author>Luke Wilson</author>
	<datestamp>1265381100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Did they learn nothing from that movie? A genetic screening may show <b>propensity</b> for a disease, but it will never measure the <i>human spirit</i>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did they learn nothing from that movie ?
A genetic screening may show propensity for a disease , but it will never measure the human spirit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did they learn nothing from that movie?
A genetic screening may show propensity for a disease, but it will never measure the human spirit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31036024</id>
	<title>Re:Uninsurable</title>
	<author>jo\_ham</author>
	<datestamp>1265392860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>[citation needed]</p><p>I think you'll find that socialised healthcare not only works, but works extremely well. This is evident in abundance in many countries, like France, UK, Australia... and in fact, all industrialised countries with the notable exception of the USA. It seems odd that you think it "always fails" when literally every other developed nation other than the US uses it.</p><p>Have you ever been to a country outside the USA? Or did you just hear your "fact" on Fox News?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>[ citation needed ] I think you 'll find that socialised healthcare not only works , but works extremely well .
This is evident in abundance in many countries , like France , UK , Australia... and in fact , all industrialised countries with the notable exception of the USA .
It seems odd that you think it " always fails " when literally every other developed nation other than the US uses it.Have you ever been to a country outside the USA ?
Or did you just hear your " fact " on Fox News ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[citation needed]I think you'll find that socialised healthcare not only works, but works extremely well.
This is evident in abundance in many countries, like France, UK, Australia... and in fact, all industrialised countries with the notable exception of the USA.
It seems odd that you think it "always fails" when literally every other developed nation other than the US uses it.Have you ever been to a country outside the USA?
Or did you just hear your "fact" on Fox News?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033936</id>
	<title>The day will come when this is used maliciously</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265381940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We used Census records (supposedly secret for a century) to help find Japanese to intern in World War II.</p><p>In the same war the Germans, of course, respected no privacy constraints at all, and used any information they could get for all sorts of much more nefarious projects.</p><p>I am old enough to remember that, not only were blacks segregated in the South, but that blood tests would be run to determine just who was and wasn't black, in borderline cases. If DNA testing had been available, I have no doubt it would have been used.</p><p>So it seems pretty clear that DNA information, if kept indefinitely in an identifiable fashion, will eventually be used maliciously. A long and lamentable history shows that we can count on that. The question is, are we going to act on this knowledge, or do nothing about it, and continue to let things slide into what could be a very nasty future.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We used Census records ( supposedly secret for a century ) to help find Japanese to intern in World War II.In the same war the Germans , of course , respected no privacy constraints at all , and used any information they could get for all sorts of much more nefarious projects.I am old enough to remember that , not only were blacks segregated in the South , but that blood tests would be run to determine just who was and was n't black , in borderline cases .
If DNA testing had been available , I have no doubt it would have been used.So it seems pretty clear that DNA information , if kept indefinitely in an identifiable fashion , will eventually be used maliciously .
A long and lamentable history shows that we can count on that .
The question is , are we going to act on this knowledge , or do nothing about it , and continue to let things slide into what could be a very nasty future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We used Census records (supposedly secret for a century) to help find Japanese to intern in World War II.In the same war the Germans, of course, respected no privacy constraints at all, and used any information they could get for all sorts of much more nefarious projects.I am old enough to remember that, not only were blacks segregated in the South, but that blood tests would be run to determine just who was and wasn't black, in borderline cases.
If DNA testing had been available, I have no doubt it would have been used.So it seems pretty clear that DNA information, if kept indefinitely in an identifiable fashion, will eventually be used maliciously.
A long and lamentable history shows that we can count on that.
The question is, are we going to act on this knowledge, or do nothing about it, and continue to let things slide into what could be a very nasty future.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033648</id>
	<title>They say it's not a big deal. BULLSHIT.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265379540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are a lot of pundits who say it's not a big deal. Frankly, I'm not so sure. There's no doubt, we will have human cloning technology within the next 25 years. It will probably be developed in China or India or Brazil, where their technological abilities are rising, but human rights are a much, much lower priority than they are even in America.</p><p>Such technology, even if developed in the third-world, will come to America. The DNA information and samples stored here will be used to clone new individuals, or at least genetically modify existing ones. We'll see people tried and convicted for crimes a clone had committed, based on DNA "evidence". It will happen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are a lot of pundits who say it 's not a big deal .
Frankly , I 'm not so sure .
There 's no doubt , we will have human cloning technology within the next 25 years .
It will probably be developed in China or India or Brazil , where their technological abilities are rising , but human rights are a much , much lower priority than they are even in America.Such technology , even if developed in the third-world , will come to America .
The DNA information and samples stored here will be used to clone new individuals , or at least genetically modify existing ones .
We 'll see people tried and convicted for crimes a clone had committed , based on DNA " evidence " .
It will happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are a lot of pundits who say it's not a big deal.
Frankly, I'm not so sure.
There's no doubt, we will have human cloning technology within the next 25 years.
It will probably be developed in China or India or Brazil, where their technological abilities are rising, but human rights are a much, much lower priority than they are even in America.Such technology, even if developed in the third-world, will come to America.
The DNA information and samples stored here will be used to clone new individuals, or at least genetically modify existing ones.
We'll see people tried and convicted for crimes a clone had committed, based on DNA "evidence".
It will happen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31036172</id>
	<title>TFA is wrong</title>
	<author>nbauman</author>
	<datestamp>1265393580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Since health insurance paid for Isabel's genetic screening, her positive test for a cystic fibrosis gene is now on the record with her insurance company, and the Browns are concerned this could hurt her in the future.</p></div><p>This is wrong.</p><p>The reporter should have checked it and didn't.</p><p>The only record the insurance company has is that Isabel got a state-mandated test. They shouldn't have any record of how the test came out. I'd have to check the laws on this, but in New York State, and I think under federal law, DNA tests are kept under very strict legal control.</p><p>I know that if you got a test for the breast cancer gene, that would be confidential and the people who are testing wouldn't be able to release it as *your results* to anyone.</p><p>As a general rule, doctors have to keep medical records, and everything important has to go in the medical record. If you show up in the emergency room unconscious, it's good for the doctors to know from the record that you had XYZ disease rather than have to spend a week taking X-rays and biopsies while your brain turns you into a vegetable.</p><p>If this girl has one gene for cystic fibrosis, it's important for her to know that when she gets old enough to have kids, because if her husband/partner also has a gene for cystic fibrosis, their kid will have a 25\% chance of also having cystic fibrosis. Cystic fibrosis means at best a lifetime of lung infections and intensive medical care, and at worst a lifetime of declining health and death by age 20 or so. Most parents in a situation like that use in-vitro fertilization or abortion -- or adoption.</p><p>Keeping these tissue samples has turned out to be extremely valuable in the past. I read a Swedish study in which doctors in a cholesterol study had kept blood samples frozen for 30 years. Then, they realized they could use the same samples for a completely unrelated and unexpected purpose -- they started with men who had prostate cancer, and went back to see what their PSA looked like 30 years ago. The result is that it's easier for them to tell men today whether they need to get surgery for prostate cancer (which leaves you impotent and/or with urinary incontinence about half the time) or not.</p><p>Now I read in the NEJM almost every week about a new study in which researchers go through the DNA of 50,000 or 100,000 tissue samples and find genes associated with cancer, heart disease, kidney failure, and every disease you can imagine. They use these scans to find the genes responsible for it, and then they can figure out new drugs to treat those diseases.</p><p>Empowered patients my ass. These idiot parents are destroying the data bases that will enable doctors to figure out how their children's diseases work, so they can find treatments for them by the time their kids are growing up.</p><p>As TFA says, they've published over 20 papers with these samples.</p><p>I don't understand how this woman, who is a registered nurse, can claim that she didn't know that babies were tested at birth for several genetic diseases, so that they can be treated before it's too late and their lives saved. Didn't she learn that in nursing school?</p><p>There are problems with confidentiality and anonymization, but they can be solved. Of course if the U.S. had a national health care system like every other civilized country, the issue of preexisting conditions wouldn't come up.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since health insurance paid for Isabel 's genetic screening , her positive test for a cystic fibrosis gene is now on the record with her insurance company , and the Browns are concerned this could hurt her in the future.This is wrong.The reporter should have checked it and did n't.The only record the insurance company has is that Isabel got a state-mandated test .
They should n't have any record of how the test came out .
I 'd have to check the laws on this , but in New York State , and I think under federal law , DNA tests are kept under very strict legal control.I know that if you got a test for the breast cancer gene , that would be confidential and the people who are testing would n't be able to release it as * your results * to anyone.As a general rule , doctors have to keep medical records , and everything important has to go in the medical record .
If you show up in the emergency room unconscious , it 's good for the doctors to know from the record that you had XYZ disease rather than have to spend a week taking X-rays and biopsies while your brain turns you into a vegetable.If this girl has one gene for cystic fibrosis , it 's important for her to know that when she gets old enough to have kids , because if her husband/partner also has a gene for cystic fibrosis , their kid will have a 25 \ % chance of also having cystic fibrosis .
Cystic fibrosis means at best a lifetime of lung infections and intensive medical care , and at worst a lifetime of declining health and death by age 20 or so .
Most parents in a situation like that use in-vitro fertilization or abortion -- or adoption.Keeping these tissue samples has turned out to be extremely valuable in the past .
I read a Swedish study in which doctors in a cholesterol study had kept blood samples frozen for 30 years .
Then , they realized they could use the same samples for a completely unrelated and unexpected purpose -- they started with men who had prostate cancer , and went back to see what their PSA looked like 30 years ago .
The result is that it 's easier for them to tell men today whether they need to get surgery for prostate cancer ( which leaves you impotent and/or with urinary incontinence about half the time ) or not.Now I read in the NEJM almost every week about a new study in which researchers go through the DNA of 50,000 or 100,000 tissue samples and find genes associated with cancer , heart disease , kidney failure , and every disease you can imagine .
They use these scans to find the genes responsible for it , and then they can figure out new drugs to treat those diseases.Empowered patients my ass .
These idiot parents are destroying the data bases that will enable doctors to figure out how their children 's diseases work , so they can find treatments for them by the time their kids are growing up.As TFA says , they 've published over 20 papers with these samples.I do n't understand how this woman , who is a registered nurse , can claim that she did n't know that babies were tested at birth for several genetic diseases , so that they can be treated before it 's too late and their lives saved .
Did n't she learn that in nursing school ? There are problems with confidentiality and anonymization , but they can be solved .
Of course if the U.S. had a national health care system like every other civilized country , the issue of preexisting conditions would n't come up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since health insurance paid for Isabel's genetic screening, her positive test for a cystic fibrosis gene is now on the record with her insurance company, and the Browns are concerned this could hurt her in the future.This is wrong.The reporter should have checked it and didn't.The only record the insurance company has is that Isabel got a state-mandated test.
They shouldn't have any record of how the test came out.
I'd have to check the laws on this, but in New York State, and I think under federal law, DNA tests are kept under very strict legal control.I know that if you got a test for the breast cancer gene, that would be confidential and the people who are testing wouldn't be able to release it as *your results* to anyone.As a general rule, doctors have to keep medical records, and everything important has to go in the medical record.
If you show up in the emergency room unconscious, it's good for the doctors to know from the record that you had XYZ disease rather than have to spend a week taking X-rays and biopsies while your brain turns you into a vegetable.If this girl has one gene for cystic fibrosis, it's important for her to know that when she gets old enough to have kids, because if her husband/partner also has a gene for cystic fibrosis, their kid will have a 25\% chance of also having cystic fibrosis.
Cystic fibrosis means at best a lifetime of lung infections and intensive medical care, and at worst a lifetime of declining health and death by age 20 or so.
Most parents in a situation like that use in-vitro fertilization or abortion -- or adoption.Keeping these tissue samples has turned out to be extremely valuable in the past.
I read a Swedish study in which doctors in a cholesterol study had kept blood samples frozen for 30 years.
Then, they realized they could use the same samples for a completely unrelated and unexpected purpose -- they started with men who had prostate cancer, and went back to see what their PSA looked like 30 years ago.
The result is that it's easier for them to tell men today whether they need to get surgery for prostate cancer (which leaves you impotent and/or with urinary incontinence about half the time) or not.Now I read in the NEJM almost every week about a new study in which researchers go through the DNA of 50,000 or 100,000 tissue samples and find genes associated with cancer, heart disease, kidney failure, and every disease you can imagine.
They use these scans to find the genes responsible for it, and then they can figure out new drugs to treat those diseases.Empowered patients my ass.
These idiot parents are destroying the data bases that will enable doctors to figure out how their children's diseases work, so they can find treatments for them by the time their kids are growing up.As TFA says, they've published over 20 papers with these samples.I don't understand how this woman, who is a registered nurse, can claim that she didn't know that babies were tested at birth for several genetic diseases, so that they can be treated before it's too late and their lives saved.
Didn't she learn that in nursing school?There are problems with confidentiality and anonymization, but they can be solved.
Of course if the U.S. had a national health care system like every other civilized country, the issue of preexisting conditions wouldn't come up.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033894</id>
	<title>Re:They say it's not a big deal. BULLSHIT.</title>
	<author>JosKarith</author>
	<datestamp>1265381580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, I can see this being used to clear someone on the basis that a clone might have done it first. Defence lawyers tend to be better pai^H^H^H motivated so will try this at the first instance that it might actually work.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , I can see this being used to clear someone on the basis that a clone might have done it first .
Defence lawyers tend to be better pai ^ H ^ H ^ H motivated so will try this at the first instance that it might actually work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, I can see this being used to clear someone on the basis that a clone might have done it first.
Defence lawyers tend to be better pai^H^H^H motivated so will try this at the first instance that it might actually work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033638</id>
	<title>frst pst</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265379360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>first post!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>first post !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>first post!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034122</id>
	<title>Re:Uninsurable</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265383200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's the quandary.  Should people with genetic diseases reproduce?  If their habits are personally financed, might that change their decisions?  Sorry to say, it's hard to be Utopian about it but I certainly can see the country going apesh** crazy and deciding to purge all uncooperative minorities so that a certain problematic, ethnic group/class can go on fantasizing about being "cat people".  Oh, yes I can.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's the quandary .
Should people with genetic diseases reproduce ?
If their habits are personally financed , might that change their decisions ?
Sorry to say , it 's hard to be Utopian about it but I certainly can see the country going apesh * * crazy and deciding to purge all uncooperative minorities so that a certain problematic , ethnic group/class can go on fantasizing about being " cat people " .
Oh , yes I can .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's the quandary.
Should people with genetic diseases reproduce?
If their habits are personally financed, might that change their decisions?
Sorry to say, it's hard to be Utopian about it but I certainly can see the country going apesh** crazy and deciding to purge all uncooperative minorities so that a certain problematic, ethnic group/class can go on fantasizing about being "cat people".
Oh, yes I can.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31035534</id>
	<title>Re:The important part of the article</title>
	<author>sjs132</author>
	<datestamp>1265391060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oops.. wrong Emanual, it was his brother.  My bad.  Google the "Complete lives system"</p><p><i> <b>What the heck is "similar" to trisomy 21? Down's syndrome is not a subtle genetic alteration, it's a whole extra copy of a chromosome.</b></i> </p><p>They don't know what it is.  It is related to the Trisomy 21 gene.  They had similar facial features, both have the simian crease extended across the palm.   Genetic testing didn't match known patterns at this time.  Thanks for your concern.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oops.. wrong Emanual , it was his brother .
My bad .
Google the " Complete lives system " What the heck is " similar " to trisomy 21 ?
Down 's syndrome is not a subtle genetic alteration , it 's a whole extra copy of a chromosome .
They do n't know what it is .
It is related to the Trisomy 21 gene .
They had similar facial features , both have the simian crease extended across the palm .
Genetic testing did n't match known patterns at this time .
Thanks for your concern .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oops.. wrong Emanual, it was his brother.
My bad.
Google the "Complete lives system" What the heck is "similar" to trisomy 21?
Down's syndrome is not a subtle genetic alteration, it's a whole extra copy of a chromosome.
They don't know what it is.
It is related to the Trisomy 21 gene.
They had similar facial features, both have the simian crease extended across the palm.
Genetic testing didn't match known patterns at this time.
Thanks for your concern.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033788</id>
	<title>Not a problem at all</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265380680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Didn't you get the memo ? Using DNA is only bad for privacy when a man use it to disprove paternity. Any other use of DNA info is perfectly fine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't you get the memo ?
Using DNA is only bad for privacy when a man use it to disprove paternity .
Any other use of DNA info is perfectly fine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't you get the memo ?
Using DNA is only bad for privacy when a man use it to disprove paternity.
Any other use of DNA info is perfectly fine.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31040546</id>
	<title>All the more reason...</title>
	<author>r3zurector</author>
	<datestamp>1265369820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>have your babies at home.</htmltext>
<tokenext>have your babies at home .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>have your babies at home.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034272</id>
	<title>Re:From someone who does Genetic Testing</title>
	<author>SecurityGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1265384220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, thank $DIETY, as long as it's not legal, we're fine.  Can we talk about illegal wiretaps by the government en masse in recent years with the cooperation of major telecoms, where nobody will ever be prosecuted?</p><p>Your wife's right, nobody's going to go back to a paper card for information.  They're going to go to a database where getting this information is easy and inexpensive.  Just look to jurisdictions that do or want to take DNA if you're convicted or accused of a crime, or in some cases arrested.  If this information isn't in a database now, it will be when someone comes up with a perfectly reasonable and innocuous reason to do it.  The abuse of the data comes later.  The medical field is great at this, sadly.  It makes me angry when I get forms, like I did for umbilical cord blood donation, that talk about how it can save lives of my child or others if they have some condition or other..<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...oh, and we can use it for research if we want.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...oh, and we can also use it for anything else we want, without limitation.</p><p>What?  No.  Stop being ridiculously unreasonable and overreaching.  Ok, testing for certain genetic diseases is a good idea.  You may proceed.  You may not keep the samples.  You may not do anything with the information that doesn't directly benefit my child's health without my consent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , thank $ DIETY , as long as it 's not legal , we 're fine .
Can we talk about illegal wiretaps by the government en masse in recent years with the cooperation of major telecoms , where nobody will ever be prosecuted ? Your wife 's right , nobody 's going to go back to a paper card for information .
They 're going to go to a database where getting this information is easy and inexpensive .
Just look to jurisdictions that do or want to take DNA if you 're convicted or accused of a crime , or in some cases arrested .
If this information is n't in a database now , it will be when someone comes up with a perfectly reasonable and innocuous reason to do it .
The abuse of the data comes later .
The medical field is great at this , sadly .
It makes me angry when I get forms , like I did for umbilical cord blood donation , that talk about how it can save lives of my child or others if they have some condition or other.. ...oh , and we can use it for research if we want .
...oh , and we can also use it for anything else we want , without limitation.What ?
No. Stop being ridiculously unreasonable and overreaching .
Ok , testing for certain genetic diseases is a good idea .
You may proceed .
You may not keep the samples .
You may not do anything with the information that does n't directly benefit my child 's health without my consent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, thank $DIETY, as long as it's not legal, we're fine.
Can we talk about illegal wiretaps by the government en masse in recent years with the cooperation of major telecoms, where nobody will ever be prosecuted?Your wife's right, nobody's going to go back to a paper card for information.
They're going to go to a database where getting this information is easy and inexpensive.
Just look to jurisdictions that do or want to take DNA if you're convicted or accused of a crime, or in some cases arrested.
If this information isn't in a database now, it will be when someone comes up with a perfectly reasonable and innocuous reason to do it.
The abuse of the data comes later.
The medical field is great at this, sadly.
It makes me angry when I get forms, like I did for umbilical cord blood donation, that talk about how it can save lives of my child or others if they have some condition or other.. ...oh, and we can use it for research if we want.
...oh, and we can also use it for anything else we want, without limitation.What?
No.  Stop being ridiculously unreasonable and overreaching.
Ok, testing for certain genetic diseases is a good idea.
You may proceed.
You may not keep the samples.
You may not do anything with the information that doesn't directly benefit my child's health without my consent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31036138</id>
	<title>Re: U Are What U Are</title>
	<author>VisiX</author>
	<datestamp>1265393400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
My parents made me, not God, credit where credit is due.  Also, it is natural to be somewhat ashamed of your inadequacies, this often provides the drive to improve yourself.
</p><p>
To your overall point, imagine you have a genetic marker which identifies you as having a 2 inch penis.  Now imagine that everyone knows you have this marker.  Now imagine being in high school where not everyone is as enlightened as you.  Historically, people who could ignore the level of abuse that would ensue have been few and far between.  So unless your name starts with Jesus or ends with Gandhi you might want to reconsider your position.</p><p>
Privacy is not primitive, and is a necessity when living in society.  It is trivial to come up with 100s of reasons why, so I assume you either had a momentarily lapse in judgment or that you are not a reasonable individual.  Just imagine walking around wearing a sandwich board that contains the most unfortunate facts about your life.  Not everyone needs to know that you had a homosexual sex dream about your cousin Ralph.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My parents made me , not God , credit where credit is due .
Also , it is natural to be somewhat ashamed of your inadequacies , this often provides the drive to improve yourself .
To your overall point , imagine you have a genetic marker which identifies you as having a 2 inch penis .
Now imagine that everyone knows you have this marker .
Now imagine being in high school where not everyone is as enlightened as you .
Historically , people who could ignore the level of abuse that would ensue have been few and far between .
So unless your name starts with Jesus or ends with Gandhi you might want to reconsider your position .
Privacy is not primitive , and is a necessity when living in society .
It is trivial to come up with 100s of reasons why , so I assume you either had a momentarily lapse in judgment or that you are not a reasonable individual .
Just imagine walking around wearing a sandwich board that contains the most unfortunate facts about your life .
Not everyone needs to know that you had a homosexual sex dream about your cousin Ralph .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
My parents made me, not God, credit where credit is due.
Also, it is natural to be somewhat ashamed of your inadequacies, this often provides the drive to improve yourself.
To your overall point, imagine you have a genetic marker which identifies you as having a 2 inch penis.
Now imagine that everyone knows you have this marker.
Now imagine being in high school where not everyone is as enlightened as you.
Historically, people who could ignore the level of abuse that would ensue have been few and far between.
So unless your name starts with Jesus or ends with Gandhi you might want to reconsider your position.
Privacy is not primitive, and is a necessity when living in society.
It is trivial to come up with 100s of reasons why, so I assume you either had a momentarily lapse in judgment or that you are not a reasonable individual.
Just imagine walking around wearing a sandwich board that contains the most unfortunate facts about your life.
Not everyone needs to know that you had a homosexual sex dream about your cousin Ralph.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034176</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31035802</id>
	<title>Re:From someone who does Genetic Testing</title>
	<author>MrSpiff</author>
	<datestamp>1265392080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This has been done before. In 2003, the swedish minister of foreign affairs, Anna Lindh, was murdered in a shopping mall. Once the police had a suspect and samples of his hair, they requested a DNA sample from a national blood bank containing samples from all newborns since 1975 and matched it. The blood bank was originally set up for research only but has since been used in this high profile murder case and for identifying victims of the 2004 tsunami. There's an ongoing investigation on making the entire blood bank available to police authorities, meaning 3,3 million blood samples will be available for matching.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This has been done before .
In 2003 , the swedish minister of foreign affairs , Anna Lindh , was murdered in a shopping mall .
Once the police had a suspect and samples of his hair , they requested a DNA sample from a national blood bank containing samples from all newborns since 1975 and matched it .
The blood bank was originally set up for research only but has since been used in this high profile murder case and for identifying victims of the 2004 tsunami .
There 's an ongoing investigation on making the entire blood bank available to police authorities , meaning 3,3 million blood samples will be available for matching .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This has been done before.
In 2003, the swedish minister of foreign affairs, Anna Lindh, was murdered in a shopping mall.
Once the police had a suspect and samples of his hair, they requested a DNA sample from a national blood bank containing samples from all newborns since 1975 and matched it.
The blood bank was originally set up for research only but has since been used in this high profile murder case and for identifying victims of the 2004 tsunami.
There's an ongoing investigation on making the entire blood bank available to police authorities, meaning 3,3 million blood samples will be available for matching.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31035688</id>
	<title>Re:The important part of the article</title>
	<author>plague3106</author>
	<datestamp>1265391720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>IMO there should be no health insurance companies. Get rid of them and have the government pay for your health care, and our costs (the highest in the world) will drop to where more civilized countries' costs are</i></p><p>IMO you are a free individual and are capable of moving to a "more civilezed country."  So plesae, start packing your bags instead of trying to steal from me.</p><p><i>Your higher taxes will more than be made up by not having to pay insurance premiums.</i></p><p>Tell that to the healthy people who currently CHOOSE NOT TO HAVE INSURANCE.</p><p><i>We have the most expensive health care in the world, but by no metric do we have the best care.</i></p><p>And we have people traveling from Canada, Russia, and Europe to receive care here why again?  My wife works in medical billing, there's a significant amount of people CHOOSING TO COME HERE for care.</p><p><i>I blame private insurance.</i></p><p>When the top diseases in the country ARE PREVENTABLE if life styles are changed, why do you blame insurance?</p><p><a href="http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005110.html" title="infoplease.com">http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005110.html</a> [infoplease.com]<br><a href="http://www.vandenberg.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123103015" title="af.mil">http://www.vandenberg.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123103015</a> [af.mil]</p><p><i>I had hopes for Obama, but his version of health care "reform" seems to me nothing but a gift to the insurance companies.</i></p><p>Seems more like lost freedoms to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IMO there should be no health insurance companies .
Get rid of them and have the government pay for your health care , and our costs ( the highest in the world ) will drop to where more civilized countries ' costs areIMO you are a free individual and are capable of moving to a " more civilezed country .
" So plesae , start packing your bags instead of trying to steal from me.Your higher taxes will more than be made up by not having to pay insurance premiums.Tell that to the healthy people who currently CHOOSE NOT TO HAVE INSURANCE.We have the most expensive health care in the world , but by no metric do we have the best care.And we have people traveling from Canada , Russia , and Europe to receive care here why again ?
My wife works in medical billing , there 's a significant amount of people CHOOSING TO COME HERE for care.I blame private insurance.When the top diseases in the country ARE PREVENTABLE if life styles are changed , why do you blame insurance ? http : //www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005110.html [ infoplease.com ] http : //www.vandenberg.af.mil/news/story.asp ? id = 123103015 [ af.mil ] I had hopes for Obama , but his version of health care " reform " seems to me nothing but a gift to the insurance companies.Seems more like lost freedoms to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IMO there should be no health insurance companies.
Get rid of them and have the government pay for your health care, and our costs (the highest in the world) will drop to where more civilized countries' costs areIMO you are a free individual and are capable of moving to a "more civilezed country.
"  So plesae, start packing your bags instead of trying to steal from me.Your higher taxes will more than be made up by not having to pay insurance premiums.Tell that to the healthy people who currently CHOOSE NOT TO HAVE INSURANCE.We have the most expensive health care in the world, but by no metric do we have the best care.And we have people traveling from Canada, Russia, and Europe to receive care here why again?
My wife works in medical billing, there's a significant amount of people CHOOSING TO COME HERE for care.I blame private insurance.When the top diseases in the country ARE PREVENTABLE if life styles are changed, why do you blame insurance?http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005110.html [infoplease.com]http://www.vandenberg.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123103015 [af.mil]I had hopes for Obama, but his version of health care "reform" seems to me nothing but a gift to the insurance companies.Seems more like lost freedoms to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31035048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034934</id>
	<title>Re:avoiding hospitals from now on</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1265388060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pray there are no mdeical complications. Before they started having children in hospitals, childbirth was the #1 killer. Back in those days, men had longer life expectancies than women just because of that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pray there are no mdeical complications .
Before they started having children in hospitals , childbirth was the # 1 killer .
Back in those days , men had longer life expectancies than women just because of that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pray there are no mdeical complications.
Before they started having children in hospitals, childbirth was the #1 killer.
Back in those days, men had longer life expectancies than women just because of that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31036682</id>
	<title>Re:names egregious, but not relevant</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265395620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"in practice it doesn't really even matter"</p><p>Please. Of course it does.  Simple scientific facts does not make for a non-issue when they lack societal context.  My genetic markers aren't something you can look up easily.  My name is.  Putting the two together can give meaning to the data, because there is bidirectional flow of information between the name/person and the genetic data.</p><p>If I had your DNA markers right now, I couldn't identify you because there is no association between your name and DNA.  There is \_no genetic database\_ for me to refer to to pinpoint you as a person.  I have the DNA, and I have you, but I don't know one belongs to the other.  I can't discriminate against you based on your DNA with your name, or in most cases, your name assume something in your DNA.</p><p>You seem to confuse the fact that because it can be easily differentiated anyhow, it's meaningless as a rights issue.  That's not true if the basic level of information isn't readily available in the first place and I can't associate the DNA with a person.  With a newborn DNA database, that BECOMES the case.</p><p>This newborn issue came up years ago.  I'm surprised someone hasn't sued the state for assault, since it was taken without permission from the parents.  Even if the letter of the law is followed, there is usually something in the respective state's constitution that makes this a violation of an individual's rights.  Has there been any test cases?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" in practice it does n't really even matter " Please .
Of course it does .
Simple scientific facts does not make for a non-issue when they lack societal context .
My genetic markers are n't something you can look up easily .
My name is .
Putting the two together can give meaning to the data , because there is bidirectional flow of information between the name/person and the genetic data.If I had your DNA markers right now , I could n't identify you because there is no association between your name and DNA .
There is \ _no genetic database \ _ for me to refer to to pinpoint you as a person .
I have the DNA , and I have you , but I do n't know one belongs to the other .
I ca n't discriminate against you based on your DNA with your name , or in most cases , your name assume something in your DNA.You seem to confuse the fact that because it can be easily differentiated anyhow , it 's meaningless as a rights issue .
That 's not true if the basic level of information is n't readily available in the first place and I ca n't associate the DNA with a person .
With a newborn DNA database , that BECOMES the case.This newborn issue came up years ago .
I 'm surprised someone has n't sued the state for assault , since it was taken without permission from the parents .
Even if the letter of the law is followed , there is usually something in the respective state 's constitution that makes this a violation of an individual 's rights .
Has there been any test cases ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"in practice it doesn't really even matter"Please.
Of course it does.
Simple scientific facts does not make for a non-issue when they lack societal context.
My genetic markers aren't something you can look up easily.
My name is.
Putting the two together can give meaning to the data, because there is bidirectional flow of information between the name/person and the genetic data.If I had your DNA markers right now, I couldn't identify you because there is no association between your name and DNA.
There is \_no genetic database\_ for me to refer to to pinpoint you as a person.
I have the DNA, and I have you, but I don't know one belongs to the other.
I can't discriminate against you based on your DNA with your name, or in most cases, your name assume something in your DNA.You seem to confuse the fact that because it can be easily differentiated anyhow, it's meaningless as a rights issue.
That's not true if the basic level of information isn't readily available in the first place and I can't associate the DNA with a person.
With a newborn DNA database, that BECOMES the case.This newborn issue came up years ago.
I'm surprised someone hasn't sued the state for assault, since it was taken without permission from the parents.
Even if the letter of the law is followed, there is usually something in the respective state's constitution that makes this a violation of an individual's rights.
Has there been any test cases?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034640</id>
	<title>Next up</title>
	<author>KiwiCanuck</author>
	<datestamp>1265386320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Insurance companies start doing "research".</htmltext>
<tokenext>Insurance companies start doing " research " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Insurance companies start doing "research".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033726</id>
	<title>HIPAA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265380260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>At a minimum, HIPAA should apply <a href="http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/" title="hhs.gov" rel="nofollow">http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/</a> [hhs.gov]</htmltext>
<tokenext>At a minimum , HIPAA should apply http : //www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/ [ hhs.gov ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At a minimum, HIPAA should apply http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/ [hhs.gov]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31036386</id>
	<title>Re:From someone who does Genetic Testing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265394420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>..and who would</i></p><p>The same people that go out the way to create tax shelters, brib...lobby elected officials, investigate crimes (local, state, federal)..... The position of power for those who wield your genetic profile is far too great and dangerous. Who's to say this genetic profile that has Parkinsons isn't you? It's the same concept has character assassination. Destroy any credibility early, and no one will care what you have to say later. Brand you and your genetic profile as tainted, and it won't matter what you prove. Never mind the amount of money it would take to 'clear' your 'name' after the fact.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>..and who wouldThe same people that go out the way to create tax shelters , brib...lobby elected officials , investigate crimes ( local , state , federal ) ..... The position of power for those who wield your genetic profile is far too great and dangerous .
Who 's to say this genetic profile that has Parkinsons is n't you ?
It 's the same concept has character assassination .
Destroy any credibility early , and no one will care what you have to say later .
Brand you and your genetic profile as tainted , and it wo n't matter what you prove .
Never mind the amount of money it would take to 'clear ' your 'name ' after the fact .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>..and who wouldThe same people that go out the way to create tax shelters, brib...lobby elected officials, investigate crimes (local, state, federal)..... The position of power for those who wield your genetic profile is far too great and dangerous.
Who's to say this genetic profile that has Parkinsons isn't you?
It's the same concept has character assassination.
Destroy any credibility early, and no one will care what you have to say later.
Brand you and your genetic profile as tainted, and it won't matter what you prove.
Never mind the amount of money it would take to 'clear' your 'name' after the fact.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31035640</id>
	<title>Re:GATTACA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265391540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>but knowing that you are susceptible to heart disease, might provide incentives to live a healthier life and put some $ monthly aside instead of buying the latest console games and provide your own insurance. Private responsibility works.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>but knowing that you are susceptible to heart disease , might provide incentives to live a healthier life and put some $ monthly aside instead of buying the latest console games and provide your own insurance .
Private responsibility works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but knowing that you are susceptible to heart disease, might provide incentives to live a healthier life and put some $ monthly aside instead of buying the latest console games and provide your own insurance.
Private responsibility works.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033820</id>
	<title>In Canada</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265381040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the information is kept by a private entity, not even government. Also, most hospitals collect the placenta and the cord for stem cell collection (and of course the baby's and mother's DNA).</p><p>I think this is a loosing battle. It's so easy to collect DNA anyway. It's not really hard to tell where all this is leading. Just by sampling yesterday's news you can imagine (without being too imaginative) that one day a corporation is going to be a president of USA or the new Earth government, and each one of the inhabitants is going to be matrix like "cells" serving the corporation. If we don't destroy the Earth first, that is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the information is kept by a private entity , not even government .
Also , most hospitals collect the placenta and the cord for stem cell collection ( and of course the baby 's and mother 's DNA ) .I think this is a loosing battle .
It 's so easy to collect DNA anyway .
It 's not really hard to tell where all this is leading .
Just by sampling yesterday 's news you can imagine ( without being too imaginative ) that one day a corporation is going to be a president of USA or the new Earth government , and each one of the inhabitants is going to be matrix like " cells " serving the corporation .
If we do n't destroy the Earth first , that is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the information is kept by a private entity, not even government.
Also, most hospitals collect the placenta and the cord for stem cell collection (and of course the baby's and mother's DNA).I think this is a loosing battle.
It's so easy to collect DNA anyway.
It's not really hard to tell where all this is leading.
Just by sampling yesterday's news you can imagine (without being too imaginative) that one day a corporation is going to be a president of USA or the new Earth government, and each one of the inhabitants is going to be matrix like "cells" serving the corporation.
If we don't destroy the Earth first, that is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034252</id>
	<title>Re:From someone who does Genetic Testing</title>
	<author>2obvious4u</author>
	<datestamp>1265384100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My son was born with a thyroid problem, without the required state testing he probably wouldn't have been diagnosed until after he started having developmental issues.  Because of the screening he was immediately put on Synthroid and leads a normal healthy life.<br>
<br>
Other than using the DNA to later in life convict him of a crime, I have no other problems with any entity having access to DNA.  The only thing that scares me is being put in jail for petty crimes because you're linked to a crime by your DNA.  As long as that can't happen I don't care what they do with the DNA.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My son was born with a thyroid problem , without the required state testing he probably would n't have been diagnosed until after he started having developmental issues .
Because of the screening he was immediately put on Synthroid and leads a normal healthy life .
Other than using the DNA to later in life convict him of a crime , I have no other problems with any entity having access to DNA .
The only thing that scares me is being put in jail for petty crimes because you 're linked to a crime by your DNA .
As long as that ca n't happen I do n't care what they do with the DNA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My son was born with a thyroid problem, without the required state testing he probably wouldn't have been diagnosed until after he started having developmental issues.
Because of the screening he was immediately put on Synthroid and leads a normal healthy life.
Other than using the DNA to later in life convict him of a crime, I have no other problems with any entity having access to DNA.
The only thing that scares me is being put in jail for petty crimes because you're linked to a crime by your DNA.
As long as that can't happen I don't care what they do with the DNA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31035154</id>
	<title>Re:GATTACA</title>
	<author>plague3106</author>
	<datestamp>1265389200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think insurance should charge more because something might happen.  OTOH, I don't see a problem charging more or even denying coverage if someone chooses to bring a kid into the world which will instantly become a burden on society.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think insurance should charge more because something might happen .
OTOH , I do n't see a problem charging more or even denying coverage if someone chooses to bring a kid into the world which will instantly become a burden on society .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think insurance should charge more because something might happen.
OTOH, I don't see a problem charging more or even denying coverage if someone chooses to bring a kid into the world which will instantly become a burden on society.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034714</id>
	<title>Re:Uninsurable</title>
	<author>elfprince13</author>
	<datestamp>1265386800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Obligatory "here comes Gattaca"</htmltext>
<tokenext>Obligatory " here comes Gattaca "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obligatory "here comes Gattaca"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034064</id>
	<title>Recent Experience</title>
	<author>WorkingDead</author>
	<datestamp>1265382900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>My wife and I recently had a baby in Texas and found out about this.  The blood sample is taken by pricking the babies heel 24 hours after birth and placing five drops of blood on a five panel card.  The state of Texas requires that the samples be sent to a state lab and screened for congenital adrenal hyperplasia, congenital hypothyroidism, galactosemia, phenylketonuria, sickle-beta thalassemia, sickle-cell anemia, and sickle-hemoglobin C disease (http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/LAB/nbs\_article.shtm).  Luckily they give you a form you can fill out when you leave the hospital to request the state to destroy the sample after their screening.  There seems to be some personal information attached to the sample so that the state can link it back to the hospital record should they detect something. They don't appear to be able to match the sample to a SSN# because that doesn't get issued to the baby until several weeks later.  I made sure to fill out the form and mail it in but there doesn't seem to be any way to tell if they really destroyed the sample or not.  By not filling out the sample destruction request form you give the state permission to do what ever they want with it but they are supposed to remove any identifying information if they give the sample to a third party.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My wife and I recently had a baby in Texas and found out about this .
The blood sample is taken by pricking the babies heel 24 hours after birth and placing five drops of blood on a five panel card .
The state of Texas requires that the samples be sent to a state lab and screened for congenital adrenal hyperplasia , congenital hypothyroidism , galactosemia , phenylketonuria , sickle-beta thalassemia , sickle-cell anemia , and sickle-hemoglobin C disease ( http : //www.dshs.state.tx.us/LAB/nbs \ _article.shtm ) .
Luckily they give you a form you can fill out when you leave the hospital to request the state to destroy the sample after their screening .
There seems to be some personal information attached to the sample so that the state can link it back to the hospital record should they detect something .
They do n't appear to be able to match the sample to a SSN # because that does n't get issued to the baby until several weeks later .
I made sure to fill out the form and mail it in but there does n't seem to be any way to tell if they really destroyed the sample or not .
By not filling out the sample destruction request form you give the state permission to do what ever they want with it but they are supposed to remove any identifying information if they give the sample to a third party .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My wife and I recently had a baby in Texas and found out about this.
The blood sample is taken by pricking the babies heel 24 hours after birth and placing five drops of blood on a five panel card.
The state of Texas requires that the samples be sent to a state lab and screened for congenital adrenal hyperplasia, congenital hypothyroidism, galactosemia, phenylketonuria, sickle-beta thalassemia, sickle-cell anemia, and sickle-hemoglobin C disease (http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/LAB/nbs\_article.shtm).
Luckily they give you a form you can fill out when you leave the hospital to request the state to destroy the sample after their screening.
There seems to be some personal information attached to the sample so that the state can link it back to the hospital record should they detect something.
They don't appear to be able to match the sample to a SSN# because that doesn't get issued to the baby until several weeks later.
I made sure to fill out the form and mail it in but there doesn't seem to be any way to tell if they really destroyed the sample or not.
By not filling out the sample destruction request form you give the state permission to do what ever they want with it but they are supposed to remove any identifying information if they give the sample to a third party.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034108</id>
	<title>Re:GATTACA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265383080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>no they won't, they will just price the risk in and make money on it</p><p>medical care is becoming so expensive that a lot of employer plans where there is no prior condition clauses already have something called co-insurance where you pay 20\% of the charges plus the premiums. if you want to destroy your health no one cares and no one will let you die in the street. they will just make you pay to cover the cost of your care</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>no they wo n't , they will just price the risk in and make money on itmedical care is becoming so expensive that a lot of employer plans where there is no prior condition clauses already have something called co-insurance where you pay 20 \ % of the charges plus the premiums .
if you want to destroy your health no one cares and no one will let you die in the street .
they will just make you pay to cover the cost of your care</tokentext>
<sentencetext>no they won't, they will just price the risk in and make money on itmedical care is becoming so expensive that a lot of employer plans where there is no prior condition clauses already have something called co-insurance where you pay 20\% of the charges plus the premiums.
if you want to destroy your health no one cares and no one will let you die in the street.
they will just make you pay to cover the cost of your care</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033636</id>
	<title>CSI</title>
	<author>coinreturn</author>
	<datestamp>1265379360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No chance this will be used to solve crimes CSI-style, right?</htmltext>
<tokenext>No chance this will be used to solve crimes CSI-style , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No chance this will be used to solve crimes CSI-style, right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31037074</id>
	<title>Re:Uninsurable</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1265397420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the disease is genetic, she has no business reproducing.  At the very least have the fetus tested and abort the defective ones. If you knowingly pass on defective genes, you are completely responsible for that decision.  There's no reason to expect an insurance company to pay for your bad behavior.  Honestly it should be criminal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the disease is genetic , she has no business reproducing .
At the very least have the fetus tested and abort the defective ones .
If you knowingly pass on defective genes , you are completely responsible for that decision .
There 's no reason to expect an insurance company to pay for your bad behavior .
Honestly it should be criminal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the disease is genetic, she has no business reproducing.
At the very least have the fetus tested and abort the defective ones.
If you knowingly pass on defective genes, you are completely responsible for that decision.
There's no reason to expect an insurance company to pay for your bad behavior.
Honestly it should be criminal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034724</id>
	<title>I trust my insurance company more than my gvmnt</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265386800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It has been proven over and over again, you can't trust the government with personal data. It will get out if not on purpose, by accident.  The only way prevent this data from being released? Don't let them have it. Make it illegal.</p><p>At least with my insurance company, I know they are being driven by profit.</p><p>Don't get me wrong, I don't want either having genetic data if it can be used against anyone.</p><p>If the data is truly anonymized, I guess making it publicly available for everyone in the world would be fine, but only if **every** congressman, senator and president's data is also included in that release.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It has been proven over and over again , you ca n't trust the government with personal data .
It will get out if not on purpose , by accident .
The only way prevent this data from being released ?
Do n't let them have it .
Make it illegal.At least with my insurance company , I know they are being driven by profit.Do n't get me wrong , I do n't want either having genetic data if it can be used against anyone.If the data is truly anonymized , I guess making it publicly available for everyone in the world would be fine , but only if * * every * * congressman , senator and president 's data is also included in that release .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It has been proven over and over again, you can't trust the government with personal data.
It will get out if not on purpose, by accident.
The only way prevent this data from being released?
Don't let them have it.
Make it illegal.At least with my insurance company, I know they are being driven by profit.Don't get me wrong, I don't want either having genetic data if it can be used against anyone.If the data is truly anonymized, I guess making it publicly available for everyone in the world would be fine, but only if **every** congressman, senator and president's data is also included in that release.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31035346</id>
	<title>Re:The important part of the article</title>
	<author>ckaminski</author>
	<datestamp>1265390160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&lt;quote&gt;<br>Aborting a fetus rather than having a baby you can't properly care for, is responsible behavior. (Of course using contraception and not getting pregnant in the first place is even more responsible.)<br>&lt;/quote&gt;<br><br>Except contraception fails.  I know of at least one mother who's in that state simply because the Pill didn't work.</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Aborting a fetus rather than having a baby you ca n't properly care for , is responsible behavior .
( Of course using contraception and not getting pregnant in the first place is even more responsible .
) Except contraception fails .
I know of at least one mother who 's in that state simply because the Pill did n't work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aborting a fetus rather than having a baby you can't properly care for, is responsible behavior.
(Of course using contraception and not getting pregnant in the first place is even more responsible.
)Except contraception fails.
I know of at least one mother who's in that state simply because the Pill didn't work.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31036890</id>
	<title>Re:Uninsurable</title>
	<author>anyGould</author>
	<datestamp>1265396520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> If not then when nature says you're time here is done then it's done.</p></div><p>You would make a wonderful example to others. All you need to do is contract one of the uglier diseases out there, and live out your few remaining days filled with pain, but resolute that since you can't afford that life-saving treatment, you deserve to die.</p><p>I salute you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If not then when nature says you 're time here is done then it 's done.You would make a wonderful example to others .
All you need to do is contract one of the uglier diseases out there , and live out your few remaining days filled with pain , but resolute that since you ca n't afford that life-saving treatment , you deserve to die.I salute you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> If not then when nature says you're time here is done then it's done.You would make a wonderful example to others.
All you need to do is contract one of the uglier diseases out there, and live out your few remaining days filled with pain, but resolute that since you can't afford that life-saving treatment, you deserve to die.I salute you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31040544</id>
	<title>Re:Insurance</title>
	<author>cdrguru</author>
	<datestamp>1265369820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Today in the US there are around 40 people working and earning a living for every 100 in the country.  This includes children, elderly, disabled, etc.  Assuming we throw open the border to the south - which is probably a 50/50 probability, this ratio will go down to around 30 people working for every 100.</p><p>Not all of the 60 or 70 people out of that 100 are supported by the government, but at least half of them are in some way.  This represents the current burden without government-funded heathcare.</p><p>The entire Social Security funding was set up with the idea that people died within a few years after retirement and there would be 10 workers for every retired person.  We are rapidly reaching the point where there are 10 retired people for every worker, which makes it very difficult to continue the plan the way it is structured.</p><p>Sure, it would be nice if the government took over healthcare completely and nobody ever went hungry and the borders were open to all so that everyone could experience the bounty and benefits of living in the USA.  Except it isn't going to work that way for very long, if at all.  De-incentivise earning in the USA and more people will opt out in one way or another.</p><p>You would be amazed at how long you can live in Mexico or Costa Rica on $10,000.  Maybe you have to learn Spanish but it is really simple to just drop out.  Not really an option for anyone currently on government support, but what this will do is drop the ratio down to like 10-15 taxpayers out of 100 residents.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Today in the US there are around 40 people working and earning a living for every 100 in the country .
This includes children , elderly , disabled , etc .
Assuming we throw open the border to the south - which is probably a 50/50 probability , this ratio will go down to around 30 people working for every 100.Not all of the 60 or 70 people out of that 100 are supported by the government , but at least half of them are in some way .
This represents the current burden without government-funded heathcare.The entire Social Security funding was set up with the idea that people died within a few years after retirement and there would be 10 workers for every retired person .
We are rapidly reaching the point where there are 10 retired people for every worker , which makes it very difficult to continue the plan the way it is structured.Sure , it would be nice if the government took over healthcare completely and nobody ever went hungry and the borders were open to all so that everyone could experience the bounty and benefits of living in the USA .
Except it is n't going to work that way for very long , if at all .
De-incentivise earning in the USA and more people will opt out in one way or another.You would be amazed at how long you can live in Mexico or Costa Rica on $ 10,000 .
Maybe you have to learn Spanish but it is really simple to just drop out .
Not really an option for anyone currently on government support , but what this will do is drop the ratio down to like 10-15 taxpayers out of 100 residents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Today in the US there are around 40 people working and earning a living for every 100 in the country.
This includes children, elderly, disabled, etc.
Assuming we throw open the border to the south - which is probably a 50/50 probability, this ratio will go down to around 30 people working for every 100.Not all of the 60 or 70 people out of that 100 are supported by the government, but at least half of them are in some way.
This represents the current burden without government-funded heathcare.The entire Social Security funding was set up with the idea that people died within a few years after retirement and there would be 10 workers for every retired person.
We are rapidly reaching the point where there are 10 retired people for every worker, which makes it very difficult to continue the plan the way it is structured.Sure, it would be nice if the government took over healthcare completely and nobody ever went hungry and the borders were open to all so that everyone could experience the bounty and benefits of living in the USA.
Except it isn't going to work that way for very long, if at all.
De-incentivise earning in the USA and more people will opt out in one way or another.You would be amazed at how long you can live in Mexico or Costa Rica on $10,000.
Maybe you have to learn Spanish but it is really simple to just drop out.
Not really an option for anyone currently on government support, but what this will do is drop the ratio down to like 10-15 taxpayers out of 100 residents.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034320</id>
	<title>Anemia due to diagnostic testing</title>
	<author>SilentResistance</author>
	<datestamp>1265384580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I recently had my first baby, who came out a little premature. I was disgusted by the sheer volume of blood testing performed. The NICU staff did the normal, government-mandated tests, then they did regular blood testing every week to monitor her anemia. Somehow the NICU staff was "mystified" as to why my daughter's anemia was getting worse. I'm not a doctor. I am an engineer on a campus with medical journal access. With a simple model based on her estimated blood volume and the volume they removed for all the tests, I postulate that it was their excessive testing that put my daughter in the danger zone of anemia. Had they just left my daughter alone, I think she would have had the typical levels of Hematicrit and Hemoglobin. I think this dangerous, excessive testing was defensive medicine.

Diagnostic testing is specifically mentioned in many journal articles on infant anemia.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I recently had my first baby , who came out a little premature .
I was disgusted by the sheer volume of blood testing performed .
The NICU staff did the normal , government-mandated tests , then they did regular blood testing every week to monitor her anemia .
Somehow the NICU staff was " mystified " as to why my daughter 's anemia was getting worse .
I 'm not a doctor .
I am an engineer on a campus with medical journal access .
With a simple model based on her estimated blood volume and the volume they removed for all the tests , I postulate that it was their excessive testing that put my daughter in the danger zone of anemia .
Had they just left my daughter alone , I think she would have had the typical levels of Hematicrit and Hemoglobin .
I think this dangerous , excessive testing was defensive medicine .
Diagnostic testing is specifically mentioned in many journal articles on infant anemia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I recently had my first baby, who came out a little premature.
I was disgusted by the sheer volume of blood testing performed.
The NICU staff did the normal, government-mandated tests, then they did regular blood testing every week to monitor her anemia.
Somehow the NICU staff was "mystified" as to why my daughter's anemia was getting worse.
I'm not a doctor.
I am an engineer on a campus with medical journal access.
With a simple model based on her estimated blood volume and the volume they removed for all the tests, I postulate that it was their excessive testing that put my daughter in the danger zone of anemia.
Had they just left my daughter alone, I think she would have had the typical levels of Hematicrit and Hemoglobin.
I think this dangerous, excessive testing was defensive medicine.
Diagnostic testing is specifically mentioned in many journal articles on infant anemia.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31036428</id>
	<title>Re:In Canada</title>
	<author>radtea</author>
	<datestamp>1265394600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's not really hard to tell where all this is leading.</p></div><p>One area that hasn't been mentioned here is paternity testing, which should be routine for all newborns, given we're doing this kind of genetic screening anyway.</p><p>Between 2\% and 25\% of children are currently fathered by someone other than their mother's socially pair-bonded partner because women have such a strong evolutionary incentive to separate sex and love.  They want to be pair-bonded with the highest-status male they can find, and then have sex with many different higher-status males so their children will be genetically superior.</p><p>So women are basically tuned up by evolution to cheat with any man with a higher perceived social status than their husband, and they do this all the time, producing the observed rates of children fathered by men other than their mate.  In societies with flatter social hierarchies the rates are lower, and vice versa.</p><p>The only people who get screwed, as it were, by this arrangement is lower-status men, who end up raising children not their own, although "lower status" is a complicated thing to measure.  A physically virile poor man may be perceived by a woman's hormones as "higher status" than a more frail rich man.</p><p>Men are tuned up by evolution to be indiscriminate.  Women are tuned up by evolution to be dishonest.</p><p>It would be wonderfully socially disruptive, therefore, at a very deep level, to make paternity testing routine.  It's likely to happen for medical reasons anyway, as we come to understand the genetic basis of health and disease more completely, and doctors will simply want to know more about a child's genetic history.  But doing so will put a massive spoke in the wheels of the most basic female evolutionary drive:  to have children by as many different high-status men as possible, while remaining pair-bonded to the highest status man she can deceive into supporting her and her offspring.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not really hard to tell where all this is leading.One area that has n't been mentioned here is paternity testing , which should be routine for all newborns , given we 're doing this kind of genetic screening anyway.Between 2 \ % and 25 \ % of children are currently fathered by someone other than their mother 's socially pair-bonded partner because women have such a strong evolutionary incentive to separate sex and love .
They want to be pair-bonded with the highest-status male they can find , and then have sex with many different higher-status males so their children will be genetically superior.So women are basically tuned up by evolution to cheat with any man with a higher perceived social status than their husband , and they do this all the time , producing the observed rates of children fathered by men other than their mate .
In societies with flatter social hierarchies the rates are lower , and vice versa.The only people who get screwed , as it were , by this arrangement is lower-status men , who end up raising children not their own , although " lower status " is a complicated thing to measure .
A physically virile poor man may be perceived by a woman 's hormones as " higher status " than a more frail rich man.Men are tuned up by evolution to be indiscriminate .
Women are tuned up by evolution to be dishonest.It would be wonderfully socially disruptive , therefore , at a very deep level , to make paternity testing routine .
It 's likely to happen for medical reasons anyway , as we come to understand the genetic basis of health and disease more completely , and doctors will simply want to know more about a child 's genetic history .
But doing so will put a massive spoke in the wheels of the most basic female evolutionary drive : to have children by as many different high-status men as possible , while remaining pair-bonded to the highest status man she can deceive into supporting her and her offspring .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not really hard to tell where all this is leading.One area that hasn't been mentioned here is paternity testing, which should be routine for all newborns, given we're doing this kind of genetic screening anyway.Between 2\% and 25\% of children are currently fathered by someone other than their mother's socially pair-bonded partner because women have such a strong evolutionary incentive to separate sex and love.
They want to be pair-bonded with the highest-status male they can find, and then have sex with many different higher-status males so their children will be genetically superior.So women are basically tuned up by evolution to cheat with any man with a higher perceived social status than their husband, and they do this all the time, producing the observed rates of children fathered by men other than their mate.
In societies with flatter social hierarchies the rates are lower, and vice versa.The only people who get screwed, as it were, by this arrangement is lower-status men, who end up raising children not their own, although "lower status" is a complicated thing to measure.
A physically virile poor man may be perceived by a woman's hormones as "higher status" than a more frail rich man.Men are tuned up by evolution to be indiscriminate.
Women are tuned up by evolution to be dishonest.It would be wonderfully socially disruptive, therefore, at a very deep level, to make paternity testing routine.
It's likely to happen for medical reasons anyway, as we come to understand the genetic basis of health and disease more completely, and doctors will simply want to know more about a child's genetic history.
But doing so will put a massive spoke in the wheels of the most basic female evolutionary drive:  to have children by as many different high-status men as possible, while remaining pair-bonded to the highest status man she can deceive into supporting her and her offspring.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034050</id>
	<title>Re:From someone who does Genetic Testing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265382840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Keep living in your happy little world where the government always says the truth, and doesn't hide things for personal interests and the like. A world where companies have actual security, and where life can be patented.  Me, well I will keep living in mine where I know it is up to me to do more for myself. My own food tests (FDA lies), my own electricity, communication network, etc.. I'm sorry but my baby's DNA is their property and until they are of legal consent my responsibility to maintain that ownership. There is no way to insure to me that those samples over the years haven't been used just for disease screening, and sorry I don't buy into the whole it is for your own good reasoning.  There are people in this world out to get you maybe not specifically but in general. Most are impotent little boys masquerading as men because they have to control others since they have come to the realization that they themselves need vast amounts of improvement and aren't actually fit to be leaders unless they do so. Lord, how I miss the days of challenging one to a duel. Maybe I will die one day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Keep living in your happy little world where the government always says the truth , and does n't hide things for personal interests and the like .
A world where companies have actual security , and where life can be patented .
Me , well I will keep living in mine where I know it is up to me to do more for myself .
My own food tests ( FDA lies ) , my own electricity , communication network , etc.. I 'm sorry but my baby 's DNA is their property and until they are of legal consent my responsibility to maintain that ownership .
There is no way to insure to me that those samples over the years have n't been used just for disease screening , and sorry I do n't buy into the whole it is for your own good reasoning .
There are people in this world out to get you maybe not specifically but in general .
Most are impotent little boys masquerading as men because they have to control others since they have come to the realization that they themselves need vast amounts of improvement and are n't actually fit to be leaders unless they do so .
Lord , how I miss the days of challenging one to a duel .
Maybe I will die one day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Keep living in your happy little world where the government always says the truth, and doesn't hide things for personal interests and the like.
A world where companies have actual security, and where life can be patented.
Me, well I will keep living in mine where I know it is up to me to do more for myself.
My own food tests (FDA lies), my own electricity, communication network, etc.. I'm sorry but my baby's DNA is their property and until they are of legal consent my responsibility to maintain that ownership.
There is no way to insure to me that those samples over the years haven't been used just for disease screening, and sorry I don't buy into the whole it is for your own good reasoning.
There are people in this world out to get you maybe not specifically but in general.
Most are impotent little boys masquerading as men because they have to control others since they have come to the realization that they themselves need vast amounts of improvement and aren't actually fit to be leaders unless they do so.
Lord, how I miss the days of challenging one to a duel.
Maybe I will die one day.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033864</id>
	<title>avoiding hospitals from now on</title>
	<author>darjen</author>
	<datestamp>1265381340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yet another reason not to have the rest of my children in a hospital. one was enough... no more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yet another reason not to have the rest of my children in a hospital .
one was enough... no more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yet another reason not to have the rest of my children in a hospital.
one was enough... no more.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034712</id>
	<title>Re:Uninsurable</title>
	<author>kj\_kabaje</author>
	<datestamp>1265386800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Too bad you posted AC.  I'm afraid you'll need to cite your evidence that socialized medicine doesn't work.  Please don't cite from FOX or Murdock's NewsCorp empire either.  The WHO ranks France and Spain well ahead of the United States in healthcare and most of western Europe as well.  It would appear that societies that choose to care about their people are indeed making it work without breaking the bank.  It's not about being a money tree, it's about investing in and caring for your population.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Too bad you posted AC .
I 'm afraid you 'll need to cite your evidence that socialized medicine does n't work .
Please do n't cite from FOX or Murdock 's NewsCorp empire either .
The WHO ranks France and Spain well ahead of the United States in healthcare and most of western Europe as well .
It would appear that societies that choose to care about their people are indeed making it work without breaking the bank .
It 's not about being a money tree , it 's about investing in and caring for your population .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too bad you posted AC.
I'm afraid you'll need to cite your evidence that socialized medicine doesn't work.
Please don't cite from FOX or Murdock's NewsCorp empire either.
The WHO ranks France and Spain well ahead of the United States in healthcare and most of western Europe as well.
It would appear that societies that choose to care about their people are indeed making it work without breaking the bank.
It's not about being a money tree, it's about investing in and caring for your population.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034176</id>
	<title>U Are What U Are</title>
	<author>b4upoo</author>
	<datestamp>1265383680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>         Openness is the only way to go. Instead of deception and hiding our DNA why not go out into the world with the truth displayed for all to see? Some folks will be inferior in their composition but if that is the way that God made them why should they feel shame? It is time for people to forget these primitive notions about privacy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Openness is the only way to go .
Instead of deception and hiding our DNA why not go out into the world with the truth displayed for all to see ?
Some folks will be inferior in their composition but if that is the way that God made them why should they feel shame ?
It is time for people to forget these primitive notions about privacy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>         Openness is the only way to go.
Instead of deception and hiding our DNA why not go out into the world with the truth displayed for all to see?
Some folks will be inferior in their composition but if that is the way that God made them why should they feel shame?
It is time for people to forget these primitive notions about privacy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31035120</id>
	<title>OB. xkcd</title>
	<author>DarthVain</author>
	<datestamp>1265389080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://xkcd.com/683/" title="xkcd.com">http://xkcd.com/683/</a> [xkcd.com]</p><p>I liked this one, totally reminded me of any CSI or any TV really with any mention of technology and/or science in it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //xkcd.com/683/ [ xkcd.com ] I liked this one , totally reminded me of any CSI or any TV really with any mention of technology and/or science in it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://xkcd.com/683/ [xkcd.com]I liked this one, totally reminded me of any CSI or any TV really with any mention of technology and/or science in it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034198</id>
	<title>Re:Uninsurable</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265383740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's sad how many people completely fail to understand what insurance is and how it works.</p><p>Insurance companies are not money trees. If they don't bring in more money from their customers than gets paid out then they cease to exist and you have no insurance.</p><p>Government also is not a money tree. This is why socialist health care has always failed. You either have to deny care to certain people or ration it. There is no such thing as infinite free anything, including health care.</p><p>If you want someone to do WORK for you to help you live longer then you have to trade an equivalent amount of WORK in exchange.</p><p>Stop being lazy and entitled and do what you need to do to make enough money to take care of yourself. If not then when nature says you're time here is done then it's done.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's sad how many people completely fail to understand what insurance is and how it works.Insurance companies are not money trees .
If they do n't bring in more money from their customers than gets paid out then they cease to exist and you have no insurance.Government also is not a money tree .
This is why socialist health care has always failed .
You either have to deny care to certain people or ration it .
There is no such thing as infinite free anything , including health care.If you want someone to do WORK for you to help you live longer then you have to trade an equivalent amount of WORK in exchange.Stop being lazy and entitled and do what you need to do to make enough money to take care of yourself .
If not then when nature says you 're time here is done then it 's done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's sad how many people completely fail to understand what insurance is and how it works.Insurance companies are not money trees.
If they don't bring in more money from their customers than gets paid out then they cease to exist and you have no insurance.Government also is not a money tree.
This is why socialist health care has always failed.
You either have to deny care to certain people or ration it.
There is no such thing as infinite free anything, including health care.If you want someone to do WORK for you to help you live longer then you have to trade an equivalent amount of WORK in exchange.Stop being lazy and entitled and do what you need to do to make enough money to take care of yourself.
If not then when nature says you're time here is done then it's done.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31037112</id>
	<title>Re:Insurance</title>
	<author>Rich0</author>
	<datestamp>1265397600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Insurance is a gamble for both sides - but it's one sided if they get to look at the cards you are carrying, which should be your private information.</i></p><p>It is also one-sided if you get to look at the cards you are carrying, and they don't.  You can opt to buy more insurance if you have a higher risk.  Insurance only works if NOBODY has information, or everybody is fully able to use the same information (although the latter does not promote socialism which is a goal different from true insurance).</p><p>Your problem isn't really with private vs public insurance (they both have pros/cons, but this isn't one of them).  Your problem is actually with universal vs non-universal coverage.  You can achieve that with either a private or public option, and both solve the problem of pre-existing conditions.</p><p>You cannot cover pre-existing conditions unless you have universal coverage.  Either sick people can't get insurance, or healthy people don't buy insurance - either fails financially.</p><p>Note that most public options are universal and compulsory by design - which contributes to this confusion.  When the insurance is paid via taxes then people aren't allowed to opt-out (maybe they can opt-out of the benefits, but their taxes still pay for them).</p><p>I'm not trying to say private or public insurance is good or bad, or that socialism is good or bad.  All these approaches have pros and cons.  What is important is that people honestly realize what aspects of various models cause various problems, so that they can have an informed opinion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Insurance is a gamble for both sides - but it 's one sided if they get to look at the cards you are carrying , which should be your private information.It is also one-sided if you get to look at the cards you are carrying , and they do n't .
You can opt to buy more insurance if you have a higher risk .
Insurance only works if NOBODY has information , or everybody is fully able to use the same information ( although the latter does not promote socialism which is a goal different from true insurance ) .Your problem is n't really with private vs public insurance ( they both have pros/cons , but this is n't one of them ) .
Your problem is actually with universal vs non-universal coverage .
You can achieve that with either a private or public option , and both solve the problem of pre-existing conditions.You can not cover pre-existing conditions unless you have universal coverage .
Either sick people ca n't get insurance , or healthy people do n't buy insurance - either fails financially.Note that most public options are universal and compulsory by design - which contributes to this confusion .
When the insurance is paid via taxes then people are n't allowed to opt-out ( maybe they can opt-out of the benefits , but their taxes still pay for them ) .I 'm not trying to say private or public insurance is good or bad , or that socialism is good or bad .
All these approaches have pros and cons .
What is important is that people honestly realize what aspects of various models cause various problems , so that they can have an informed opinion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Insurance is a gamble for both sides - but it's one sided if they get to look at the cards you are carrying, which should be your private information.It is also one-sided if you get to look at the cards you are carrying, and they don't.
You can opt to buy more insurance if you have a higher risk.
Insurance only works if NOBODY has information, or everybody is fully able to use the same information (although the latter does not promote socialism which is a goal different from true insurance).Your problem isn't really with private vs public insurance (they both have pros/cons, but this isn't one of them).
Your problem is actually with universal vs non-universal coverage.
You can achieve that with either a private or public option, and both solve the problem of pre-existing conditions.You cannot cover pre-existing conditions unless you have universal coverage.
Either sick people can't get insurance, or healthy people don't buy insurance - either fails financially.Note that most public options are universal and compulsory by design - which contributes to this confusion.
When the insurance is paid via taxes then people aren't allowed to opt-out (maybe they can opt-out of the benefits, but their taxes still pay for them).I'm not trying to say private or public insurance is good or bad, or that socialism is good or bad.
All these approaches have pros and cons.
What is important is that people honestly realize what aspects of various models cause various problems, so that they can have an informed opinion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034280</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033944</id>
	<title>Re:Uninsurable</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1265382000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just imagine though, once an insurance company starts billing people for having certain genes, their competitors can advertise "We bill you based on the probability that you will need care in the future and the costs of that care, not by arbitrarily punishing you for having certain genes!"</p><p>I don't really have a problem with society working to offset the consequences of the genetic lottery, but it is just silly to call something insurance when it is purchased after the flood.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just imagine though , once an insurance company starts billing people for having certain genes , their competitors can advertise " We bill you based on the probability that you will need care in the future and the costs of that care , not by arbitrarily punishing you for having certain genes !
" I do n't really have a problem with society working to offset the consequences of the genetic lottery , but it is just silly to call something insurance when it is purchased after the flood .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just imagine though, once an insurance company starts billing people for having certain genes, their competitors can advertise "We bill you based on the probability that you will need care in the future and the costs of that care, not by arbitrarily punishing you for having certain genes!
"I don't really have a problem with society working to offset the consequences of the genetic lottery, but it is just silly to call something insurance when it is purchased after the flood.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31035750</id>
	<title>And the South rises again!</title>
	<author>jbarr</author>
	<datestamp>1265391900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I now live in South Carolina (on the "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible\_Belt#Buckle" title="wikipedia.org">buckle of the Bible Belt</a> [wikipedia.org]") and find it amazing that South Carolina is the ONLY state listed in the policy PDF whose Retention Practice is "Parent Choice". I fully expected it to be otherwise. We may trail in many areas around the country, but this seems to be very progressive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I now live in South Carolina ( on the " buckle of the Bible Belt [ wikipedia.org ] " ) and find it amazing that South Carolina is the ONLY state listed in the policy PDF whose Retention Practice is " Parent Choice " .
I fully expected it to be otherwise .
We may trail in many areas around the country , but this seems to be very progressive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I now live in South Carolina (on the "buckle of the Bible Belt [wikipedia.org]") and find it amazing that South Carolina is the ONLY state listed in the policy PDF whose Retention Practice is "Parent Choice".
I fully expected it to be otherwise.
We may trail in many areas around the country, but this seems to be very progressive.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034634</id>
	<title>Re:Uninsurable</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265386320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Government also is not a money tree. This is why socialist health care has always failed.</p></div><p>Citation needed.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>You either have to deny care to certain people or ration it.</p></div><p>Again citation needed, I don't see droves of people denied care in Europe.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>There is no such thing as infinite free anything, including health care.</p></div><p>Health issues are not infinite either, they are quite measurable.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>If you want someone to do WORK for you to help you live longer then you have to trade an equivalent amount of WORK in exchange.</p></div><p>Have you ever heard of Insurance or, gasp!, Taxes ?<br>You know, there is a reason you pay an insurance premium or taxes (for public medical insurance which is another name for Healthcare).<br>It's to get a pool of money so that you can provide services to all without having every single person to pay in full. If you have to pay in full for service then insurance is useless.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Stop being lazy and entitled and do what you need to do to make enough money to take care of yourself. If not then when nature says you're time here is done then it's done.</p></div><p>You have my sympathies, must be awful to live with complete lack of care for others.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Government also is not a money tree .
This is why socialist health care has always failed.Citation needed.You either have to deny care to certain people or ration it.Again citation needed , I do n't see droves of people denied care in Europe.There is no such thing as infinite free anything , including health care.Health issues are not infinite either , they are quite measurable.If you want someone to do WORK for you to help you live longer then you have to trade an equivalent amount of WORK in exchange.Have you ever heard of Insurance or , gasp ! , Taxes ? You know , there is a reason you pay an insurance premium or taxes ( for public medical insurance which is another name for Healthcare ) .It 's to get a pool of money so that you can provide services to all without having every single person to pay in full .
If you have to pay in full for service then insurance is useless.Stop being lazy and entitled and do what you need to do to make enough money to take care of yourself .
If not then when nature says you 're time here is done then it 's done.You have my sympathies , must be awful to live with complete lack of care for others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Government also is not a money tree.
This is why socialist health care has always failed.Citation needed.You either have to deny care to certain people or ration it.Again citation needed, I don't see droves of people denied care in Europe.There is no such thing as infinite free anything, including health care.Health issues are not infinite either, they are quite measurable.If you want someone to do WORK for you to help you live longer then you have to trade an equivalent amount of WORK in exchange.Have you ever heard of Insurance or, gasp!, Taxes ?You know, there is a reason you pay an insurance premium or taxes (for public medical insurance which is another name for Healthcare).It's to get a pool of money so that you can provide services to all without having every single person to pay in full.
If you have to pay in full for service then insurance is useless.Stop being lazy and entitled and do what you need to do to make enough money to take care of yourself.
If not then when nature says you're time here is done then it's done.You have my sympathies, must be awful to live with complete lack of care for others.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31035100</id>
	<title>DNA retention affects parents, too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265389020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Crap.</p><p>My wife went into early labor and gave birth prematurely (at 21 weeks) while visiting her sister in California late last year.  Our daughter (our first child) lived for 25 minutes before succumbing due to her under-developed state.</p><p>Now, in addition to dealing with the loss of a child, I also have to worry about the pinko bureaucrats in CA, whether or not they took and are retaining DNA data from our little girl and my wife, "INDEFINITELY" according to the PDF chart in the summary above.  My wife was in an emergency situation; if they actually tried to obtain consent from her, there was no way that she could have understood what was going on.</p><p>The idiots couldn't even get the death certificate information right.  How much more are they going to screw us over on DNA retention?  Are we going to get virtual "injections, inspections,<br>detections, neglections and all kinds of stuff" ex post facto and unknown to us forever and ever?  To be less glib, are we as parents now going to have that DNA in that premature delivery and mortality incident held against us for coverage for, say, trying to have additional children (for example)?</p><p>Big Brother can suck it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Crap.My wife went into early labor and gave birth prematurely ( at 21 weeks ) while visiting her sister in California late last year .
Our daughter ( our first child ) lived for 25 minutes before succumbing due to her under-developed state.Now , in addition to dealing with the loss of a child , I also have to worry about the pinko bureaucrats in CA , whether or not they took and are retaining DNA data from our little girl and my wife , " INDEFINITELY " according to the PDF chart in the summary above .
My wife was in an emergency situation ; if they actually tried to obtain consent from her , there was no way that she could have understood what was going on.The idiots could n't even get the death certificate information right .
How much more are they going to screw us over on DNA retention ?
Are we going to get virtual " injections , inspections,detections , neglections and all kinds of stuff " ex post facto and unknown to us forever and ever ?
To be less glib , are we as parents now going to have that DNA in that premature delivery and mortality incident held against us for coverage for , say , trying to have additional children ( for example ) ? Big Brother can suck it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Crap.My wife went into early labor and gave birth prematurely (at 21 weeks) while visiting her sister in California late last year.
Our daughter (our first child) lived for 25 minutes before succumbing due to her under-developed state.Now, in addition to dealing with the loss of a child, I also have to worry about the pinko bureaucrats in CA, whether or not they took and are retaining DNA data from our little girl and my wife, "INDEFINITELY" according to the PDF chart in the summary above.
My wife was in an emergency situation; if they actually tried to obtain consent from her, there was no way that she could have understood what was going on.The idiots couldn't even get the death certificate information right.
How much more are they going to screw us over on DNA retention?
Are we going to get virtual "injections, inspections,detections, neglections and all kinds of stuff" ex post facto and unknown to us forever and ever?
To be less glib, are we as parents now going to have that DNA in that premature delivery and mortality incident held against us for coverage for, say, trying to have additional children (for example)?Big Brother can suck it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31038824</id>
	<title>Re:Anemia due to diagnostic testing</title>
	<author>treeves</author>
	<datestamp>1265361780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In my experience (involving a son with congenital heart defects who required several surgeries and ultimately did not survive) parents have to be zealous advocates for their children when in a hospital.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In my experience ( involving a son with congenital heart defects who required several surgeries and ultimately did not survive ) parents have to be zealous advocates for their children when in a hospital .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my experience (involving a son with congenital heart defects who required several surgeries and ultimately did not survive) parents have to be zealous advocates for their children when in a hospital.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31040782</id>
	<title>This answers the question...</title>
	<author>steelersteve13</author>
	<datestamp>1265371260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why would anyone want to be an anti-gov't libertarian/anarchist?

In my case, a peaceful, christian, fun loving anarchist.

Who believes, rather strongly, in the motto:

"An armed society is a polite society".</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would anyone want to be an anti-gov't libertarian/anarchist ?
In my case , a peaceful , christian , fun loving anarchist .
Who believes , rather strongly , in the motto : " An armed society is a polite society " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would anyone want to be an anti-gov't libertarian/anarchist?
In my case, a peaceful, christian, fun loving anarchist.
Who believes, rather strongly, in the motto:

"An armed society is a polite society".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034132</id>
	<title>Bioweapons</title>
	<author>Orga</author>
	<datestamp>1265383320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why is everyone talking about using this to solve crime or find/fight genetic disease.  This is a huge datastore to check to effectiveness of bioweapons against a large population.  Bioweapon effects people with ABAB genes, that's contained in 86\% of population.

That's the only real use I see for this large of a stroe of DNA information.  You can't be sure what percentage of what population contains what DNA markers without great storehouses like this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is everyone talking about using this to solve crime or find/fight genetic disease .
This is a huge datastore to check to effectiveness of bioweapons against a large population .
Bioweapon effects people with ABAB genes , that 's contained in 86 \ % of population .
That 's the only real use I see for this large of a stroe of DNA information .
You ca n't be sure what percentage of what population contains what DNA markers without great storehouses like this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is everyone talking about using this to solve crime or find/fight genetic disease.
This is a huge datastore to check to effectiveness of bioweapons against a large population.
Bioweapon effects people with ABAB genes, that's contained in 86\% of population.
That's the only real use I see for this large of a stroe of DNA information.
You can't be sure what percentage of what population contains what DNA markers without great storehouses like this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31037184</id>
	<title>Re:Uninsurable</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1265397900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Insurance companies are not money trees.</p> </div><p>I think their owners would beg to differ.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Insurance companies are not money trees .
I think their owners would beg to differ .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Insurance companies are not money trees.
I think their owners would beg to differ.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034624</id>
	<title>Re:Anemia due to diagnostic testing</title>
	<author>Duradin</author>
	<datestamp>1265386260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is interesting how it seems that these days every baby pops out with a medical degree for the mother.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is interesting how it seems that these days every baby pops out with a medical degree for the mother .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is interesting how it seems that these days every baby pops out with a medical degree for the mother.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033668</id>
	<title>The important part of the article</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265379660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lots of people probably don't mind "the government" keeping their DNA on file, but lots of people probably DO mind private insurance companies having the DNA data:</p><p>"Since health insurance paid for Isabel's genetic screening, her positive test for a cystic fibrosis gene is now on the record with her insurance company, and the Browns are concerned this could hurt her in the future.<br>"It's really a black mark against her, and there's nothing we can do to get it off there," Brown says. "And let's say in the future they can test for a gene for schizophrenia or manic-depression and your baby tests positive -- that would be on there, too."<br>Brown says if the hospital had first asked her permission to test Isabel, now 10 months old, she might have chosen to pay for it out of pocket so the results wouldn't be known to the insurance company."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lots of people probably do n't mind " the government " keeping their DNA on file , but lots of people probably DO mind private insurance companies having the DNA data : " Since health insurance paid for Isabel 's genetic screening , her positive test for a cystic fibrosis gene is now on the record with her insurance company , and the Browns are concerned this could hurt her in the future .
" It 's really a black mark against her , and there 's nothing we can do to get it off there , " Brown says .
" And let 's say in the future they can test for a gene for schizophrenia or manic-depression and your baby tests positive -- that would be on there , too .
" Brown says if the hospital had first asked her permission to test Isabel , now 10 months old , she might have chosen to pay for it out of pocket so the results would n't be known to the insurance company .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lots of people probably don't mind "the government" keeping their DNA on file, but lots of people probably DO mind private insurance companies having the DNA data:"Since health insurance paid for Isabel's genetic screening, her positive test for a cystic fibrosis gene is now on the record with her insurance company, and the Browns are concerned this could hurt her in the future.
"It's really a black mark against her, and there's nothing we can do to get it off there," Brown says.
"And let's say in the future they can test for a gene for schizophrenia or manic-depression and your baby tests positive -- that would be on there, too.
"Brown says if the hospital had first asked her permission to test Isabel, now 10 months old, she might have chosen to pay for it out of pocket so the results wouldn't be known to the insurance company.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034094</id>
	<title>Re:From someone who does Genetic Testing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265383020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They legally can not use genetic testing to prevent you from getting a job or insurance</p></div><p>Yet.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They legally can not use genetic testing to prevent you from getting a job or insuranceYet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They legally can not use genetic testing to prevent you from getting a job or insuranceYet.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31036402</id>
	<title>Re:Uninsurable</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265394480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's sad how many people completely fail to understand what insurance is and how it works.</p></div><p>I think when a group of top executives testify before Congress that they got paid bonuses to throw one in five insurance claims in the trash without looking at them, that pretty much gives you an idea of how insurance works...</p><p>Health care should NOT be a money making industry for investors.  It sole goal should be making people healthy, NOT wealthy.  If we were just paying "what it costs" to run the US health care system, we would only be paying about 19\% of what we are paying now.  That is without cutting the doctors actual yearly gross revenue.</p><p>Here is another fun little bit of former insurance company employees talking about their companies:</p><p><a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Health/story?id=7911195&amp;page=1" title="go.com" rel="nofollow">http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Health/story?id=7911195&amp;page=1</a> [go.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's sad how many people completely fail to understand what insurance is and how it works.I think when a group of top executives testify before Congress that they got paid bonuses to throw one in five insurance claims in the trash without looking at them , that pretty much gives you an idea of how insurance works...Health care should NOT be a money making industry for investors .
It sole goal should be making people healthy , NOT wealthy .
If we were just paying " what it costs " to run the US health care system , we would only be paying about 19 \ % of what we are paying now .
That is without cutting the doctors actual yearly gross revenue.Here is another fun little bit of former insurance company employees talking about their companies : http : //abcnews.go.com/Business/Health/story ? id = 7911195&amp;page = 1 [ go.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's sad how many people completely fail to understand what insurance is and how it works.I think when a group of top executives testify before Congress that they got paid bonuses to throw one in five insurance claims in the trash without looking at them, that pretty much gives you an idea of how insurance works...Health care should NOT be a money making industry for investors.
It sole goal should be making people healthy, NOT wealthy.
If we were just paying "what it costs" to run the US health care system, we would only be paying about 19\% of what we are paying now.
That is without cutting the doctors actual yearly gross revenue.Here is another fun little bit of former insurance company employees talking about their companies:http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Health/story?id=7911195&amp;page=1 [go.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31035282</id>
	<title>Re:The important part of the article</title>
	<author>ckaminski</author>
	<datestamp>1265389920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I love it. I could see it coming true too.   A society that professes to claim to value the life of the baby over the mother (the so-called Anti-abortionists) forcing a mother to get an abortion for a child she wants simply because it might be "defective."<br><br>I love this country &lt;/sarcasm&gt;.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I love it .
I could see it coming true too .
A society that professes to claim to value the life of the baby over the mother ( the so-called Anti-abortionists ) forcing a mother to get an abortion for a child she wants simply because it might be " defective .
" I love this country .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love it.
I could see it coming true too.
A society that professes to claim to value the life of the baby over the mother (the so-called Anti-abortionists) forcing a mother to get an abortion for a child she wants simply because it might be "defective.
"I love this country .</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31035228</id>
	<title>Statistics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265389620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The big problem I see (besides the health insurance issues) is in the "Justice" System, I imagine the FBI would just LOVE to get ahold of those samples and do genetic profiles on as many as they could.  What makes this a REALLY BAD THING is law enforcement is under the the impression that DNA evidence is absolute, an assumption I believe that has proven to be false.  Besides the realtive ease which DNA could be produced and spread around a crime scene to implicate an innocent individual, some people have been found to have two or more genetic profiles, either because of blood transfusions, bone marrow transplants or other conditions.  There is even some evidence that peoples genetic profiles can change over time.  The testing itself has even found to be flawed.  I believe there have been studies which have confirmed that the current FBI DNA testing systems do not produce absolutly unique DNA profiles.  I think the FBI statistics say something like 1 in a Trillion for their testing, but someone decided to test this and found that number to be WAY off.  While I don't think they were able to come up with their own statistic (partially because, even in the face of JUDICIAL ORDERS the FBI blocked access to their DNA database for such searches after they found out), lets put this into perspective.  One in a Million seems to be a pretty widely used ratio so lets use that.  So lets assume that for every Million people there is 1 DNA Profile (Using the FBIs testing system).  So in this theoretical statistic there are 304 people in the US with the same profile, 6,692 people in the world.  In a world where everyones profile was entered into the database this may not be as much of an issue, but in the real world, with human error, only 10\% to 15\% of the population in the the database, and other unforseen factors, it adds up to a lot of innocent people in jail cells for crimes they didn't commit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The big problem I see ( besides the health insurance issues ) is in the " Justice " System , I imagine the FBI would just LOVE to get ahold of those samples and do genetic profiles on as many as they could .
What makes this a REALLY BAD THING is law enforcement is under the the impression that DNA evidence is absolute , an assumption I believe that has proven to be false .
Besides the realtive ease which DNA could be produced and spread around a crime scene to implicate an innocent individual , some people have been found to have two or more genetic profiles , either because of blood transfusions , bone marrow transplants or other conditions .
There is even some evidence that peoples genetic profiles can change over time .
The testing itself has even found to be flawed .
I believe there have been studies which have confirmed that the current FBI DNA testing systems do not produce absolutly unique DNA profiles .
I think the FBI statistics say something like 1 in a Trillion for their testing , but someone decided to test this and found that number to be WAY off .
While I do n't think they were able to come up with their own statistic ( partially because , even in the face of JUDICIAL ORDERS the FBI blocked access to their DNA database for such searches after they found out ) , lets put this into perspective .
One in a Million seems to be a pretty widely used ratio so lets use that .
So lets assume that for every Million people there is 1 DNA Profile ( Using the FBIs testing system ) .
So in this theoretical statistic there are 304 people in the US with the same profile , 6,692 people in the world .
In a world where everyones profile was entered into the database this may not be as much of an issue , but in the real world , with human error , only 10 \ % to 15 \ % of the population in the the database , and other unforseen factors , it adds up to a lot of innocent people in jail cells for crimes they did n't commit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The big problem I see (besides the health insurance issues) is in the "Justice" System, I imagine the FBI would just LOVE to get ahold of those samples and do genetic profiles on as many as they could.
What makes this a REALLY BAD THING is law enforcement is under the the impression that DNA evidence is absolute, an assumption I believe that has proven to be false.
Besides the realtive ease which DNA could be produced and spread around a crime scene to implicate an innocent individual, some people have been found to have two or more genetic profiles, either because of blood transfusions, bone marrow transplants or other conditions.
There is even some evidence that peoples genetic profiles can change over time.
The testing itself has even found to be flawed.
I believe there have been studies which have confirmed that the current FBI DNA testing systems do not produce absolutly unique DNA profiles.
I think the FBI statistics say something like 1 in a Trillion for their testing, but someone decided to test this and found that number to be WAY off.
While I don't think they were able to come up with their own statistic (partially because, even in the face of JUDICIAL ORDERS the FBI blocked access to their DNA database for such searches after they found out), lets put this into perspective.
One in a Million seems to be a pretty widely used ratio so lets use that.
So lets assume that for every Million people there is 1 DNA Profile (Using the FBIs testing system).
So in this theoretical statistic there are 304 people in the US with the same profile, 6,692 people in the world.
In a world where everyones profile was entered into the database this may not be as much of an issue, but in the real world, with human error, only 10\% to 15\% of the population in the the database, and other unforseen factors, it adds up to a lot of innocent people in jail cells for crimes they didn't commit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034160</id>
	<title>Re:GATTACA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265383500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Funniest part about the whole "eugenics" and Survival Of The Fittest things are there is one huge flaw in that limiting only some of the genome to thrive is the worst possible thing, genetically.<br>More diversity leads to less chance of a superbugs.</p><p>But one wonders what is going to happen, say, 10 generations down the line.<br>High sugar diets, high fat diets, high pretty much everything diets, including some (currently) useless minerals, obesity, etc.<br>And the high stress lives, 24/7 societies, education separation.<br>I'm pretty sure something highly noticeable will happen in that time frame, whether it is a increase in intelligence, better fat / sugar management, energy levels, lifetime (this will certainly go up), further incompatibility between certain groups (speciation).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Funniest part about the whole " eugenics " and Survival Of The Fittest things are there is one huge flaw in that limiting only some of the genome to thrive is the worst possible thing , genetically.More diversity leads to less chance of a superbugs.But one wonders what is going to happen , say , 10 generations down the line.High sugar diets , high fat diets , high pretty much everything diets , including some ( currently ) useless minerals , obesity , etc.And the high stress lives , 24/7 societies , education separation.I 'm pretty sure something highly noticeable will happen in that time frame , whether it is a increase in intelligence , better fat / sugar management , energy levels , lifetime ( this will certainly go up ) , further incompatibility between certain groups ( speciation ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funniest part about the whole "eugenics" and Survival Of The Fittest things are there is one huge flaw in that limiting only some of the genome to thrive is the worst possible thing, genetically.More diversity leads to less chance of a superbugs.But one wonders what is going to happen, say, 10 generations down the line.High sugar diets, high fat diets, high pretty much everything diets, including some (currently) useless minerals, obesity, etc.And the high stress lives, 24/7 societies, education separation.I'm pretty sure something highly noticeable will happen in that time frame, whether it is a increase in intelligence, better fat / sugar management, energy levels, lifetime (this will certainly go up), further incompatibility between certain groups (speciation).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31035250</id>
	<title>Re:The important part of the article</title>
	<author>Sique</author>
	<datestamp>1265389740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Aborting a fetus rather than having a baby you can't properly care for, is responsible behavior. (Of course using contraception and not getting pregnant in the first place is even more responsible.)</p></div><p>But what is trying again and again and aborting the fetes until one comes along to your liking?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Aborting a fetus rather than having a baby you ca n't properly care for , is responsible behavior .
( Of course using contraception and not getting pregnant in the first place is even more responsible .
) But what is trying again and again and aborting the fetes until one comes along to your liking ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aborting a fetus rather than having a baby you can't properly care for, is responsible behavior.
(Of course using contraception and not getting pregnant in the first place is even more responsible.
)But what is trying again and again and aborting the fetes until one comes along to your liking?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31040056</id>
	<title>Wow! Gattaca for real ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265367420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It was a sci-fi movie about a genetically inferior man assumes the identity of a superior one in order to pursue his lifelong dream of space travel because the people were assigned occupations by their genes, no sense a corporation paying to train someone that might die before they get a decent return on their investment.</p><p><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119177/" title="imdb.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119177/</a> [imdb.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It was a sci-fi movie about a genetically inferior man assumes the identity of a superior one in order to pursue his lifelong dream of space travel because the people were assigned occupations by their genes , no sense a corporation paying to train someone that might die before they get a decent return on their investment.http : //www.imdb.com/title/tt0119177/ [ imdb.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was a sci-fi movie about a genetically inferior man assumes the identity of a superior one in order to pursue his lifelong dream of space travel because the people were assigned occupations by their genes, no sense a corporation paying to train someone that might die before they get a decent return on their investment.http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119177/ [imdb.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31035204</id>
	<title>Mod parent up</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265389500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Read it twice. Not really a troll comment. They pointed out that everyone has a different threshold of privacy, The original poster to dismisses one arbitrary threshold for privacy invasion and this poster suggests another arbitrary level at which (theoretically) the OP might take offense. <p>
Arguably, the invasion of privacy used as an example in the parent here is less likely to actually result in real harm to ones life. Seems to be very much the definition of insightful though admittedly somewhat rude.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Read it twice .
Not really a troll comment .
They pointed out that everyone has a different threshold of privacy , The original poster to dismisses one arbitrary threshold for privacy invasion and this poster suggests another arbitrary level at which ( theoretically ) the OP might take offense .
Arguably , the invasion of privacy used as an example in the parent here is less likely to actually result in real harm to ones life .
Seems to be very much the definition of insightful though admittedly somewhat rude .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Read it twice.
Not really a troll comment.
They pointed out that everyone has a different threshold of privacy, The original poster to dismisses one arbitrary threshold for privacy invasion and this poster suggests another arbitrary level at which (theoretically) the OP might take offense.
Arguably, the invasion of privacy used as an example in the parent here is less likely to actually result in real harm to ones life.
Seems to be very much the definition of insightful though admittedly somewhat rude.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034370</id>
	<title>Re:The day will come when this is used maliciously</title>
	<author>MadCow42</author>
	<datestamp>1265384820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;if kept indefinitely in an identifiable fashion, will eventually be used maliciously</p><p>Add to that the potential for misappropriation along the way.  Data gets stolen, and sold.</p><p>I was horrified on a trip to Disney World 2 weeks ago when I saw they had fingerprint scanners on every turnstyle (in addition to your pass card).  Supposedly this is to ensure only one person uses the card, and you can't hand it off to someone else.  The good news is that they don't ask it from kids, and when I refused they simply asked to see ID to compare names.  However, all the other sheep just put their finger on the scanner and went through... disappointing that nobody else seemed concerned!</p><p>Sure, Disney might have non-nefarious intentions, but what about:</p><p>
&nbsp; - what's their actual privacy policy?<br>
&nbsp; - how is the data stored, and for how long?<br>
&nbsp; - what is their IT security like?<br>
&nbsp; - what happens if they get broken into and the data is stolen?<br>
&nbsp; - what happens if they fall on hard times and get a good offer for the information (name + fingerprint)?<br>
&nbsp; - what happens if they get bought out by EvilCorp?<br>
&nbsp; - when they go bankrupt and someone buys their old server?</p><p>Just them HAVING that data is a concern, even if the intent is 100\% "pure".  Remember that the US Government can legally collect all kinds of personal data for their databases even when they're specifically prohibited from getting it directly from you... they can simply go to a third party to get it, LEGALLY.</p><p>MadCow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; if kept indefinitely in an identifiable fashion , will eventually be used maliciouslyAdd to that the potential for misappropriation along the way .
Data gets stolen , and sold.I was horrified on a trip to Disney World 2 weeks ago when I saw they had fingerprint scanners on every turnstyle ( in addition to your pass card ) .
Supposedly this is to ensure only one person uses the card , and you ca n't hand it off to someone else .
The good news is that they do n't ask it from kids , and when I refused they simply asked to see ID to compare names .
However , all the other sheep just put their finger on the scanner and went through... disappointing that nobody else seemed concerned ! Sure , Disney might have non-nefarious intentions , but what about :   - what 's their actual privacy policy ?
  - how is the data stored , and for how long ?
  - what is their IT security like ?
  - what happens if they get broken into and the data is stolen ?
  - what happens if they fall on hard times and get a good offer for the information ( name + fingerprint ) ?
  - what happens if they get bought out by EvilCorp ?
  - when they go bankrupt and someone buys their old server ? Just them HAVING that data is a concern , even if the intent is 100 \ % " pure " .
Remember that the US Government can legally collect all kinds of personal data for their databases even when they 're specifically prohibited from getting it directly from you... they can simply go to a third party to get it , LEGALLY.MadCow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;if kept indefinitely in an identifiable fashion, will eventually be used maliciouslyAdd to that the potential for misappropriation along the way.
Data gets stolen, and sold.I was horrified on a trip to Disney World 2 weeks ago when I saw they had fingerprint scanners on every turnstyle (in addition to your pass card).
Supposedly this is to ensure only one person uses the card, and you can't hand it off to someone else.
The good news is that they don't ask it from kids, and when I refused they simply asked to see ID to compare names.
However, all the other sheep just put their finger on the scanner and went through... disappointing that nobody else seemed concerned!Sure, Disney might have non-nefarious intentions, but what about:
  - what's their actual privacy policy?
  - how is the data stored, and for how long?
  - what is their IT security like?
  - what happens if they get broken into and the data is stolen?
  - what happens if they fall on hard times and get a good offer for the information (name + fingerprint)?
  - what happens if they get bought out by EvilCorp?
  - when they go bankrupt and someone buys their old server?Just them HAVING that data is a concern, even if the intent is 100\% "pure".
Remember that the US Government can legally collect all kinds of personal data for their databases even when they're specifically prohibited from getting it directly from you... they can simply go to a third party to get it, LEGALLY.MadCow.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033908</id>
	<title>Insurance</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265381700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You also can't get fire insurance after your house burns down.</p><p>If you already have an expensive condition, the concept of insurance no longer applies to you.  It is no longer possible to pool your risk.  At that point, you are looking for a SUBSIDY.</p><p>Insurance is only possible when you have a large pool of people looking to mitigate the risk of a low probability but high downside event.  Mathematically, fire insurance is a terrible purchase.  The cost of premiums times the chance of having a claim is WAY higher than the expected payout.  But you buy it because the downside is huge and you don't know if you are going to be on the unlucky side or not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You also ca n't get fire insurance after your house burns down.If you already have an expensive condition , the concept of insurance no longer applies to you .
It is no longer possible to pool your risk .
At that point , you are looking for a SUBSIDY.Insurance is only possible when you have a large pool of people looking to mitigate the risk of a low probability but high downside event .
Mathematically , fire insurance is a terrible purchase .
The cost of premiums times the chance of having a claim is WAY higher than the expected payout .
But you buy it because the downside is huge and you do n't know if you are going to be on the unlucky side or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You also can't get fire insurance after your house burns down.If you already have an expensive condition, the concept of insurance no longer applies to you.
It is no longer possible to pool your risk.
At that point, you are looking for a SUBSIDY.Insurance is only possible when you have a large pool of people looking to mitigate the risk of a low probability but high downside event.
Mathematically, fire insurance is a terrible purchase.
The cost of premiums times the chance of having a claim is WAY higher than the expected payout.
But you buy it because the downside is huge and you don't know if you are going to be on the unlucky side or not.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033670</id>
	<title>What's next?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265379660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Soon they will just start pre-emptively injecting RFIDs into all newborn babies and claim that its just so they don't get handed to the wrong parents. Or stolen by paedophiles, anyone who opposes a measure that is designed to make life harder for paedophiles can just be dismissed as a paedophile themselves. </p><p>Basically we just need to try and convince the government that a reduction in privacy benefits paedophiles.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Soon they will just start pre-emptively injecting RFIDs into all newborn babies and claim that its just so they do n't get handed to the wrong parents .
Or stolen by paedophiles , anyone who opposes a measure that is designed to make life harder for paedophiles can just be dismissed as a paedophile themselves .
Basically we just need to try and convince the government that a reduction in privacy benefits paedophiles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Soon they will just start pre-emptively injecting RFIDs into all newborn babies and claim that its just so they don't get handed to the wrong parents.
Or stolen by paedophiles, anyone who opposes a measure that is designed to make life harder for paedophiles can just be dismissed as a paedophile themselves.
Basically we just need to try and convince the government that a reduction in privacy benefits paedophiles.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034804</id>
	<title>They don't even use SSL for logins or reports..</title>
	<author>shamborfosi</author>
	<datestamp>1265387400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>How much should we really trust an organization that doesn't even use SSL for their login page or secure report delivery. If you go to http://www2.uthscsa.edu/nnsis/ and try to get a secure report, you'll get redirected to a login page (http://www2.uthscsa.edu/nnsis/logon.cfm?target=enterdata) that isn't secure. I mean that is like the bare minimum to securing data. How much you want to bet that they have the kids personally identifiable information sitting on some easy to access table? Also isn't this a violation of HIPAA? I know that not using SSL is a violation, also encryption of the personally identifiable information has to be encrypted on disk as well.. </tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>How much should we really trust an organization that does n't even use SSL for their login page or secure report delivery .
If you go to http : //www2.uthscsa.edu/nnsis/ and try to get a secure report , you 'll get redirected to a login page ( http : //www2.uthscsa.edu/nnsis/logon.cfm ? target = enterdata ) that is n't secure .
I mean that is like the bare minimum to securing data .
How much you want to bet that they have the kids personally identifiable information sitting on some easy to access table ?
Also is n't this a violation of HIPAA ?
I know that not using SSL is a violation , also encryption of the personally identifiable information has to be encrypted on disk as well. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How much should we really trust an organization that doesn't even use SSL for their login page or secure report delivery.
If you go to http://www2.uthscsa.edu/nnsis/ and try to get a secure report, you'll get redirected to a login page (http://www2.uthscsa.edu/nnsis/logon.cfm?target=enterdata) that isn't secure.
I mean that is like the bare minimum to securing data.
How much you want to bet that they have the kids personally identifiable information sitting on some easy to access table?
Also isn't this a violation of HIPAA?
I know that not using SSL is a violation, also encryption of the personally identifiable information has to be encrypted on disk as well.. </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034632</id>
	<title>From someone who understands the problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265386320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You, and your lovely wife are both missing the point.</p><p>It isn't about what the law says is legal, or even about what people are doing with the data right now.</p><p>It takes a long time to build this sort of database, and create the mechanism by which outside agencies can access the data, but it is relatively quick to put the legislation in place (if you wait for the right moment). Once the system is there, the legislative changes will follow at some point.</p><p>If you make it easy for an organisation to do something, then they are a lot more likely to do it. For example, if you were to stick network cameras in everyone's homes, with the restriction that the police were not allowed to access them, sooner or later, the law will change. If the cameras aren't installed in the first place, it would remain a lot more difficult to implement the system and the authorities would have a fight on their hands.</p><p>Got that? Nothing to do with what is or is not legal. Everything to do with allowing them to put a system in place which will make it a trivial task to implement full access at a later stage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You , and your lovely wife are both missing the point.It is n't about what the law says is legal , or even about what people are doing with the data right now.It takes a long time to build this sort of database , and create the mechanism by which outside agencies can access the data , but it is relatively quick to put the legislation in place ( if you wait for the right moment ) .
Once the system is there , the legislative changes will follow at some point.If you make it easy for an organisation to do something , then they are a lot more likely to do it .
For example , if you were to stick network cameras in everyone 's homes , with the restriction that the police were not allowed to access them , sooner or later , the law will change .
If the cameras are n't installed in the first place , it would remain a lot more difficult to implement the system and the authorities would have a fight on their hands.Got that ?
Nothing to do with what is or is not legal .
Everything to do with allowing them to put a system in place which will make it a trivial task to implement full access at a later stage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You, and your lovely wife are both missing the point.It isn't about what the law says is legal, or even about what people are doing with the data right now.It takes a long time to build this sort of database, and create the mechanism by which outside agencies can access the data, but it is relatively quick to put the legislation in place (if you wait for the right moment).
Once the system is there, the legislative changes will follow at some point.If you make it easy for an organisation to do something, then they are a lot more likely to do it.
For example, if you were to stick network cameras in everyone's homes, with the restriction that the police were not allowed to access them, sooner or later, the law will change.
If the cameras aren't installed in the first place, it would remain a lot more difficult to implement the system and the authorities would have a fight on their hands.Got that?
Nothing to do with what is or is not legal.
Everything to do with allowing them to put a system in place which will make it a trivial task to implement full access at a later stage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033824</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_0440247_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_0440247_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31035154
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_0440247_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31035184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_0440247_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31036386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_0440247_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31037366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_0440247_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31036248
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_0440247_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31036174
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_0440247_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31035048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31035688
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_0440247_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31036854
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_0440247_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31035282
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_0440247_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31040056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_0440247_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31036402
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_0440247_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034094
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_0440247_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31036610
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_0440247_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034634
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_0440247_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31036428
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_0440247_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_0440247_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_0440247_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31035640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_0440247_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31037074
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_0440247_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034632
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_0440247_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31036172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_0440247_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_0440247_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034108
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_0440247_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_0440247_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033944
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_0440247_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31040544
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_0440247_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31036682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_0440247_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31037112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_0440247_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31038714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_0440247_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31036024
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_0440247_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_0440247_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_0440247_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034606
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_0440247_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31035526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_0440247_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033864
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_0440247_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31044410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_0440247_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31035670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_0440247_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31035534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_0440247_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31036990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_0440247_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31039348
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_0440247_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31035250
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_0440247_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31037214
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_0440247_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31035204
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_0440247_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31037184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_0440247_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_0440247_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31035120
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_0440247_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31038824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_0440247_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_0440247_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31037700
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_0440247_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31037154
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_0440247_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31035346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_0440247_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034624
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_0440247_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033828
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_0440247_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31036890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_0440247_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034176
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31036138
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_0440247_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31035802
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_0440247_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_0440247_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31036920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_0440247_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_0440247.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033638
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_0440247.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033864
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034934
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_0440247.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033908
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31039348
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034280
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31037112
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31037214
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034126
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034300
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31040544
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_0440247.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033936
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034370
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31036248
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_0440247.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034176
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31036138
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_0440247.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033938
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_0440247.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033640
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033828
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034606
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31035640
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31035154
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034160
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034108
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_0440247.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033670
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_0440247.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033666
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034122
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034198
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31037184
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31036402
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31035184
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31036024
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034712
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31036890
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034634
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31036854
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31037074
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31036172
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033944
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034714
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_0440247.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034064
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_0440247.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033636
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034274
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31040056
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_0440247.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034320
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31038824
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034624
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_0440247.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033648
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033894
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_0440247.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033824
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034272
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033916
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31035204
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034078
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31036990
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31035802
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034252
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034632
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31035120
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034094
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31037700
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31036386
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034050
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31037366
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31035670
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31037154
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_0440247.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033820
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31036428
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_0440247.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033668
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31044410
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034032
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31038714
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31035282
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034580
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31035346
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31035534
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31035250
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31035526
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31034724
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31036610
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31035048
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31035688
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_0440247.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033690
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31036682
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31036920
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_0440247.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033904
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_0440247.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31033768
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_0440247.31036174
</commentlist>
</conversation>
