<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_27_1317242</id>
	<title>Defending Against Drones</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1267279980000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>theodp writes <i>"The US has not had to truly think about its air defense since the Cold War. But as America embraces the use of unmanned aerial vehicles, Newsweek says it's time to consider <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/id/234114">how our greatest new weapon may come back to bite us</a>. Smaller UAVs' cool, battery-powered engines make them difficult to hit with conventional heat-seeking missiles. And while Patriot missiles can take out UAVs, at $3 million apiece such protection carries a steep price tag, especially if we have to deal with <a href="http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2009/01/from-geekdad-pr/">$500 DIY drones</a>."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>theodp writes " The US has not had to truly think about its air defense since the Cold War .
But as America embraces the use of unmanned aerial vehicles , Newsweek says it 's time to consider how our greatest new weapon may come back to bite us .
Smaller UAVs ' cool , battery-powered engines make them difficult to hit with conventional heat-seeking missiles .
And while Patriot missiles can take out UAVs , at $ 3 million apiece such protection carries a steep price tag , especially if we have to deal with $ 500 DIY drones .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>theodp writes "The US has not had to truly think about its air defense since the Cold War.
But as America embraces the use of unmanned aerial vehicles, Newsweek says it's time to consider how our greatest new weapon may come back to bite us.
Smaller UAVs' cool, battery-powered engines make them difficult to hit with conventional heat-seeking missiles.
And while Patriot missiles can take out UAVs, at $3 million apiece such protection carries a steep price tag, especially if we have to deal with $500 DIY drones.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296648</id>
	<title>Re:Arm your citizens...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267286160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He'd probably get shot, because his victims and anyone else around will be armed and able to protect themselves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He 'd probably get shot , because his victims and anyone else around will be armed and able to protect themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He'd probably get shot, because his victims and anyone else around will be armed and able to protect themselves.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31297134</id>
	<title>Re:Arm your citizens...</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1267291320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I followed the news that last decade correctly, this is now called "collateral damage".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I followed the news that last decade correctly , this is now called " collateral damage " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I followed the news that last decade correctly, this is now called "collateral damage".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31299448</id>
	<title>Those who don't remember history...</title>
	<author>cinnamon colbert</author>
	<datestamp>1267263420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>are condemmed to repeat it
sometime after he left office, henry kissinger noted that all his efforts to out do the soviet union by pushing new, fancy arms systems were a disaster, the soviets always managed to copy us, and sooner then we expected.
His case in point was MIRVED missles (MIRV, multiple independent re entry vehicles, instead of the missle delivering one bomb to one spot, one missle delivers several bombs to different locations)</htmltext>
<tokenext>are condemmed to repeat it sometime after he left office , henry kissinger noted that all his efforts to out do the soviet union by pushing new , fancy arms systems were a disaster , the soviets always managed to copy us , and sooner then we expected .
His case in point was MIRVED missles ( MIRV , multiple independent re entry vehicles , instead of the missle delivering one bomb to one spot , one missle delivers several bombs to different locations )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>are condemmed to repeat it
sometime after he left office, henry kissinger noted that all his efforts to out do the soviet union by pushing new, fancy arms systems were a disaster, the soviets always managed to copy us, and sooner then we expected.
His case in point was MIRVED missles (MIRV, multiple independent re entry vehicles, instead of the missle delivering one bomb to one spot, one missle delivers several bombs to different locations)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296526</id>
	<title>Re:Arm your citizens...</title>
	<author>Obyron</author>
	<datestamp>1267284840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Barrett rifles would still cost more than the drone you're shooting down. Granted, it's at least reusable, but every citizen would have to bag something like 15-20 drones for it to be cost effective.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Barrett rifles would still cost more than the drone you 're shooting down .
Granted , it 's at least reusable , but every citizen would have to bag something like 15-20 drones for it to be cost effective .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Barrett rifles would still cost more than the drone you're shooting down.
Granted, it's at least reusable, but every citizen would have to bag something like 15-20 drones for it to be cost effective.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296684</id>
	<title>Wrong hands...</title>
	<author>greenpete</author>
	<datestamp>1267286460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The U.S. are worried this technology will get into the wrong hands! What makes them think they have the right ones? Such arrogance!
In my opinion, there are no 'right hands' to wield such vile technology.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The U.S. are worried this technology will get into the wrong hands !
What makes them think they have the right ones ?
Such arrogance !
In my opinion , there are no 'right hands ' to wield such vile technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The U.S. are worried this technology will get into the wrong hands!
What makes them think they have the right ones?
Such arrogance!
In my opinion, there are no 'right hands' to wield such vile technology.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296842</id>
	<title>Re:DOS WAR</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1267288200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hard to do an economical DOS when you can create from thin air new money and they can't  Is not money the problem, but time (or at least already built units in each side at the moment/place where are needed)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hard to do an economical DOS when you can create from thin air new money and they ca n't Is not money the problem , but time ( or at least already built units in each side at the moment/place where are needed )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hard to do an economical DOS when you can create from thin air new money and they can't  Is not money the problem, but time (or at least already built units in each side at the moment/place where are needed)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296506</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296502</id>
	<title>Arm your citizens...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267284360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It would seem to me if every citizen knew how to properly shoot a rifle, odds are pretty good one of those things could be knocked out of the sky with a barrett.  It would cost all of us a heck of a lot less money too.
<br> <br>
In fact... this is exactly the sort of thing the 2nd amendment was written for.  "The people" defending themselves from attack.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It would seem to me if every citizen knew how to properly shoot a rifle , odds are pretty good one of those things could be knocked out of the sky with a barrett .
It would cost all of us a heck of a lot less money too .
In fact... this is exactly the sort of thing the 2nd amendment was written for .
" The people " defending themselves from attack .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would seem to me if every citizen knew how to properly shoot a rifle, odds are pretty good one of those things could be knocked out of the sky with a barrett.
It would cost all of us a heck of a lot less money too.
In fact... this is exactly the sort of thing the 2nd amendment was written for.
"The people" defending themselves from attack.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31298250</id>
	<title>Re:Defense?</title>
	<author>rickb928</author>
	<datestamp>1267298700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Yeah, those USD500 drones aren't gonna fly across the pacific, atlantic or artic oceans anytime soon."</p><p>Yeah, that is NOT a problem.  Those $500 DIY drones might increase in cost to $600, but they can get from China to the U.S. just fine.</p><p>Think balloons and cell phones.  Not difficult at all, just a little imprecise.  But once you get them over a U.S. city, how much does it matter which city?</p><p>I'm not that smart.  This is already being worked out.  Hell, scavenged camera phones and r/c planes are already a hobby.  Add some HE and you've got a nuisance that would just drive the Pentagon crazy.</p><p>Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Yeah , those USD500 drones are n't gon na fly across the pacific , atlantic or artic oceans anytime soon .
" Yeah , that is NOT a problem .
Those $ 500 DIY drones might increase in cost to $ 600 , but they can get from China to the U.S. just fine.Think balloons and cell phones .
Not difficult at all , just a little imprecise .
But once you get them over a U.S. city , how much does it matter which city ? I 'm not that smart .
This is already being worked out .
Hell , scavenged camera phones and r/c planes are already a hobby .
Add some HE and you 've got a nuisance that would just drive the Pentagon crazy.Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Yeah, those USD500 drones aren't gonna fly across the pacific, atlantic or artic oceans anytime soon.
"Yeah, that is NOT a problem.
Those $500 DIY drones might increase in cost to $600, but they can get from China to the U.S. just fine.Think balloons and cell phones.
Not difficult at all, just a little imprecise.
But once you get them over a U.S. city, how much does it matter which city?I'm not that smart.
This is already being worked out.
Hell, scavenged camera phones and r/c planes are already a hobby.
Add some HE and you've got a nuisance that would just drive the Pentagon crazy.Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31304248</id>
	<title>Re:Defense?</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1267354800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Yeah, those USD500 drones aren't gonna fly across the pacific, atlantic or artic oceans anytime soon.</p></div></blockquote><p>

But the US$50,000 version might, that's the cost of a relatively high end car. But then again you can shoot down drones for pennies on the dollar, we already have the technology. It's called CIWS (Close In Weapon System) designed to be used against large (anti-ship) missiles. For US$50,000 you are going to get a small drone that is going to be relatively fragile thus 7.62 mm machine guns will be quite effective when mounted on an auto-tracking turret.<br> <br>

There is also the old fashioned way, they send a drone so you send a bigger drone to take care of it.<br> <br>

The reason drones have been so effective is that the technology and tactics are so new the enemies have no effective way to counter them (ME terrorists aren't known for their ingenuity, they tend to favour brute force attacks).<br> <br>

But you raise a very good point, don't build bigger guns to fight your enemies, make them so they are not your enemies (seriously, if the US pulled out of Iraq right now they will go back to doing what they did before the British took over, fighting each other, few places in the ME have overcome tribal warfare without the presence of an external threat).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , those USD500 drones are n't gon na fly across the pacific , atlantic or artic oceans anytime soon .
But the US $ 50,000 version might , that 's the cost of a relatively high end car .
But then again you can shoot down drones for pennies on the dollar , we already have the technology .
It 's called CIWS ( Close In Weapon System ) designed to be used against large ( anti-ship ) missiles .
For US $ 50,000 you are going to get a small drone that is going to be relatively fragile thus 7.62 mm machine guns will be quite effective when mounted on an auto-tracking turret .
There is also the old fashioned way , they send a drone so you send a bigger drone to take care of it .
The reason drones have been so effective is that the technology and tactics are so new the enemies have no effective way to counter them ( ME terrorists are n't known for their ingenuity , they tend to favour brute force attacks ) .
But you raise a very good point , do n't build bigger guns to fight your enemies , make them so they are not your enemies ( seriously , if the US pulled out of Iraq right now they will go back to doing what they did before the British took over , fighting each other , few places in the ME have overcome tribal warfare without the presence of an external threat ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, those USD500 drones aren't gonna fly across the pacific, atlantic or artic oceans anytime soon.
But the US$50,000 version might, that's the cost of a relatively high end car.
But then again you can shoot down drones for pennies on the dollar, we already have the technology.
It's called CIWS (Close In Weapon System) designed to be used against large (anti-ship) missiles.
For US$50,000 you are going to get a small drone that is going to be relatively fragile thus 7.62 mm machine guns will be quite effective when mounted on an auto-tracking turret.
There is also the old fashioned way, they send a drone so you send a bigger drone to take care of it.
The reason drones have been so effective is that the technology and tactics are so new the enemies have no effective way to counter them (ME terrorists aren't known for their ingenuity, they tend to favour brute force attacks).
But you raise a very good point, don't build bigger guns to fight your enemies, make them so they are not your enemies (seriously, if the US pulled out of Iraq right now they will go back to doing what they did before the British took over, fighting each other, few places in the ME have overcome tribal warfare without the presence of an external threat).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296832</id>
	<title>EP.d.?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267288140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>if you move a tabl e argued by Eric than this BSD box,</htmltext>
<tokenext>if you move a tabl e argued by Eric than this BSD box,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if you move a tabl e argued by Eric than this BSD box,</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31298680</id>
	<title>We tried that, once...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267301280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; When everyone is armed, people behave in a different manner. Rape, robbery, and assaults tend to go down in areas which relax gun laws - while the same crimes increase in areas where more restrictive gun laws are enacted.</p><p>Is that why the wild west was so peaceful, because everyone had a gun?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; When everyone is armed , people behave in a different manner .
Rape , robbery , and assaults tend to go down in areas which relax gun laws - while the same crimes increase in areas where more restrictive gun laws are enacted.Is that why the wild west was so peaceful , because everyone had a gun ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; When everyone is armed, people behave in a different manner.
Rape, robbery, and assaults tend to go down in areas which relax gun laws - while the same crimes increase in areas where more restrictive gun laws are enacted.Is that why the wild west was so peaceful, because everyone had a gun?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31325154</id>
	<title>Bad comparison</title>
	<author>danwesnor</author>
	<datestamp>1267453500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>And while Patriot missiles can take out UAVs, at $3 million apiece such protection carries a steep price tag, especially if we have to deal with $500 DIY drones.</p></div></blockquote><p>

You don't compare the cost of the defensive weapon system to the cost of the offensive weapon system, you compare the cost of the defensive weapon system to the cost of what would be lost if the offensive weapon system succeeded.  By that scale, Patriot is dirt cheap.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And while Patriot missiles can take out UAVs , at $ 3 million apiece such protection carries a steep price tag , especially if we have to deal with $ 500 DIY drones .
You do n't compare the cost of the defensive weapon system to the cost of the offensive weapon system , you compare the cost of the defensive weapon system to the cost of what would be lost if the offensive weapon system succeeded .
By that scale , Patriot is dirt cheap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And while Patriot missiles can take out UAVs, at $3 million apiece such protection carries a steep price tag, especially if we have to deal with $500 DIY drones.
You don't compare the cost of the defensive weapon system to the cost of the offensive weapon system, you compare the cost of the defensive weapon system to the cost of what would be lost if the offensive weapon system succeeded.
By that scale, Patriot is dirt cheap.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31297586</id>
	<title>Re:Defense?</title>
	<author>TheKidWho</author>
	<datestamp>1267295340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Logic and reason doesn't work here, only pandering to emotion and advocating mass amnesia of historical events.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Logic and reason does n't work here , only pandering to emotion and advocating mass amnesia of historical events .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Logic and reason doesn't work here, only pandering to emotion and advocating mass amnesia of historical events.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31297398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31299984</id>
	<title>Have you ever handled a rifle?</title>
	<author>jamrock</author>
	<datestamp>1267268640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It would seem to me if every citizen knew how to properly shoot a rifle, odds are pretty good one of those things could be knocked out of the sky with a barrett.</p></div></blockquote><p>You really put a lot of thought into this didn't you? No, the odds are far from "pretty good". There's a reason why people hunt flying birds with shotguns: the spray of pellets is much more likely to hit a fast-moving target than a single projectile, and while there are any number of people in the U.S. who are quite proficient with shotguns, only a very, very few have the requisite skill necessary to hit a bird with a rifle, much less a drone, which would probably be flying MUCH faster than a bird, and if flying low, would be in sight for only a fraction of a second.</p><p>As to your suggestion that citizens be armed with Barrett sniper rifles, it takes months of intensive training to become a proficient sniper, and they start off with expert marksmen. Even then, the very best snipers would probably be ineffecive against a target such as a drone, which, given the the advances in small off-the-shelf turbine engines that are readily available to R/C hobbyists, would be travelling at a couple hundred mph, and if flying at low altitude, would only be visible for a split second. Add to that the mass of the Barrett, which makes it difficult to maneuver quickly enough to track a fast-moving target. Plus there is the wholly unanswered question of readiness: how to alert this civilian air defense artillery corps and give them useful targeting data IN TIME to be effective. What are they going to do? Lug a large heavy weapon plus ammunition with them to work, the beach, on dates etc, on the off chance that they might be alerted to incoming drones? The idea of training large numbers of ordinary citizens to the level of proficiency required is not a tenable one, to put it charitably, and would be FAR from cost-effective.</p><p>There is also the danger of falling bullets, as another poster pointed out. And if you don't think the danger is real, tell that to my friend Cathy, whose uncle was killed about four years ago in Miami by a falling bullet. He was sitting on his back patio with his wife watching the New Year's fireworks and having a glass of champagne when he slumped to the ground dead. The first thought was that he had suffered a massive heart attack, but the medical examiner noticed a small hole near his collarbone, and the autopsy revealed that he had been killed by a small caliber handgun bullet falling from a steep angle, fired into the sky by some unknown, and unknowing, person celebrating the fireworks. The thought of masses of people firing enormous volumes of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.50 caliber rounds into the sky over populated areas is a terrifying one to me personally.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It would seem to me if every citizen knew how to properly shoot a rifle , odds are pretty good one of those things could be knocked out of the sky with a barrett.You really put a lot of thought into this did n't you ?
No , the odds are far from " pretty good " .
There 's a reason why people hunt flying birds with shotguns : the spray of pellets is much more likely to hit a fast-moving target than a single projectile , and while there are any number of people in the U.S. who are quite proficient with shotguns , only a very , very few have the requisite skill necessary to hit a bird with a rifle , much less a drone , which would probably be flying MUCH faster than a bird , and if flying low , would be in sight for only a fraction of a second.As to your suggestion that citizens be armed with Barrett sniper rifles , it takes months of intensive training to become a proficient sniper , and they start off with expert marksmen .
Even then , the very best snipers would probably be ineffecive against a target such as a drone , which , given the the advances in small off-the-shelf turbine engines that are readily available to R/C hobbyists , would be travelling at a couple hundred mph , and if flying at low altitude , would only be visible for a split second .
Add to that the mass of the Barrett , which makes it difficult to maneuver quickly enough to track a fast-moving target .
Plus there is the wholly unanswered question of readiness : how to alert this civilian air defense artillery corps and give them useful targeting data IN TIME to be effective .
What are they going to do ?
Lug a large heavy weapon plus ammunition with them to work , the beach , on dates etc , on the off chance that they might be alerted to incoming drones ?
The idea of training large numbers of ordinary citizens to the level of proficiency required is not a tenable one , to put it charitably , and would be FAR from cost-effective.There is also the danger of falling bullets , as another poster pointed out .
And if you do n't think the danger is real , tell that to my friend Cathy , whose uncle was killed about four years ago in Miami by a falling bullet .
He was sitting on his back patio with his wife watching the New Year 's fireworks and having a glass of champagne when he slumped to the ground dead .
The first thought was that he had suffered a massive heart attack , but the medical examiner noticed a small hole near his collarbone , and the autopsy revealed that he had been killed by a small caliber handgun bullet falling from a steep angle , fired into the sky by some unknown , and unknowing , person celebrating the fireworks .
The thought of masses of people firing enormous volumes of .50 caliber rounds into the sky over populated areas is a terrifying one to me personally .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would seem to me if every citizen knew how to properly shoot a rifle, odds are pretty good one of those things could be knocked out of the sky with a barrett.You really put a lot of thought into this didn't you?
No, the odds are far from "pretty good".
There's a reason why people hunt flying birds with shotguns: the spray of pellets is much more likely to hit a fast-moving target than a single projectile, and while there are any number of people in the U.S. who are quite proficient with shotguns, only a very, very few have the requisite skill necessary to hit a bird with a rifle, much less a drone, which would probably be flying MUCH faster than a bird, and if flying low, would be in sight for only a fraction of a second.As to your suggestion that citizens be armed with Barrett sniper rifles, it takes months of intensive training to become a proficient sniper, and they start off with expert marksmen.
Even then, the very best snipers would probably be ineffecive against a target such as a drone, which, given the the advances in small off-the-shelf turbine engines that are readily available to R/C hobbyists, would be travelling at a couple hundred mph, and if flying at low altitude, would only be visible for a split second.
Add to that the mass of the Barrett, which makes it difficult to maneuver quickly enough to track a fast-moving target.
Plus there is the wholly unanswered question of readiness: how to alert this civilian air defense artillery corps and give them useful targeting data IN TIME to be effective.
What are they going to do?
Lug a large heavy weapon plus ammunition with them to work, the beach, on dates etc, on the off chance that they might be alerted to incoming drones?
The idea of training large numbers of ordinary citizens to the level of proficiency required is not a tenable one, to put it charitably, and would be FAR from cost-effective.There is also the danger of falling bullets, as another poster pointed out.
And if you don't think the danger is real, tell that to my friend Cathy, whose uncle was killed about four years ago in Miami by a falling bullet.
He was sitting on his back patio with his wife watching the New Year's fireworks and having a glass of champagne when he slumped to the ground dead.
The first thought was that he had suffered a massive heart attack, but the medical examiner noticed a small hole near his collarbone, and the autopsy revealed that he had been killed by a small caliber handgun bullet falling from a steep angle, fired into the sky by some unknown, and unknowing, person celebrating the fireworks.
The thought of masses of people firing enormous volumes of .50 caliber rounds into the sky over populated areas is a terrifying one to me personally.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31430856</id>
	<title>Re:Defense?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268215140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How the fuck do people like you find so much time to make these long ass nonsense rants?</p><p>Do you really think any one on the Internet gives a flying fuck what you think about Iraq/Afghan etc..?</p><p>Surely you live with your parents since you obviously have an insane amount of time on your hands.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How the fuck do people like you find so much time to make these long ass nonsense rants ? Do you really think any one on the Internet gives a flying fuck what you think about Iraq/Afghan etc.. ? Surely you live with your parents since you obviously have an insane amount of time on your hands .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How the fuck do people like you find so much time to make these long ass nonsense rants?Do you really think any one on the Internet gives a flying fuck what you think about Iraq/Afghan etc..?Surely you live with your parents since you obviously have an insane amount of time on your hands.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31297970</id>
	<title>It's a solvable problem</title>
	<author>icegreentea</author>
	<datestamp>1267297200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are missiles between the Stinger and the Patriot. The current stock of US radar guided missiles cost anything between 150k to half a million per round. Sure, probably not cheap enough yet, but getting there. And really this all comes down to range/capability. The current stock of missiles are designed to shoot down other missiles or aircraft, meaning they have to be really high-performance. For example, the AMRAAM has to fly out maybe 20-30 miles and then still have enough energy to chase down a maneuvering plane.<br><br>When you're dealing with a swarm of "cheap" drones, you won't need all that performance. It's cheap, so it probably wont be able to pull off those high G maneuvers fighter jets try. If it has a small engine (thus small IR), then it probably can't go very fast either. And it's range of its weapons is probably small too. So now you can build a missile with semi-active radar (like the Sea Sparrow), give it 10 miles (or even less). It probably doesn't even have to be supersonic (even cheaper!). So now may have a missile that's as cheap, or cheaper than most drones you're trying to shoot down.<br><br>Or, we might just see the return of large caliber AAA. Computer guided 88s. Yum.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are missiles between the Stinger and the Patriot .
The current stock of US radar guided missiles cost anything between 150k to half a million per round .
Sure , probably not cheap enough yet , but getting there .
And really this all comes down to range/capability .
The current stock of missiles are designed to shoot down other missiles or aircraft , meaning they have to be really high-performance .
For example , the AMRAAM has to fly out maybe 20-30 miles and then still have enough energy to chase down a maneuvering plane.When you 're dealing with a swarm of " cheap " drones , you wo n't need all that performance .
It 's cheap , so it probably wont be able to pull off those high G maneuvers fighter jets try .
If it has a small engine ( thus small IR ) , then it probably ca n't go very fast either .
And it 's range of its weapons is probably small too .
So now you can build a missile with semi-active radar ( like the Sea Sparrow ) , give it 10 miles ( or even less ) .
It probably does n't even have to be supersonic ( even cheaper ! ) .
So now may have a missile that 's as cheap , or cheaper than most drones you 're trying to shoot down.Or , we might just see the return of large caliber AAA .
Computer guided 88s .
Yum .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are missiles between the Stinger and the Patriot.
The current stock of US radar guided missiles cost anything between 150k to half a million per round.
Sure, probably not cheap enough yet, but getting there.
And really this all comes down to range/capability.
The current stock of missiles are designed to shoot down other missiles or aircraft, meaning they have to be really high-performance.
For example, the AMRAAM has to fly out maybe 20-30 miles and then still have enough energy to chase down a maneuvering plane.When you're dealing with a swarm of "cheap" drones, you won't need all that performance.
It's cheap, so it probably wont be able to pull off those high G maneuvers fighter jets try.
If it has a small engine (thus small IR), then it probably can't go very fast either.
And it's range of its weapons is probably small too.
So now you can build a missile with semi-active radar (like the Sea Sparrow), give it 10 miles (or even less).
It probably doesn't even have to be supersonic (even cheaper!).
So now may have a missile that's as cheap, or cheaper than most drones you're trying to shoot down.Or, we might just see the return of large caliber AAA.
Computer guided 88s.
Yum.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31299174</id>
	<title>Re:I'll probably regret this.... but...</title>
	<author>BradeRunna</author>
	<datestamp>1267261440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was thinking of something similar.  But even with GPS, you're not going to get the precision targeting (i.e. window target) that say something like a Maverick missile has.  But it can't be far off.  I would fear more for biological weapon payload, like flying some of these over a base and exploding nerve gas in mid air.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was thinking of something similar .
But even with GPS , you 're not going to get the precision targeting ( i.e .
window target ) that say something like a Maverick missile has .
But it ca n't be far off .
I would fear more for biological weapon payload , like flying some of these over a base and exploding nerve gas in mid air .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was thinking of something similar.
But even with GPS, you're not going to get the precision targeting (i.e.
window target) that say something like a Maverick missile has.
But it can't be far off.
I would fear more for biological weapon payload, like flying some of these over a base and exploding nerve gas in mid air.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31303404</id>
	<title>taliban is not mujahadeen</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267299780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Taliban are Afghan refugees, who live in Pakistan islamic schools, to escape the war in their country. The US never support them during the war with Soviet because they never exist.
<br>
After the soviet left Afghanistan, the different groups of mujahadeen fought among themselves and create lawlessness in their country.
<br>
The disgusted Taliban group all the Afghan refugees in Pakistan islamic school launch a jihad against the mujahadeen with financial support from Osama,  weapons &amp; training from Pakistan's ISI and manpower from Pakistan islamic schools. The leader of the Taliban also have moral support from all the islamic clerics in Pakistan and parts of Afghan.
<br>
At the early stage of the war, Taliban are see as heros/saviours, who can end the unrest in Afghan and restore peace. Until Osama hijack their noble cause and turn it into international terrorism.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Taliban are Afghan refugees , who live in Pakistan islamic schools , to escape the war in their country .
The US never support them during the war with Soviet because they never exist .
After the soviet left Afghanistan , the different groups of mujahadeen fought among themselves and create lawlessness in their country .
The disgusted Taliban group all the Afghan refugees in Pakistan islamic school launch a jihad against the mujahadeen with financial support from Osama , weapons &amp; training from Pakistan 's ISI and manpower from Pakistan islamic schools .
The leader of the Taliban also have moral support from all the islamic clerics in Pakistan and parts of Afghan .
At the early stage of the war , Taliban are see as heros/saviours , who can end the unrest in Afghan and restore peace .
Until Osama hijack their noble cause and turn it into international terrorism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Taliban are Afghan refugees, who live in Pakistan islamic schools, to escape the war in their country.
The US never support them during the war with Soviet because they never exist.
After the soviet left Afghanistan, the different groups of mujahadeen fought among themselves and create lawlessness in their country.
The disgusted Taliban group all the Afghan refugees in Pakistan islamic school launch a jihad against the mujahadeen with financial support from Osama,  weapons &amp; training from Pakistan's ISI and manpower from Pakistan islamic schools.
The leader of the Taliban also have moral support from all the islamic clerics in Pakistan and parts of Afghan.
At the early stage of the war, Taliban are see as heros/saviours, who can end the unrest in Afghan and restore peace.
Until Osama hijack their noble cause and turn it into international terrorism.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296534</id>
	<title>Re:Defense?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267284900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Care to name all of these conflicts we supposedly started? Please cite your sources to how we started them too. I think if you take the time to research this subject you're going to get a wicked eye opening.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Care to name all of these conflicts we supposedly started ?
Please cite your sources to how we started them too .
I think if you take the time to research this subject you 're going to get a wicked eye opening .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Care to name all of these conflicts we supposedly started?
Please cite your sources to how we started them too.
I think if you take the time to research this subject you're going to get a wicked eye opening.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31301722</id>
	<title>Slow moving targets are easy</title>
	<author>cenobyte40k</author>
	<datestamp>1267284120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This newsweek bit really shows a lack of understanding of modern military equipment. UAV attacks against the US in a time of war might work once or twice, but never over the long term. Two reasons.
1) Any drone big enough to carry a weapon payload runs on something other than electric, which means heat, which means MANPADS, HMMWV Avenger Anti-Air, Centurion C-RAM (Phalanx CIWS for land defense),Bradley M6 Linebacker,etc. This does not even cover the number of 'convential' guns that have anti-air ammo including the Tanks, Artillery, and Ship board guns. Plus larger SAM systems like the patriot, or SM-1,SM-2 or RIM-116. Then add to that every single<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.50 Cal M2 machine gun owned by the armed services.
2) Drones are Computers normally controlled by RF. The US ability to control the RF spectrum, Jam radars, radios, and fry electronics from range is bar none the best the world has to offer.

So you better make that first attack a good one, cause like flying passanger planes into buildings you really only get one shot at it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This newsweek bit really shows a lack of understanding of modern military equipment .
UAV attacks against the US in a time of war might work once or twice , but never over the long term .
Two reasons .
1 ) Any drone big enough to carry a weapon payload runs on something other than electric , which means heat , which means MANPADS , HMMWV Avenger Anti-Air , Centurion C-RAM ( Phalanx CIWS for land defense ) ,Bradley M6 Linebacker,etc .
This does not even cover the number of 'convential ' guns that have anti-air ammo including the Tanks , Artillery , and Ship board guns .
Plus larger SAM systems like the patriot , or SM-1,SM-2 or RIM-116 .
Then add to that every single .50 Cal M2 machine gun owned by the armed services .
2 ) Drones are Computers normally controlled by RF .
The US ability to control the RF spectrum , Jam radars , radios , and fry electronics from range is bar none the best the world has to offer .
So you better make that first attack a good one , cause like flying passanger planes into buildings you really only get one shot at it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This newsweek bit really shows a lack of understanding of modern military equipment.
UAV attacks against the US in a time of war might work once or twice, but never over the long term.
Two reasons.
1) Any drone big enough to carry a weapon payload runs on something other than electric, which means heat, which means MANPADS, HMMWV Avenger Anti-Air, Centurion C-RAM (Phalanx CIWS for land defense),Bradley M6 Linebacker,etc.
This does not even cover the number of 'convential' guns that have anti-air ammo including the Tanks, Artillery, and Ship board guns.
Plus larger SAM systems like the patriot, or SM-1,SM-2 or RIM-116.
Then add to that every single .50 Cal M2 machine gun owned by the armed services.
2) Drones are Computers normally controlled by RF.
The US ability to control the RF spectrum, Jam radars, radios, and fry electronics from range is bar none the best the world has to offer.
So you better make that first attack a good one, cause like flying passanger planes into buildings you really only get one shot at it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31305058</id>
	<title>Re:Defense?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267367400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Maybe they should just spend a few millions getting those young angry guys laid...</p></div><p>Interesting that you mention that. An article I read a while ago about the psychology of terrorism (in the Psychologist a year or two ago) pointed out that:
</p><ul>
<li>Some Muslim sects/countries allow polygamy</li><li>Birth rates being 50/50 Male/Female, polygamy inevitably leaves some men without a mate</li><li>Given women's preference for wealthy men and the time it takes to become wealthy, those men without a mate are likely to be young</li><li>Young men are genetically programmed to want sex</li><li>All Muslim sects/countries outlaw sex outside marriage</li><li>Some interpretations of the Koran promise 72 virgins (unlimited sex) in paradise for 'martyrs'</li><li>Young men without access to sex get angry and frustrated</li></ul><p>
Put it all together and in some places you have a recipe for suicide bombing that's difficult to combat. Getting them laid would be great if you can find a way of getting Allah to OK it. Getting polygamy outlawed and reducing income inequality would be a good second best.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe they should just spend a few millions getting those young angry guys laid...Interesting that you mention that .
An article I read a while ago about the psychology of terrorism ( in the Psychologist a year or two ago ) pointed out that : Some Muslim sects/countries allow polygamyBirth rates being 50/50 Male/Female , polygamy inevitably leaves some men without a mateGiven women 's preference for wealthy men and the time it takes to become wealthy , those men without a mate are likely to be youngYoung men are genetically programmed to want sexAll Muslim sects/countries outlaw sex outside marriageSome interpretations of the Koran promise 72 virgins ( unlimited sex ) in paradise for 'martyrs'Young men without access to sex get angry and frustrated Put it all together and in some places you have a recipe for suicide bombing that 's difficult to combat .
Getting them laid would be great if you can find a way of getting Allah to OK it .
Getting polygamy outlawed and reducing income inequality would be a good second best .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe they should just spend a few millions getting those young angry guys laid...Interesting that you mention that.
An article I read a while ago about the psychology of terrorism (in the Psychologist a year or two ago) pointed out that:

Some Muslim sects/countries allow polygamyBirth rates being 50/50 Male/Female, polygamy inevitably leaves some men without a mateGiven women's preference for wealthy men and the time it takes to become wealthy, those men without a mate are likely to be youngYoung men are genetically programmed to want sexAll Muslim sects/countries outlaw sex outside marriageSome interpretations of the Koran promise 72 virgins (unlimited sex) in paradise for 'martyrs'Young men without access to sex get angry and frustrated
Put it all together and in some places you have a recipe for suicide bombing that's difficult to combat.
Getting them laid would be great if you can find a way of getting Allah to OK it.
Getting polygamy outlawed and reducing income inequality would be a good second best.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31298528</id>
	<title>Re:Lasers?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267300440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How do you put a shark on a tripod?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How do you put a shark on a tripod ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do you put a shark on a tripod?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31302122</id>
	<title>Re:Freakin Laser Beams...</title>
	<author>IICV</author>
	<datestamp>1267287780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, that gave me an idea - if you could create a sufficiently broad-spectrum laser, you could jam a drone's communications without turning yourself into a huge target. All you'd need to do is pump enough energy at the thing, and it wouldn't be able to talk to the base station any more; in fact, since the drone is specifically designed to pick up energy in some frequencies, you could potentially disable it by pushing so much juice into the antenna that the overload fries internal components. It would be kind of an EMP laser.</p><p>You could potentially use the same aural targetting scheme, too - every drone is going to use small, fast propellers to fly, and those suckers are really noisy, especially if you're swatting down home-made drones.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , that gave me an idea - if you could create a sufficiently broad-spectrum laser , you could jam a drone 's communications without turning yourself into a huge target .
All you 'd need to do is pump enough energy at the thing , and it would n't be able to talk to the base station any more ; in fact , since the drone is specifically designed to pick up energy in some frequencies , you could potentially disable it by pushing so much juice into the antenna that the overload fries internal components .
It would be kind of an EMP laser.You could potentially use the same aural targetting scheme , too - every drone is going to use small , fast propellers to fly , and those suckers are really noisy , especially if you 're swatting down home-made drones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, that gave me an idea - if you could create a sufficiently broad-spectrum laser, you could jam a drone's communications without turning yourself into a huge target.
All you'd need to do is pump enough energy at the thing, and it wouldn't be able to talk to the base station any more; in fact, since the drone is specifically designed to pick up energy in some frequencies, you could potentially disable it by pushing so much juice into the antenna that the overload fries internal components.
It would be kind of an EMP laser.You could potentially use the same aural targetting scheme, too - every drone is going to use small, fast propellers to fly, and those suckers are really noisy, especially if you're swatting down home-made drones.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31301446</id>
	<title>Re:Defense?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267282020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Careful <i>grasshopper</i>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Careful grasshopper .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Careful grasshopper.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31298918</id>
	<title>So you've never heard of hunting</title>
	<author>saleenS281</author>
	<datestamp>1267303020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Do you go into a hole for half the year then?  "hundreds of citizens firing up in the air" happens every duck, pheasant and goose hunting season in this country.

Not to mention deer and bear hunting which often results in an angle that is shooting towards the sky, not the ground.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you go into a hole for half the year then ?
" hundreds of citizens firing up in the air " happens every duck , pheasant and goose hunting season in this country .
Not to mention deer and bear hunting which often results in an angle that is shooting towards the sky , not the ground .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you go into a hole for half the year then?
"hundreds of citizens firing up in the air" happens every duck, pheasant and goose hunting season in this country.
Not to mention deer and bear hunting which often results in an angle that is shooting towards the sky, not the ground.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296524</id>
	<title>Re:Defense?</title>
	<author>TheLink</author>
	<datestamp>1267284720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, those USD500 drones aren't gonna fly across the pacific, atlantic or artic oceans anytime soon.<br><br>Still cheap drones might be useful for attackers already in the USA. I wonder how many patriot (or similar) banks are deployed in the USA.<br><br>But if people are willing to die, it's going to be hard to stop them if they're not too stupid. The drone then is the human+payload+vehicle.<br><br>Maybe they should just spend a few millions getting those young angry guys laid... That should de-drone a few of them. A "bird" in each arm might be worth 72 houris in wherever-land.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , those USD500 drones are n't gon na fly across the pacific , atlantic or artic oceans anytime soon.Still cheap drones might be useful for attackers already in the USA .
I wonder how many patriot ( or similar ) banks are deployed in the USA.But if people are willing to die , it 's going to be hard to stop them if they 're not too stupid .
The drone then is the human + payload + vehicle.Maybe they should just spend a few millions getting those young angry guys laid... That should de-drone a few of them .
A " bird " in each arm might be worth 72 houris in wherever-land .
: ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, those USD500 drones aren't gonna fly across the pacific, atlantic or artic oceans anytime soon.Still cheap drones might be useful for attackers already in the USA.
I wonder how many patriot (or similar) banks are deployed in the USA.But if people are willing to die, it's going to be hard to stop them if they're not too stupid.
The drone then is the human+payload+vehicle.Maybe they should just spend a few millions getting those young angry guys laid... That should de-drone a few of them.
A "bird" in each arm might be worth 72 houris in wherever-land.
:).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296560</id>
	<title>Re:Arm your citizens...</title>
	<author>Minupla</author>
	<datestamp>1267285140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The idea of hundreds of citizens firing UP INTO THE AIR trying to hit a drone scares the hell out of me... what goes up must come down, and the law of conservation of energy combine to make me think that the damage to those of us on the ground would probably be greater then what the drone could do... particularly since the drone would likely be too far above the shooters for a bullet to have any hope of finding it...</p><p>Min</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The idea of hundreds of citizens firing UP INTO THE AIR trying to hit a drone scares the hell out of me... what goes up must come down , and the law of conservation of energy combine to make me think that the damage to those of us on the ground would probably be greater then what the drone could do... particularly since the drone would likely be too far above the shooters for a bullet to have any hope of finding it...Min</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The idea of hundreds of citizens firing UP INTO THE AIR trying to hit a drone scares the hell out of me... what goes up must come down, and the law of conservation of energy combine to make me think that the damage to those of us on the ground would probably be greater then what the drone could do... particularly since the drone would likely be too far above the shooters for a bullet to have any hope of finding it...Min</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31297430</id>
	<title>Re:Arm your citizens...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267293900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>this is NOT what the 2nd amendment was written for. it is completely unrelated to assembling an army against foreign attack. that is an army, not a militia. a militia is local, and the 2nd amendment regards the people's right to defend themselves against the government.</p><p>but i'm a computer-scientist not a historian, so that is completely out of my @$$, for the record</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>this is NOT what the 2nd amendment was written for .
it is completely unrelated to assembling an army against foreign attack .
that is an army , not a militia .
a militia is local , and the 2nd amendment regards the people 's right to defend themselves against the government.but i 'm a computer-scientist not a historian , so that is completely out of my @ $ $ , for the record</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this is NOT what the 2nd amendment was written for.
it is completely unrelated to assembling an army against foreign attack.
that is an army, not a militia.
a militia is local, and the 2nd amendment regards the people's right to defend themselves against the government.but i'm a computer-scientist not a historian, so that is completely out of my @$$, for the record</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31297490</id>
	<title>Re:Arm your citizens...</title>
	<author>couchslug</author>
	<datestamp>1267294680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ROFLPIMP! Good luck with that.</p><p>Properly shooting a rifle and leading a tiny, distant point target accurately enough to hit it with a single shot (as opposed to tracers, for example)<br>are much different.</p><p>Little drones don't carry much, hence aren't much threat and not worth frothing over. If someone wants to blow up stuff and kill people, all they need is general mechanical knowledge and a few hand tools. (I won't be more specific, those interested can do their homework!)</p><p>For military area defense, we should develop directed energy weapons because in addition to UAVs, they can work on rockets, artillery, missiles, aircraft, and ground targets.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ROFLPIMP !
Good luck with that.Properly shooting a rifle and leading a tiny , distant point target accurately enough to hit it with a single shot ( as opposed to tracers , for example ) are much different.Little drones do n't carry much , hence are n't much threat and not worth frothing over .
If someone wants to blow up stuff and kill people , all they need is general mechanical knowledge and a few hand tools .
( I wo n't be more specific , those interested can do their homework !
) For military area defense , we should develop directed energy weapons because in addition to UAVs , they can work on rockets , artillery , missiles , aircraft , and ground targets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ROFLPIMP!
Good luck with that.Properly shooting a rifle and leading a tiny, distant point target accurately enough to hit it with a single shot (as opposed to tracers, for example)are much different.Little drones don't carry much, hence aren't much threat and not worth frothing over.
If someone wants to blow up stuff and kill people, all they need is general mechanical knowledge and a few hand tools.
(I won't be more specific, those interested can do their homework!
)For military area defense, we should develop directed energy weapons because in addition to UAVs, they can work on rockets, artillery, missiles, aircraft, and ground targets.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31305874</id>
	<title>Re:Defense?</title>
	<author>MobyDisk</author>
	<datestamp>1267373760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>George Bush senior involved us in a war which gave the impression to the rest of the world to be an almost completely unwarranted US invasion of an OPEC nation, for what appeared to be monetary reasons.</p> </div><p>Actually, George Bush thought this would gain us points with the world, especially the Middle East.  His intention was to go into Kuwait, evict the Iraqi army, and leave.  So that when other nations spoke of us as evil invaders they would have reason to pause and rethink that.  By not staying there, by entering only under the terms that they asked us to be there, we would like like a benevolent ally.  I make no case for how well that worked, but that is a big part of why we did not go after Saddam Hussein at the time.</p><p>(This topic is covered in his biography, which I don't have on-hand to quote)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>George Bush senior involved us in a war which gave the impression to the rest of the world to be an almost completely unwarranted US invasion of an OPEC nation , for what appeared to be monetary reasons .
Actually , George Bush thought this would gain us points with the world , especially the Middle East .
His intention was to go into Kuwait , evict the Iraqi army , and leave .
So that when other nations spoke of us as evil invaders they would have reason to pause and rethink that .
By not staying there , by entering only under the terms that they asked us to be there , we would like like a benevolent ally .
I make no case for how well that worked , but that is a big part of why we did not go after Saddam Hussein at the time .
( This topic is covered in his biography , which I do n't have on-hand to quote )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>George Bush senior involved us in a war which gave the impression to the rest of the world to be an almost completely unwarranted US invasion of an OPEC nation, for what appeared to be monetary reasons.
Actually, George Bush thought this would gain us points with the world, especially the Middle East.
His intention was to go into Kuwait, evict the Iraqi army, and leave.
So that when other nations spoke of us as evil invaders they would have reason to pause and rethink that.
By not staying there, by entering only under the terms that they asked us to be there, we would like like a benevolent ally.
I make no case for how well that worked, but that is a big part of why we did not go after Saddam Hussein at the time.
(This topic is covered in his biography, which I don't have on-hand to quote)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31298968</id>
	<title>Re:I'll probably regret this.... but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267303320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Information on the targets would be quite difficult to gather and the most important targets tend to be underground anyway. How about an all out man hole attack instead?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Information on the targets would be quite difficult to gather and the most important targets tend to be underground anyway .
How about an all out man hole attack instead ?
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Information on the targets would be quite difficult to gather and the most important targets tend to be underground anyway.
How about an all out man hole attack instead?
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296776</id>
	<title>Re:Arm your citizens...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267287480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When everyone is armed, people behave in a different manner.  Rape, robbery, and assaults tend to go down in areas which relax gun laws - while the same crimes increase in areas where more restrictive gun laws are enacted.</p><p>It's in your best interest to arm every citizen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When everyone is armed , people behave in a different manner .
Rape , robbery , and assaults tend to go down in areas which relax gun laws - while the same crimes increase in areas where more restrictive gun laws are enacted.It 's in your best interest to arm every citizen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When everyone is armed, people behave in a different manner.
Rape, robbery, and assaults tend to go down in areas which relax gun laws - while the same crimes increase in areas where more restrictive gun laws are enacted.It's in your best interest to arm every citizen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31300644</id>
	<title>Re:Defense?</title>
	<author>Plazmid</author>
	<datestamp>1267275120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Spirit of Butt's Farm, the first model plane to cross the Atlantic, probably didn't cost much more than $500.
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Spirit\_of\_Butts\_Farm" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Spirit\_of\_Butts\_Farm</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Spirit of Butt 's Farm , the first model plane to cross the Atlantic , probably did n't cost much more than $ 500 .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The \ _Spirit \ _of \ _Butts \ _Farm [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Spirit of Butt's Farm, the first model plane to cross the Atlantic, probably didn't cost much more than $500.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Spirit\_of\_Butts\_Farm [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31299092</id>
	<title>Re:Lasers?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267304040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wrote a few paragraphs about why the answer is likely no for technical reasons, then realized that the simple answer is legal: No, no fucking way will they allow you to fire kilowatt class lasers up into the sky.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wrote a few paragraphs about why the answer is likely no for technical reasons , then realized that the simple answer is legal : No , no fucking way will they allow you to fire kilowatt class lasers up into the sky .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wrote a few paragraphs about why the answer is likely no for technical reasons, then realized that the simple answer is legal: No, no fucking way will they allow you to fire kilowatt class lasers up into the sky.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31297398</id>
	<title>Re:Defense?</title>
	<author>azenpunk</author>
	<datestamp>1267293540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, the Korean, Vietnam and all the cold war related skirmishes are related to defense.  The soviets were actively engaged in subverting governments and taking them over and we were the great big prize target for them.  When you picture the scenario i describe and think to yourself "there is no way the threat the soviets posed to us was that sinister and involved," know that in fact i was that sinister and convoluted and involved.  The soviets were truly trying to take over the world in such a manner that if one understood it they would no longer believe in any way that the US had ever made any attempt to do the same.</p><p>The war in Iraq and Afghanistan are related to defense as well.  Iraqi intelligence has been giving aid to Al Qaeda since the early 90's as they have waged a war against us.  The Afghanistan Taliban gave them safe haven from which to plan and conduct this war.  Is that enough reason to go to war?  That's were the debate starts, but to say that there has been no provocation on any level since WWII is naive.  Though i can see claiming that since a lot of it has not been direct provocation it doesn't count, but i would disagree on that point.</p><p>Since the end of World War II the US has faced some form of constant threat.  Whether or not these threats have been severe enough to warrant the actions we have taken is a separate discussion, but the threats have been there.  Those parties that have threatened us have always tried to conduct themselves in such a way that they could always claim any retaliation was unwarranted.</p><p>All in all, I think we should have given up Global Super Power status when the soviets fell.  It's just not worth it anymore, but I think we were needed while they were standing.</p><p>We should stop bothering with foreign entanglements, but there are a lot of people who aren't going to like the fact that that would mean no help for Darfur, or Haiti, no more aid like we gave after the tsunami.</p><p>Iraq-Al Qaeda stuff:  <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Connection-Collaboration-Hussein-Endangered-America/dp/0060746734" title="amazon.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.amazon.com/Connection-Collaboration-Hussein-Endangered-America/dp/0060746734</a> [amazon.com]</p><p>Soviet stuff:  <a href="http://www.metacafe.com/watch/yt-RS8LA-5fmrs/g\_edward\_griffin\_interview\_of\_yuri\_bezmenov/" title="metacafe.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.metacafe.com/watch/yt-RS8LA-5fmrs/g\_edward\_griffin\_interview\_of\_yuri\_bezmenov/</a> [metacafe.com]<br>Yuri Bezmenov was one of the guys doing it until he defected.  There is also a series of 7 videos where he gives a university lecture and goes into detail on this process.  He is wearing a powder blue blazer in that series.</p><p>I know people want to believe the US is some big bad boogey man ruining the lives of innocent foreigners, and we have done some really nasty things.  But if you look back at all of the nations that have been the big superpower through history, the US really does set the gold standard for benevolence in global politics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , the Korean , Vietnam and all the cold war related skirmishes are related to defense .
The soviets were actively engaged in subverting governments and taking them over and we were the great big prize target for them .
When you picture the scenario i describe and think to yourself " there is no way the threat the soviets posed to us was that sinister and involved , " know that in fact i was that sinister and convoluted and involved .
The soviets were truly trying to take over the world in such a manner that if one understood it they would no longer believe in any way that the US had ever made any attempt to do the same.The war in Iraq and Afghanistan are related to defense as well .
Iraqi intelligence has been giving aid to Al Qaeda since the early 90 's as they have waged a war against us .
The Afghanistan Taliban gave them safe haven from which to plan and conduct this war .
Is that enough reason to go to war ?
That 's were the debate starts , but to say that there has been no provocation on any level since WWII is naive .
Though i can see claiming that since a lot of it has not been direct provocation it does n't count , but i would disagree on that point.Since the end of World War II the US has faced some form of constant threat .
Whether or not these threats have been severe enough to warrant the actions we have taken is a separate discussion , but the threats have been there .
Those parties that have threatened us have always tried to conduct themselves in such a way that they could always claim any retaliation was unwarranted.All in all , I think we should have given up Global Super Power status when the soviets fell .
It 's just not worth it anymore , but I think we were needed while they were standing.We should stop bothering with foreign entanglements , but there are a lot of people who are n't going to like the fact that that would mean no help for Darfur , or Haiti , no more aid like we gave after the tsunami.Iraq-Al Qaeda stuff : http : //www.amazon.com/Connection-Collaboration-Hussein-Endangered-America/dp/0060746734 [ amazon.com ] Soviet stuff : http : //www.metacafe.com/watch/yt-RS8LA-5fmrs/g \ _edward \ _griffin \ _interview \ _of \ _yuri \ _bezmenov/ [ metacafe.com ] Yuri Bezmenov was one of the guys doing it until he defected .
There is also a series of 7 videos where he gives a university lecture and goes into detail on this process .
He is wearing a powder blue blazer in that series.I know people want to believe the US is some big bad boogey man ruining the lives of innocent foreigners , and we have done some really nasty things .
But if you look back at all of the nations that have been the big superpower through history , the US really does set the gold standard for benevolence in global politics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, the Korean, Vietnam and all the cold war related skirmishes are related to defense.
The soviets were actively engaged in subverting governments and taking them over and we were the great big prize target for them.
When you picture the scenario i describe and think to yourself "there is no way the threat the soviets posed to us was that sinister and involved," know that in fact i was that sinister and convoluted and involved.
The soviets were truly trying to take over the world in such a manner that if one understood it they would no longer believe in any way that the US had ever made any attempt to do the same.The war in Iraq and Afghanistan are related to defense as well.
Iraqi intelligence has been giving aid to Al Qaeda since the early 90's as they have waged a war against us.
The Afghanistan Taliban gave them safe haven from which to plan and conduct this war.
Is that enough reason to go to war?
That's were the debate starts, but to say that there has been no provocation on any level since WWII is naive.
Though i can see claiming that since a lot of it has not been direct provocation it doesn't count, but i would disagree on that point.Since the end of World War II the US has faced some form of constant threat.
Whether or not these threats have been severe enough to warrant the actions we have taken is a separate discussion, but the threats have been there.
Those parties that have threatened us have always tried to conduct themselves in such a way that they could always claim any retaliation was unwarranted.All in all, I think we should have given up Global Super Power status when the soviets fell.
It's just not worth it anymore, but I think we were needed while they were standing.We should stop bothering with foreign entanglements, but there are a lot of people who aren't going to like the fact that that would mean no help for Darfur, or Haiti, no more aid like we gave after the tsunami.Iraq-Al Qaeda stuff:  http://www.amazon.com/Connection-Collaboration-Hussein-Endangered-America/dp/0060746734 [amazon.com]Soviet stuff:  http://www.metacafe.com/watch/yt-RS8LA-5fmrs/g\_edward\_griffin\_interview\_of\_yuri\_bezmenov/ [metacafe.com]Yuri Bezmenov was one of the guys doing it until he defected.
There is also a series of 7 videos where he gives a university lecture and goes into detail on this process.
He is wearing a powder blue blazer in that series.I know people want to believe the US is some big bad boogey man ruining the lives of innocent foreigners, and we have done some really nasty things.
But if you look back at all of the nations that have been the big superpower through history, the US really does set the gold standard for benevolence in global politics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31299666</id>
	<title>hockey gold</title>
	<author>Maglos</author>
	<datestamp>1267265400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just loose to Canada in the gold medal game, and you wont have to worry about an onslaught of DIY drowns attacking from the north.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just loose to Canada in the gold medal game , and you wont have to worry about an onslaught of DIY drowns attacking from the north .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just loose to Canada in the gold medal game, and you wont have to worry about an onslaught of DIY drowns attacking from the north.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296738</id>
	<title>Re:Defense?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267287000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No young student. You fail to understand Ti Qwan Leap. Boot to the Head.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No young student .
You fail to understand Ti Qwan Leap .
Boot to the Head .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No young student.
You fail to understand Ti Qwan Leap.
Boot to the Head.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31301964</id>
	<title>Re:I'll probably regret this.... but...</title>
	<author>vertinox</author>
	<datestamp>1267286460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wouldn't it just be easier to rent a truck or strap explosives on your chest?</p><p>These articles are acting like terrorists are jumping at the chance to use drones, yet they don't seem to be using the old fashioned methods?</p><p>Why?</p><p>Because there aren't any terrorists around that want to blow stuff up on a daily basis.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would n't it just be easier to rent a truck or strap explosives on your chest ? These articles are acting like terrorists are jumping at the chance to use drones , yet they do n't seem to be using the old fashioned methods ? Why ? Because there are n't any terrorists around that want to blow stuff up on a daily basis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wouldn't it just be easier to rent a truck or strap explosives on your chest?These articles are acting like terrorists are jumping at the chance to use drones, yet they don't seem to be using the old fashioned methods?Why?Because there aren't any terrorists around that want to blow stuff up on a daily basis.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31297072</id>
	<title>Re:Defense?</title>
	<author>v1</author>
	<datestamp>1267290780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>* WHOOSH*<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...  you missed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>* WHOOSH * ... you missed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>* WHOOSH* ...  you missed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31297496</id>
	<title>Re:Arm your citizens...</title>
	<author>azenpunk</author>
	<datestamp>1267294680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hell, the rounds are almost more expensive than the drones you'd be shooting down.  Taken into consideration how many rounds it might take to actually hit an RC plane with a rifle it might actually cost more.</p><p>I can see a new round for the m203 grenade launcher (or any grenade launcher) with a proximity fuse, much like those developed in WWII to shoot down Japanese planes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hell , the rounds are almost more expensive than the drones you 'd be shooting down .
Taken into consideration how many rounds it might take to actually hit an RC plane with a rifle it might actually cost more.I can see a new round for the m203 grenade launcher ( or any grenade launcher ) with a proximity fuse , much like those developed in WWII to shoot down Japanese planes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hell, the rounds are almost more expensive than the drones you'd be shooting down.
Taken into consideration how many rounds it might take to actually hit an RC plane with a rifle it might actually cost more.I can see a new round for the m203 grenade launcher (or any grenade launcher) with a proximity fuse, much like those developed in WWII to shoot down Japanese planes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296526</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31301104</id>
	<title>Re:DOS WAR</title>
	<author>Jesus\_666</author>
	<datestamp>1267279440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Unfortunately that 500$ drone has all the destructive capability of a ten pound object smacking into you at a few dozen mph. For 1000$ you might get a drone capable of carrying and dropping a hand grenade.<br>
<br>
Your DOS war would only work if you could convice the victim that a swarm of RC planes is a major threat on its own. Good luck with that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately that 500 $ drone has all the destructive capability of a ten pound object smacking into you at a few dozen mph .
For 1000 $ you might get a drone capable of carrying and dropping a hand grenade .
Your DOS war would only work if you could convice the victim that a swarm of RC planes is a major threat on its own .
Good luck with that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately that 500$ drone has all the destructive capability of a ten pound object smacking into you at a few dozen mph.
For 1000$ you might get a drone capable of carrying and dropping a hand grenade.
Your DOS war would only work if you could convice the victim that a swarm of RC planes is a major threat on its own.
Good luck with that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296506</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296938</id>
	<title>They have *already* crossed an ocean</title>
	<author>Nicolas MONNET</author>
	<datestamp>1267289340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In fact a private drone (from a university) has already done that years ago, across the Atlantic. It certainly cost a lot more than $500, but components have gone down in price quite a lot.</p><p>My crappy EasyStar ($60 of glorified styrofoam) can fly for almost an hour with a brushless motor on a 11V, 1200mA.h battery that costs around $30. It wouldn't be too hard in the near future to build a drone covered with lightweight solar cells, and enough batteries to stay airborne during the night. The EasyStar can already easily accommodate 200g of payload, for a total weight of one kg or two.</p><p>With an Arduino it's already super easy to build a drone with GPS guiding. But even if GPS is jammed it's not much harder to implement inertial positioning, and beyond that cell phone relay trilateration to lock in on a target. Each of those features can be had in a 1g integrated package.</p><p>Those are still vulnerable to military jamming, but at a significant cost to the target. There are other ways around this: sun tracking has not been done AFAIK but it shouldn't be too hard to do. We have *slightly* better clocks than mariners of the old time and that's what they used. At night, star tracking is also a possibility. Then some DIY drone people are experimenting with magnetic sensors, which is what migratory birds use.</p><p>In conclusion, drones are gonna be a problem, and I suspect states are going to try to ban them, to obviously no effect since all it takes are cell phone components (lithium batteries, microcontrollers, GPS receivers), some styrofoam and a few cheap power electronics components (brushless motors, controllers, and servos). Oh and duct tape. They better ban duct tape quick.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In fact a private drone ( from a university ) has already done that years ago , across the Atlantic .
It certainly cost a lot more than $ 500 , but components have gone down in price quite a lot.My crappy EasyStar ( $ 60 of glorified styrofoam ) can fly for almost an hour with a brushless motor on a 11V , 1200mA.h battery that costs around $ 30 .
It would n't be too hard in the near future to build a drone covered with lightweight solar cells , and enough batteries to stay airborne during the night .
The EasyStar can already easily accommodate 200g of payload , for a total weight of one kg or two.With an Arduino it 's already super easy to build a drone with GPS guiding .
But even if GPS is jammed it 's not much harder to implement inertial positioning , and beyond that cell phone relay trilateration to lock in on a target .
Each of those features can be had in a 1g integrated package.Those are still vulnerable to military jamming , but at a significant cost to the target .
There are other ways around this : sun tracking has not been done AFAIK but it should n't be too hard to do .
We have * slightly * better clocks than mariners of the old time and that 's what they used .
At night , star tracking is also a possibility .
Then some DIY drone people are experimenting with magnetic sensors , which is what migratory birds use.In conclusion , drones are gon na be a problem , and I suspect states are going to try to ban them , to obviously no effect since all it takes are cell phone components ( lithium batteries , microcontrollers , GPS receivers ) , some styrofoam and a few cheap power electronics components ( brushless motors , controllers , and servos ) .
Oh and duct tape .
They better ban duct tape quick .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In fact a private drone (from a university) has already done that years ago, across the Atlantic.
It certainly cost a lot more than $500, but components have gone down in price quite a lot.My crappy EasyStar ($60 of glorified styrofoam) can fly for almost an hour with a brushless motor on a 11V, 1200mA.h battery that costs around $30.
It wouldn't be too hard in the near future to build a drone covered with lightweight solar cells, and enough batteries to stay airborne during the night.
The EasyStar can already easily accommodate 200g of payload, for a total weight of one kg or two.With an Arduino it's already super easy to build a drone with GPS guiding.
But even if GPS is jammed it's not much harder to implement inertial positioning, and beyond that cell phone relay trilateration to lock in on a target.
Each of those features can be had in a 1g integrated package.Those are still vulnerable to military jamming, but at a significant cost to the target.
There are other ways around this: sun tracking has not been done AFAIK but it shouldn't be too hard to do.
We have *slightly* better clocks than mariners of the old time and that's what they used.
At night, star tracking is also a possibility.
Then some DIY drone people are experimenting with magnetic sensors, which is what migratory birds use.In conclusion, drones are gonna be a problem, and I suspect states are going to try to ban them, to obviously no effect since all it takes are cell phone components (lithium batteries, microcontrollers, GPS receivers), some styrofoam and a few cheap power electronics components (brushless motors, controllers, and servos).
Oh and duct tape.
They better ban duct tape quick.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31300054</id>
	<title>Re:Defense?</title>
	<author>MichaelSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1267269240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe a high altitude balloon combined with a gliding aerial bomb. High wing loading, low LD. The idea is the glider hangs below the balloon. When it crosses the continent it most likely will not go near a target worth hitting, but from 10km altitude it might be able to glide to such a target. Use a cell phone for remote guidance.</p><p>Didn't the US develop a plan for things like then when they were at war with the Japanese?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe a high altitude balloon combined with a gliding aerial bomb .
High wing loading , low LD .
The idea is the glider hangs below the balloon .
When it crosses the continent it most likely will not go near a target worth hitting , but from 10km altitude it might be able to glide to such a target .
Use a cell phone for remote guidance.Did n't the US develop a plan for things like then when they were at war with the Japanese ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe a high altitude balloon combined with a gliding aerial bomb.
High wing loading, low LD.
The idea is the glider hangs below the balloon.
When it crosses the continent it most likely will not go near a target worth hitting, but from 10km altitude it might be able to glide to such a target.
Use a cell phone for remote guidance.Didn't the US develop a plan for things like then when they were at war with the Japanese?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31298250</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31297062</id>
	<title>Re:Arm your citizens...</title>
	<author>flyingfsck</author>
	<datestamp>1267290720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Uhmm, it would be really hard to take out a UAV flying at 4000 feet with a shotgun...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Uhmm , it would be really hard to take out a UAV flying at 4000 feet with a shotgun.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uhmm, it would be really hard to take out a UAV flying at 4000 feet with a shotgun...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296644</id>
	<title>EMP</title>
	<author>symes</author>
	<datestamp>1267286160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>what would be wrong with a hefty eloctromagnetic pulse - so long as it was aimed in the right direction and there was nothing else nearby then this would knock them out. Or even a nice big laser<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) these drones are pretty slow moving right?</htmltext>
<tokenext>what would be wrong with a hefty eloctromagnetic pulse - so long as it was aimed in the right direction and there was nothing else nearby then this would knock them out .
Or even a nice big laser : ) these drones are pretty slow moving right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what would be wrong with a hefty eloctromagnetic pulse - so long as it was aimed in the right direction and there was nothing else nearby then this would knock them out.
Or even a nice big laser :) these drones are pretty slow moving right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31297744</id>
	<title>Re:They have *already* crossed an ocean</title>
	<author>jimfrost</author>
	<datestamp>1267296000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>With an Arduino it's already super easy to build a drone with GPS guiding. But even if GPS is jammed it's not much harder to implement inertial positioning</i> </p><p>Assuming you're thinking of a terrorist activity on US soil, if you have a cellphone in your drone you can use the phone's GPS, which doesn't necessarily use the GPS satellites at all -- some cell providers use tower triangulation that couldn't be quickly or easily jammed (it's not just a signal to a satellite cluster controlled by the military).  That's not great accuracy, but it'd be good enough for long-distance guidance (e.g. following major highways) and other techniques could be used when you're close (e.g. video transmission through the cellphone link to a remote operator).</p><p>It's obviously easy to build a drone, assuming some sophistication, but the more payload it can take the more it costs and the easier it is to spot and destroy.  It is lucky, then, that most terrorism-inclined people are neither sophisticated nor well financed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With an Arduino it 's already super easy to build a drone with GPS guiding .
But even if GPS is jammed it 's not much harder to implement inertial positioning Assuming you 're thinking of a terrorist activity on US soil , if you have a cellphone in your drone you can use the phone 's GPS , which does n't necessarily use the GPS satellites at all -- some cell providers use tower triangulation that could n't be quickly or easily jammed ( it 's not just a signal to a satellite cluster controlled by the military ) .
That 's not great accuracy , but it 'd be good enough for long-distance guidance ( e.g .
following major highways ) and other techniques could be used when you 're close ( e.g .
video transmission through the cellphone link to a remote operator ) .It 's obviously easy to build a drone , assuming some sophistication , but the more payload it can take the more it costs and the easier it is to spot and destroy .
It is lucky , then , that most terrorism-inclined people are neither sophisticated nor well financed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> With an Arduino it's already super easy to build a drone with GPS guiding.
But even if GPS is jammed it's not much harder to implement inertial positioning Assuming you're thinking of a terrorist activity on US soil, if you have a cellphone in your drone you can use the phone's GPS, which doesn't necessarily use the GPS satellites at all -- some cell providers use tower triangulation that couldn't be quickly or easily jammed (it's not just a signal to a satellite cluster controlled by the military).
That's not great accuracy, but it'd be good enough for long-distance guidance (e.g.
following major highways) and other techniques could be used when you're close (e.g.
video transmission through the cellphone link to a remote operator).It's obviously easy to build a drone, assuming some sophistication, but the more payload it can take the more it costs and the easier it is to spot and destroy.
It is lucky, then, that most terrorism-inclined people are neither sophisticated nor well financed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296522</id>
	<title>Arm your rebels...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267284720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Would that be US citizens or Afghan rebels?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would that be US citizens or Afghan rebels ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would that be US citizens or Afghan rebels?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31297758</id>
	<title>Sigh...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267296060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As someone who likes flying model helicopters, I can see it won't be long until the government bans that on fears that "I might be a terrorist wanting to fly my T-Rex 600 into something", closing off yet another avenue of harmless pleasure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As someone who likes flying model helicopters , I can see it wo n't be long until the government bans that on fears that " I might be a terrorist wanting to fly my T-Rex 600 into something " , closing off yet another avenue of harmless pleasure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As someone who likes flying model helicopters, I can see it won't be long until the government bans that on fears that "I might be a terrorist wanting to fly my T-Rex 600 into something", closing off yet another avenue of harmless pleasure.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31297088</id>
	<title>Tinfoil hats for all citizens . . .</title>
	<author>PolygamousRanchKid </author>
	<datestamp>1267290960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tinfoil hats should protect everyone from falling bullets.  At least according to what I read here about these wonderful inventions.
</p><p>Probably.
</p><p>You might want a set of tinfoil shoulder pads as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tinfoil hats should protect everyone from falling bullets .
At least according to what I read here about these wonderful inventions .
Probably . You might want a set of tinfoil shoulder pads as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tinfoil hats should protect everyone from falling bullets.
At least according to what I read here about these wonderful inventions.
Probably.
You might want a set of tinfoil shoulder pads as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296694</id>
	<title>Re:Defense?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267286580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Defending against drones is very important because a government-sponsored, unmanned aerial drone struck the World Trade Center during the events of September 11th, allowing the government to fabricate the whole story about a Middle Eastern dude who was an utter failure and disgrace in flight school yet managed to pull off an extremely difficult corkscrew maneuver and use a large jet with pinpoint accuracy.  Oh, and despite the fires and explosions which have the characteristic "dip" in the middle of the building of a controlled demolition, somehow the ID card of some of these Middle Eastern dudes was recovered.  Yeah.  I think 9/11 was meant to be obvious, a way for the elite to inform those with a clue that the elite are getting more confident, but most of you twits still think your government represents you and would never lie to you about matters of such import.  It'd be funny if it weren't so pathetic.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Defending against drones is very important because a government-sponsored , unmanned aerial drone struck the World Trade Center during the events of September 11th , allowing the government to fabricate the whole story about a Middle Eastern dude who was an utter failure and disgrace in flight school yet managed to pull off an extremely difficult corkscrew maneuver and use a large jet with pinpoint accuracy .
Oh , and despite the fires and explosions which have the characteristic " dip " in the middle of the building of a controlled demolition , somehow the ID card of some of these Middle Eastern dudes was recovered .
Yeah. I think 9/11 was meant to be obvious , a way for the elite to inform those with a clue that the elite are getting more confident , but most of you twits still think your government represents you and would never lie to you about matters of such import .
It 'd be funny if it were n't so pathetic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Defending against drones is very important because a government-sponsored, unmanned aerial drone struck the World Trade Center during the events of September 11th, allowing the government to fabricate the whole story about a Middle Eastern dude who was an utter failure and disgrace in flight school yet managed to pull off an extremely difficult corkscrew maneuver and use a large jet with pinpoint accuracy.
Oh, and despite the fires and explosions which have the characteristic "dip" in the middle of the building of a controlled demolition, somehow the ID card of some of these Middle Eastern dudes was recovered.
Yeah.  I think 9/11 was meant to be obvious, a way for the elite to inform those with a clue that the elite are getting more confident, but most of you twits still think your government represents you and would never lie to you about matters of such import.
It'd be funny if it weren't so pathetic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31298778</id>
	<title>Re:Defense?</title>
	<author>HizookRobotics</author>
	<datestamp>1267301820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I actually <a href="http://www.hizook.com/blog/2010/01/21/diy-homebrew-unmanned-aerial-vehicles-uavs-enter-mainstream" title="hizook.com" rel="nofollow">talked about this some time ago</a> [hizook.com] </p><p>One of my biggest concerns:  government regulation of amateur builders.  The FAA  already treats commercial UAVs as regular planes, requiring aircraft registration and 60 day pre-flight plans.  While the regulations for hobbyists seem to be more lax, I personally believe the FAA should embrace amateur UAV builders in the same way that the FCC embraced ham radio operators of yesteryear.  Besides, building UAVs is a great family bonding activity that promotes engineering. </p><p>But... the same economies that make UAVs appealing to hobbyists also make them appealing for asymmetric warfare.  While I am not familiar with any incident involving UAVs and nefarious organizations / persons, it is pretty evident that asymmetric economies are at play.  It is certainly a slippery slope, but let's just hope the FAA remains lax on hobbyist experimentation -- after all, there is no ban on cellphones despite their use in IEDs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I actually talked about this some time ago [ hizook.com ] One of my biggest concerns : government regulation of amateur builders .
The FAA already treats commercial UAVs as regular planes , requiring aircraft registration and 60 day pre-flight plans .
While the regulations for hobbyists seem to be more lax , I personally believe the FAA should embrace amateur UAV builders in the same way that the FCC embraced ham radio operators of yesteryear .
Besides , building UAVs is a great family bonding activity that promotes engineering .
But... the same economies that make UAVs appealing to hobbyists also make them appealing for asymmetric warfare .
While I am not familiar with any incident involving UAVs and nefarious organizations / persons , it is pretty evident that asymmetric economies are at play .
It is certainly a slippery slope , but let 's just hope the FAA remains lax on hobbyist experimentation -- after all , there is no ban on cellphones despite their use in IEDs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I actually talked about this some time ago [hizook.com] One of my biggest concerns:  government regulation of amateur builders.
The FAA  already treats commercial UAVs as regular planes, requiring aircraft registration and 60 day pre-flight plans.
While the regulations for hobbyists seem to be more lax, I personally believe the FAA should embrace amateur UAV builders in the same way that the FCC embraced ham radio operators of yesteryear.
Besides, building UAVs is a great family bonding activity that promotes engineering.
But... the same economies that make UAVs appealing to hobbyists also make them appealing for asymmetric warfare.
While I am not familiar with any incident involving UAVs and nefarious organizations / persons, it is pretty evident that asymmetric economies are at play.
It is certainly a slippery slope, but let's just hope the FAA remains lax on hobbyist experimentation -- after all, there is no ban on cellphones despite their use in IEDs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296852</id>
	<title>Anti-bot bots.</title>
	<author>Tei</author>
	<datestamp>1267288320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Economics!.. what if a $500 drone destroy a $500 drone?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Economics ! . .
what if a $ 500 drone destroy a $ 500 drone ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Economics!..
what if a $500 drone destroy a $500 drone?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31300268</id>
	<title>Fight fire with fire</title>
	<author>turing\_m</author>
	<datestamp>1267271460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obviously, to counter those drones, we will need a larger army of drones themselves. And it is not realistic to expect an army of teenagers to sit waiting for a drone attack that doesn't come, or pilots. We will need to build some sort of AI to control them all, a global digital defense network, if you will.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obviously , to counter those drones , we will need a larger army of drones themselves .
And it is not realistic to expect an army of teenagers to sit waiting for a drone attack that does n't come , or pilots .
We will need to build some sort of AI to control them all , a global digital defense network , if you will .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obviously, to counter those drones, we will need a larger army of drones themselves.
And it is not realistic to expect an army of teenagers to sit waiting for a drone attack that doesn't come, or pilots.
We will need to build some sort of AI to control them all, a global digital defense network, if you will.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31297302</id>
	<title>Re:I'll probably regret this.... but...</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1267292700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While we're at it, how about refineries themselves (why hit the pipes, imagine what a plane to one of those juicy tanks could do!), purification plants (ever tried wading through your own filth? Welcome to the middle ages!), power plants (they are quite easy to knock out with a nifty explosion at the right place, bonus points for nuclear plants), water reservoirs (try imagining New York without fresh water supply and power. Why bother causing havoc, your targets will do that themselves just fine, just hand them the tools)...</p><p>You can cause a lot of terror by destroying infrastructure in developed countries. And it's cheap and easy!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While we 're at it , how about refineries themselves ( why hit the pipes , imagine what a plane to one of those juicy tanks could do !
) , purification plants ( ever tried wading through your own filth ?
Welcome to the middle ages !
) , power plants ( they are quite easy to knock out with a nifty explosion at the right place , bonus points for nuclear plants ) , water reservoirs ( try imagining New York without fresh water supply and power .
Why bother causing havoc , your targets will do that themselves just fine , just hand them the tools ) ...You can cause a lot of terror by destroying infrastructure in developed countries .
And it 's cheap and easy !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While we're at it, how about refineries themselves (why hit the pipes, imagine what a plane to one of those juicy tanks could do!
), purification plants (ever tried wading through your own filth?
Welcome to the middle ages!
), power plants (they are quite easy to knock out with a nifty explosion at the right place, bonus points for nuclear plants), water reservoirs (try imagining New York without fresh water supply and power.
Why bother causing havoc, your targets will do that themselves just fine, just hand them the tools)...You can cause a lot of terror by destroying infrastructure in developed countries.
And it's cheap and easy!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296568</id>
	<title>OFFTOPIC! MOD THE FUCK DOWN</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267285260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your utterly wrong and uninsightful comment is completely offtopic to the issue at hand.  The article is about defense against drones.</p><p>What the fuck does your opinion of what constitutes defense have anything to do with it here?</p><p>Moderators, do your job and mod this offtopic bullshit to oblivions please.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your utterly wrong and uninsightful comment is completely offtopic to the issue at hand .
The article is about defense against drones.What the fuck does your opinion of what constitutes defense have anything to do with it here ? Moderators , do your job and mod this offtopic bullshit to oblivions please .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your utterly wrong and uninsightful comment is completely offtopic to the issue at hand.
The article is about defense against drones.What the fuck does your opinion of what constitutes defense have anything to do with it here?Moderators, do your job and mod this offtopic bullshit to oblivions please.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31297084</id>
	<title>Jeeps with frickin' lasers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267290900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2009/q1/090126a\_nr.html</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.boeing.com/news/releases/2009/q1/090126a \ _nr.html</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2009/q1/090126a\_nr.html</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31300534</id>
	<title>Machine guns are relatively easy to make too.</title>
	<author>HornWumpus</author>
	<datestamp>1267274100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
10 years for simple possession stops most sane people from going there.
</p><p>
Incidentally it's the same 10 years for possession of a guided missile.
</p><p>
Put a receiver, micro servos and control surfaces on the fins of an Estes rocket.
</p><p>
10 years federal, no explosive payload required.
</p><p>
I'm sure the same is true for an airplane of any size as soon as you put an explosive payload on board.
</p><p>
It's not going to stop the likes of suicide bombers but will keep casual drone fun down to a minimum.
</p><p>
For myself I'm using sort of a drone to feed various groups of deserving peoples paranoia.
</p><p>
It fly a scale RC predator over every bunch of nuts (e.g. tea parties, anti-WTO protests, pot legalization, illegal immigrant amnesty protests, gun shows, Dead shows etc) that gathers (time allowing).
</p><p>
It doesn't matter to me what the group is about, just that the groups contains a \% of paranoid nutters that I can push closer to the edge of madness.
</p><p>
It's good to live in N Cal. Lots of fruits, nuts and flakes within easy driving distance.
</p><p>
Call it social engineering.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>10 years for simple possession stops most sane people from going there .
Incidentally it 's the same 10 years for possession of a guided missile .
Put a receiver , micro servos and control surfaces on the fins of an Estes rocket .
10 years federal , no explosive payload required .
I 'm sure the same is true for an airplane of any size as soon as you put an explosive payload on board .
It 's not going to stop the likes of suicide bombers but will keep casual drone fun down to a minimum .
For myself I 'm using sort of a drone to feed various groups of deserving peoples paranoia .
It fly a scale RC predator over every bunch of nuts ( e.g .
tea parties , anti-WTO protests , pot legalization , illegal immigrant amnesty protests , gun shows , Dead shows etc ) that gathers ( time allowing ) .
It does n't matter to me what the group is about , just that the groups contains a \ % of paranoid nutters that I can push closer to the edge of madness .
It 's good to live in N Cal .
Lots of fruits , nuts and flakes within easy driving distance .
Call it social engineering .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
10 years for simple possession stops most sane people from going there.
Incidentally it's the same 10 years for possession of a guided missile.
Put a receiver, micro servos and control surfaces on the fins of an Estes rocket.
10 years federal, no explosive payload required.
I'm sure the same is true for an airplane of any size as soon as you put an explosive payload on board.
It's not going to stop the likes of suicide bombers but will keep casual drone fun down to a minimum.
For myself I'm using sort of a drone to feed various groups of deserving peoples paranoia.
It fly a scale RC predator over every bunch of nuts (e.g.
tea parties, anti-WTO protests, pot legalization, illegal immigrant amnesty protests, gun shows, Dead shows etc) that gathers (time allowing).
It doesn't matter to me what the group is about, just that the groups contains a \% of paranoid nutters that I can push closer to the edge of madness.
It's good to live in N Cal.
Lots of fruits, nuts and flakes within easy driving distance.
Call it social engineering.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296702</id>
	<title>Re:Arm your citizens...</title>
	<author>bsDaemon</author>
	<datestamp>1267286700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Then you prosecute them for theft or murder?  What's so hard about that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Then you prosecute them for theft or murder ?
What 's so hard about that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then you prosecute them for theft or murder?
What's so hard about that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31305030</id>
	<title>Re:Arm your citizens...</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1267367160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The idea of hundreds of citizens firing UP INTO THE AIR trying to hit a drone scares the hell out of me..</i></p><p>OK, but fear is no rationale for a decision.</p><p>Factors to consider include, at least:</p><ul> <li>we're talking about if the country is under attack, likely by armed drones</li><li>another option listed is a Patriot missile which carries high explosive and doesn't always hit its mark</li><li>multi-billion dollar defense programs impose harm, perhaps statistically deadly</li><li>firing into the air is a celebratory gesture in lots of the world</li><li>people would probably have to do it anyway, as the Government cannot adequately defend a land area as vast as the US</li></ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>The idea of hundreds of citizens firing UP INTO THE AIR trying to hit a drone scares the hell out of me..OK , but fear is no rationale for a decision.Factors to consider include , at least : we 're talking about if the country is under attack , likely by armed dronesanother option listed is a Patriot missile which carries high explosive and does n't always hit its markmulti-billion dollar defense programs impose harm , perhaps statistically deadlyfiring into the air is a celebratory gesture in lots of the worldpeople would probably have to do it anyway , as the Government can not adequately defend a land area as vast as the US</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The idea of hundreds of citizens firing UP INTO THE AIR trying to hit a drone scares the hell out of me..OK, but fear is no rationale for a decision.Factors to consider include, at least: we're talking about if the country is under attack, likely by armed dronesanother option listed is a Patriot missile which carries high explosive and doesn't always hit its markmulti-billion dollar defense programs impose harm, perhaps statistically deadlyfiring into the air is a celebratory gesture in lots of the worldpeople would probably have to do it anyway, as the Government cannot adequately defend a land area as vast as the US</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31300038</id>
	<title>Duck and Cover</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267269060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It worked for Nucular weapons, which are really big, so it should easily cope with piddly little drones.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It worked for Nucular weapons , which are really big , so it should easily cope with piddly little drones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It worked for Nucular weapons, which are really big, so it should easily cope with piddly little drones.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296520</id>
	<title>Re:Arm your citizens...</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1267284720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's an incredibly bad idea. Compare terminal velocity and total energy on a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.50 cal rifle round to typical calibers and you'll see why. Laser point defense would make more sense; using drones to fight drones makes even more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's an incredibly bad idea .
Compare terminal velocity and total energy on a .50 cal rifle round to typical calibers and you 'll see why .
Laser point defense would make more sense ; using drones to fight drones makes even more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's an incredibly bad idea.
Compare terminal velocity and total energy on a .50 cal rifle round to typical calibers and you'll see why.
Laser point defense would make more sense; using drones to fight drones makes even more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296828</id>
	<title>Not much to worry about</title>
	<author>Bemopolis</author>
	<datestamp>1267288080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>By the time our enemi...ZERG RUSH!  RUN!</htmltext>
<tokenext>By the time our enemi...ZERG RUSH !
RUN !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By the time our enemi...ZERG RUSH!
RUN!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31297756</id>
	<title>Re:Lasers?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267296000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>What about we train sharks to use them!? <br> <br>
We all knew you were waiting for this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What about we train sharks to use them ! ?
We all knew you were waiting for this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about we train sharks to use them!?
We all knew you were waiting for this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31301268</id>
	<title>Re:Lasers?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267280700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>mounted on friggin sharks?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>mounted on friggin sharks ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>mounted on friggin sharks?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31297816</id>
	<title>Re:They have *already* crossed an ocean</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267296300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe the solution is to use EMP guns... though, then they would become shielded against such attacks so perhaps we need guns that are pulse and emp weapon capable.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe the solution is to use EMP guns... though , then they would become shielded against such attacks so perhaps we need guns that are pulse and emp weapon capable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe the solution is to use EMP guns... though, then they would become shielded against such attacks so perhaps we need guns that are pulse and emp weapon capable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296576</id>
	<title>Re:Arm your citizens...</title>
	<author>wisnoskij</author>
	<datestamp>1267285440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And what happens when the first citizen used his rifle and training to steal or kill?</htmltext>
<tokenext>And what happens when the first citizen used his rifle and training to steal or kill ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And what happens when the first citizen used his rifle and training to steal or kill?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296990</id>
	<title>Re:Arm your citizens...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267290000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You forgot to post a reference to the US murder rate - remind me again, please?</p><p>(And yes, I'm aware that some countries manage to have lower murder rates even with guns allowed, <i>but the US is not one of those countries</i>. So how US citizens behave is of interest, when we're talking about all US citizens walking around with guns.)</p><p>Oh yes, and let's also compare that murder rate, to the number of people murdered by these imaginary terrorist operated drones.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You forgot to post a reference to the US murder rate - remind me again , please ?
( And yes , I 'm aware that some countries manage to have lower murder rates even with guns allowed , but the US is not one of those countries .
So how US citizens behave is of interest , when we 're talking about all US citizens walking around with guns .
) Oh yes , and let 's also compare that murder rate , to the number of people murdered by these imaginary terrorist operated drones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forgot to post a reference to the US murder rate - remind me again, please?
(And yes, I'm aware that some countries manage to have lower murder rates even with guns allowed, but the US is not one of those countries.
So how US citizens behave is of interest, when we're talking about all US citizens walking around with guns.
)Oh yes, and let's also compare that murder rate, to the number of people murdered by these imaginary terrorist operated drones.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31297512</id>
	<title>The real questions is why do they cost 3 million?</title>
	<author>Kral\_Blbec</author>
	<datestamp>1267294860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For the prototype models, I can see why it would be so expensive. However now that the tech has progressed and can be duplicated in a $500 kit there is no reason for the price to stay that high for new models.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For the prototype models , I can see why it would be so expensive .
However now that the tech has progressed and can be duplicated in a $ 500 kit there is no reason for the price to stay that high for new models .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the prototype models, I can see why it would be so expensive.
However now that the tech has progressed and can be duplicated in a $500 kit there is no reason for the price to stay that high for new models.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296968</id>
	<title>Re:Defense?</title>
	<author>Rogerborg</author>
	<datestamp>1267289760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Did you forget?  September 11th was a declaration of war on us.  We were forced to retaliate.  There's a <a href="http://www.aeromental.net/2010/02/25/an-animated-gif-that-explains-the-problem-between-usa-al-qaeda-and-irak/" title="aeromental.net">comprehensive 10 second video explanation here</a> [aeromental.net].</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you forget ?
September 11th was a declaration of war on us .
We were forced to retaliate .
There 's a comprehensive 10 second video explanation here [ aeromental.net ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you forget?
September 11th was a declaration of war on us.
We were forced to retaliate.
There's a comprehensive 10 second video explanation here [aeromental.net].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296762</id>
	<title>Re:Defense?</title>
	<author>Clover\_Kicker</author>
	<datestamp>1267287300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And we all know how well that turned out for Ed...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And we all know how well that turned out for Ed.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And we all know how well that turned out for Ed...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31297648</id>
	<title>Re:I'll probably regret this.... but...</title>
	<author>Kral\_Blbec</author>
	<datestamp>1267295520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm sure I will be flamed for this but here goes...<br> <br>With how easy this actually would be do plan and carry out, do you really think that nobody hasn't already thought of it? National defense/intelligence is kind of a matter where you never really hear about the big successes, just the proclaim over failures. I have no numbers to really prove anything, but I am absolutely certain that there have been significant wins on the part of the intelligence community that have already foiled such plans many times already. There are a lot of good people working to make sure that these things dont happen, and the people never really hear about them. We just hear about bad apples and mismanaged government work, which, unfortunately there is a lot of as well. <br> <br>Note: I am NOT trying to defend DHS/NSA/CIA for everything they do. I think there are many many things that have happened in the past few years which are completely unnecessary, unconstitutional, unamerican, and ineffective. That comes from when the politicians get their fingers in the pie and don't let those qualified and capable to do the job actually do it.<br> <br>I take the LACK of such events to be a large indicator that despite the problems there are with intelligence/security, there have been many unreported success stories.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure I will be flamed for this but here goes... With how easy this actually would be do plan and carry out , do you really think that nobody has n't already thought of it ?
National defense/intelligence is kind of a matter where you never really hear about the big successes , just the proclaim over failures .
I have no numbers to really prove anything , but I am absolutely certain that there have been significant wins on the part of the intelligence community that have already foiled such plans many times already .
There are a lot of good people working to make sure that these things dont happen , and the people never really hear about them .
We just hear about bad apples and mismanaged government work , which , unfortunately there is a lot of as well .
Note : I am NOT trying to defend DHS/NSA/CIA for everything they do .
I think there are many many things that have happened in the past few years which are completely unnecessary , unconstitutional , unamerican , and ineffective .
That comes from when the politicians get their fingers in the pie and do n't let those qualified and capable to do the job actually do it .
I take the LACK of such events to be a large indicator that despite the problems there are with intelligence/security , there have been many unreported success stories .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure I will be flamed for this but here goes... With how easy this actually would be do plan and carry out, do you really think that nobody hasn't already thought of it?
National defense/intelligence is kind of a matter where you never really hear about the big successes, just the proclaim over failures.
I have no numbers to really prove anything, but I am absolutely certain that there have been significant wins on the part of the intelligence community that have already foiled such plans many times already.
There are a lot of good people working to make sure that these things dont happen, and the people never really hear about them.
We just hear about bad apples and mismanaged government work, which, unfortunately there is a lot of as well.
Note: I am NOT trying to defend DHS/NSA/CIA for everything they do.
I think there are many many things that have happened in the past few years which are completely unnecessary, unconstitutional, unamerican, and ineffective.
That comes from when the politicians get their fingers in the pie and don't let those qualified and capable to do the job actually do it.
I take the LACK of such events to be a large indicator that despite the problems there are with intelligence/security, there have been many unreported success stories.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296598</id>
	<title>Re:Defense?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267285620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>As US war hero <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley\_Butler" title="wikipedia.org">Maj General S.Butler</a> [wikipedia.org], the most highly decorated Marine by the time of his death (not to mention also single-handedly preventing the closest <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business\_Plot" title="wikipedia.org">coup d&rsquo;&#233;tat overthrow of a United States President</a> [wikipedia.org]),  described US foreign "defense" policy way back in the 1930's:<p><div class="quote"><p>I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class thug for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make <b>Haiti</b> and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As US war hero Maj General S.Butler [ wikipedia.org ] , the most highly decorated Marine by the time of his death ( not to mention also single-handedly preventing the closest coup d      tat overthrow of a United States President [ wikipedia.org ] ) , described US foreign " defense " policy way back in the 1930 's : I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class thug for Big Business , for Wall Street and the bankers .
In short , I was a racketeer , a gangster for capitalism .
I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914 .
I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in .
I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street .
I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912 .
I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916 .
I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903 .
In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested .
Looking back on it , I might have given Al Capone a few hints .
The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts .
I operated on three continents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As US war hero Maj General S.Butler [wikipedia.org], the most highly decorated Marine by the time of his death (not to mention also single-handedly preventing the closest coup d’état overthrow of a United States President [wikipedia.org]),  described US foreign "defense" policy way back in the 1930's:I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class thug for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers.
In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.
I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914.
I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in.
I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street.
I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912.
I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916.
I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903.
In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested.
Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints.
The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts.
I operated on three continents.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31297338</id>
	<title>Re:Arm your citizens...</title>
	<author>IDtheTarget</author>
	<datestamp>1267292940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It would seem to me if every citizen knew how to properly shoot a rifle, odds are pretty good one of those things could be knocked out of the sky with a barrett.  It would cost all of us a heck of a lot less money too.

In fact... this is exactly the sort of thing the 2nd amendment was written for.  "The people" defending themselves from attack.</p></div><p>Look, I'm a strong proponent of the 2nd Amendment, and a licensed concealed-carry instructor to boot.  And having a bunch of citizens attempt to shoot down a drone is simply a BAD IDEA.  What goes up must come down, no?  Every year on the 4th of July, some idiot kills a completely innocent bystander because he decided to shoot up in the air, not realizing that the bullets have to land somewhere.

Instead, we'd be better off looking at taking <a href="http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/abl/index.html" title="boeing.com" rel="nofollow">airborne missile-defense laser weapons</a> [boeing.com] and adapting them to ground-based installations.  Of course, these drones are small, fast, and stealthy, so we would probably have to include a <a href="http://tech.mit.edu/V121/N63/Stealth.63f.html" title="mit.edu" rel="nofollow">system to find the drones in real-time</a> [mit.edu] and link that system to the ground-based air defense. We'd still have to worry about legitimate air-traffic, and depending upon the strength of the lasers, possibly objects in low-earth-orbit.  But while it would probably be way too expensive a solution to put into place, it would be way more safe than a bunch of us gun-owners trying to shoot down a drone!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It would seem to me if every citizen knew how to properly shoot a rifle , odds are pretty good one of those things could be knocked out of the sky with a barrett .
It would cost all of us a heck of a lot less money too .
In fact... this is exactly the sort of thing the 2nd amendment was written for .
" The people " defending themselves from attack.Look , I 'm a strong proponent of the 2nd Amendment , and a licensed concealed-carry instructor to boot .
And having a bunch of citizens attempt to shoot down a drone is simply a BAD IDEA .
What goes up must come down , no ?
Every year on the 4th of July , some idiot kills a completely innocent bystander because he decided to shoot up in the air , not realizing that the bullets have to land somewhere .
Instead , we 'd be better off looking at taking airborne missile-defense laser weapons [ boeing.com ] and adapting them to ground-based installations .
Of course , these drones are small , fast , and stealthy , so we would probably have to include a system to find the drones in real-time [ mit.edu ] and link that system to the ground-based air defense .
We 'd still have to worry about legitimate air-traffic , and depending upon the strength of the lasers , possibly objects in low-earth-orbit .
But while it would probably be way too expensive a solution to put into place , it would be way more safe than a bunch of us gun-owners trying to shoot down a drone !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would seem to me if every citizen knew how to properly shoot a rifle, odds are pretty good one of those things could be knocked out of the sky with a barrett.
It would cost all of us a heck of a lot less money too.
In fact... this is exactly the sort of thing the 2nd amendment was written for.
"The people" defending themselves from attack.Look, I'm a strong proponent of the 2nd Amendment, and a licensed concealed-carry instructor to boot.
And having a bunch of citizens attempt to shoot down a drone is simply a BAD IDEA.
What goes up must come down, no?
Every year on the 4th of July, some idiot kills a completely innocent bystander because he decided to shoot up in the air, not realizing that the bullets have to land somewhere.
Instead, we'd be better off looking at taking airborne missile-defense laser weapons [boeing.com] and adapting them to ground-based installations.
Of course, these drones are small, fast, and stealthy, so we would probably have to include a system to find the drones in real-time [mit.edu] and link that system to the ground-based air defense.
We'd still have to worry about legitimate air-traffic, and depending upon the strength of the lasers, possibly objects in low-earth-orbit.
But while it would probably be way too expensive a solution to put into place, it would be way more safe than a bunch of us gun-owners trying to shoot down a drone!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31297300</id>
	<title>Terror weapon</title>
	<author>oh2</author>
	<datestamp>1267292700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Consider a small freighter, 200 km off New York. It launches a few hundred small unmanned planes, guided by a small computer autopilot. Each plane carries four thermite stick bombs, similar to the ones used in WWII. When the planes reach the vicinity of New York they climb to a few hundred meters altitude and start dropping the thermite devices. What was cutting edge tech 70 years ago is garage tech today.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Consider a small freighter , 200 km off New York .
It launches a few hundred small unmanned planes , guided by a small computer autopilot .
Each plane carries four thermite stick bombs , similar to the ones used in WWII .
When the planes reach the vicinity of New York they climb to a few hundred meters altitude and start dropping the thermite devices .
What was cutting edge tech 70 years ago is garage tech today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Consider a small freighter, 200 km off New York.
It launches a few hundred small unmanned planes, guided by a small computer autopilot.
Each plane carries four thermite stick bombs, similar to the ones used in WWII.
When the planes reach the vicinity of New York they climb to a few hundred meters altitude and start dropping the thermite devices.
What was cutting edge tech 70 years ago is garage tech today.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296688</id>
	<title>Freakin Laser Beams...</title>
	<author>RockClimbingFool</author>
	<datestamp>1267286520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seriously.  If we can shoot down <a href="http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/02/12/176220/Directed-Energy-Weapon-Downs-Mosquitos" title="slashdot.org">mosquitos</a> [slashdot.org] with optically guided lasers for $50, surely we can shoot down drones?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously .
If we can shoot down mosquitos [ slashdot.org ] with optically guided lasers for $ 50 , surely we can shoot down drones ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously.
If we can shoot down mosquitos [slashdot.org] with optically guided lasers for $50, surely we can shoot down drones?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296506</id>
	<title>DOS WAR</title>
	<author>gutnor</author>
	<datestamp>1267284480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>500$ per drone - $3 000 000 to destroy a drone<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... smell like we could get a nice DOS type war</htmltext>
<tokenext>500 $ per drone - $ 3 000 000 to destroy a drone ... smell like we could get a nice DOS type war</tokentext>
<sentencetext>500$ per drone - $3 000 000 to destroy a drone ... smell like we could get a nice DOS type war</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296664</id>
	<title>Weapons arn't the problem.</title>
	<author>pigpilot</author>
	<datestamp>1267286220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The article reads like an attempt to stir up a panic and get loads of tax dollars thrown at a simple problem.


Once a drone is detected then they can easily be take out.


Home made ones that 'terrorists' might have are vulnerable to someone with a shotgun or a hunting rifle.  I'm sure the first attempt to hit the White House with a GPS controlled drone will make good target practice for the snipers on the roof.


Larger and faster ones would stand little chance against someone chasing and shooting from a Police helicopter.


And the really fast ones, that even America doesn't have yet, they can be treated as normal foes and the air force can have them.


Care needs to be taken not to deploy defensive missiles that cause a greater danger than the attacking weapons.  I seem to remember that when Isreal became a target for Iraq's missiles the Patriots used to hit them were nearly as dangerouse as the incoming Scuds to the people on the ground.


The real problem isn't the weapons to shoot the drones down, it's the ability to detect and track them.  I doubt much of the USA is covered by radar that could track small drones flying at rooftop height.


But I think upgrading radar systems and air traffic control is a harder sell than nice expensive weapons.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The article reads like an attempt to stir up a panic and get loads of tax dollars thrown at a simple problem .
Once a drone is detected then they can easily be take out .
Home made ones that 'terrorists ' might have are vulnerable to someone with a shotgun or a hunting rifle .
I 'm sure the first attempt to hit the White House with a GPS controlled drone will make good target practice for the snipers on the roof .
Larger and faster ones would stand little chance against someone chasing and shooting from a Police helicopter .
And the really fast ones , that even America does n't have yet , they can be treated as normal foes and the air force can have them .
Care needs to be taken not to deploy defensive missiles that cause a greater danger than the attacking weapons .
I seem to remember that when Isreal became a target for Iraq 's missiles the Patriots used to hit them were nearly as dangerouse as the incoming Scuds to the people on the ground .
The real problem is n't the weapons to shoot the drones down , it 's the ability to detect and track them .
I doubt much of the USA is covered by radar that could track small drones flying at rooftop height .
But I think upgrading radar systems and air traffic control is a harder sell than nice expensive weapons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article reads like an attempt to stir up a panic and get loads of tax dollars thrown at a simple problem.
Once a drone is detected then they can easily be take out.
Home made ones that 'terrorists' might have are vulnerable to someone with a shotgun or a hunting rifle.
I'm sure the first attempt to hit the White House with a GPS controlled drone will make good target practice for the snipers on the roof.
Larger and faster ones would stand little chance against someone chasing and shooting from a Police helicopter.
And the really fast ones, that even America doesn't have yet, they can be treated as normal foes and the air force can have them.
Care needs to be taken not to deploy defensive missiles that cause a greater danger than the attacking weapons.
I seem to remember that when Isreal became a target for Iraq's missiles the Patriots used to hit them were nearly as dangerouse as the incoming Scuds to the people on the ground.
The real problem isn't the weapons to shoot the drones down, it's the ability to detect and track them.
I doubt much of the USA is covered by radar that could track small drones flying at rooftop height.
But I think upgrading radar systems and air traffic control is a harder sell than nice expensive weapons.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296588</id>
	<title>Re:Defense?</title>
	<author>Dachannien</author>
	<datestamp>1267285560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The best defense is a good offense.  You know who said that?  Mel, the cook on "Alice".</p><p>
&nbsp; - Ed Gruberman</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The best defense is a good offense .
You know who said that ?
Mel , the cook on " Alice " .
  - Ed Gruberman</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The best defense is a good offense.
You know who said that?
Mel, the cook on "Alice".
  - Ed Gruberman</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31298096</id>
	<title>Re:Defense?</title>
	<author>b4upoo</author>
	<datestamp>1267297860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>     Tim McVeigh with a computer driven drone might be a real problem. Although high payload weapons are unlikely for domestic nuts a grenade size bomb could be flown to a target with readily available off the shelf components. Worse yet, it wouldn't take a techie to devise such a weapon. Almost any teenager could devise such a weapon if motivated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tim McVeigh with a computer driven drone might be a real problem .
Although high payload weapons are unlikely for domestic nuts a grenade size bomb could be flown to a target with readily available off the shelf components .
Worse yet , it would n't take a techie to devise such a weapon .
Almost any teenager could devise such a weapon if motivated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>     Tim McVeigh with a computer driven drone might be a real problem.
Although high payload weapons are unlikely for domestic nuts a grenade size bomb could be flown to a target with readily available off the shelf components.
Worse yet, it wouldn't take a techie to devise such a weapon.
Almost any teenager could devise such a weapon if motivated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296640</id>
	<title>Lasers?</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1267286100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Would it be possible to build tripod mounted lasers to lock onto a drone and just keep firing at it until the battery explodes / circuitry melts? Locking on should be easy since $500 drones won't be going at 200 meters per second. A laser working with household level power should be able to fry a drone in a few minutes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would it be possible to build tripod mounted lasers to lock onto a drone and just keep firing at it until the battery explodes / circuitry melts ?
Locking on should be easy since $ 500 drones wo n't be going at 200 meters per second .
A laser working with household level power should be able to fry a drone in a few minutes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would it be possible to build tripod mounted lasers to lock onto a drone and just keep firing at it until the battery explodes / circuitry melts?
Locking on should be easy since $500 drones won't be going at 200 meters per second.
A laser working with household level power should be able to fry a drone in a few minutes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31299736</id>
	<title>Might as well</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267266180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We might as well use "advanced" paper airplanes you can buy at Fry's or your hobby store.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p><p>F-16s flying high in the sky knocking stuff off?  A couple million.<br>Small UAV drone cost?  $500.00.<br>30 "advanced" paper airplanes at $30.00 a plane using RFID tags to track them?  Priceless....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We might as well use " advanced " paper airplanes you can buy at Fry 's or your hobby store .
: - ) F-16s flying high in the sky knocking stuff off ?
A couple million.Small UAV drone cost ?
$ 500.00.30 " advanced " paper airplanes at $ 30.00 a plane using RFID tags to track them ?
Priceless... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We might as well use "advanced" paper airplanes you can buy at Fry's or your hobby store.
:-)F-16s flying high in the sky knocking stuff off?
A couple million.Small UAV drone cost?
$500.00.30 "advanced" paper airplanes at $30.00 a plane using RFID tags to track them?
Priceless....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296826</id>
	<title>It's fucked up</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267288080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No a landmine, not a soldier, this is the worst weapon we've yet conceived in its ability to do discriminate damage at a distance. There is now good reason for Afghanistan to attack America as there are soldiers sitting on American soil killing their people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No a landmine , not a soldier , this is the worst weapon we 've yet conceived in its ability to do discriminate damage at a distance .
There is now good reason for Afghanistan to attack America as there are soldiers sitting on American soil killing their people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No a landmine, not a soldier, this is the worst weapon we've yet conceived in its ability to do discriminate damage at a distance.
There is now good reason for Afghanistan to attack America as there are soldiers sitting on American soil killing their people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31297508</id>
	<title>Re:They have *already* crossed an ocean</title>
	<author>istartedi</author>
	<datestamp>1267294800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was gonna say, "yes they will--in an uninspected shipping container".</p><p>Either that, or any sailing vessel.  Getting the drones near the coast
wouldn't be difficult.  People are thinking like fat lazy Americans who want
 to spend $1 billion so they can do remote killing 9 to 5, and I say that as
an American myself.</p><p>The bad guys don't work that way.  Drug mules wedge themselves into
filthy, dangerous floatin fuel tanks full of cocaine and diesel.  Al qaedas
would think nothing of wedging themselves into a filthy floating fuel tank
full of drones.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was gon na say , " yes they will--in an uninspected shipping container " .Either that , or any sailing vessel .
Getting the drones near the coast would n't be difficult .
People are thinking like fat lazy Americans who want to spend $ 1 billion so they can do remote killing 9 to 5 , and I say that as an American myself.The bad guys do n't work that way .
Drug mules wedge themselves into filthy , dangerous floatin fuel tanks full of cocaine and diesel .
Al qaedas would think nothing of wedging themselves into a filthy floating fuel tank full of drones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was gonna say, "yes they will--in an uninspected shipping container".Either that, or any sailing vessel.
Getting the drones near the coast
wouldn't be difficult.
People are thinking like fat lazy Americans who want
 to spend $1 billion so they can do remote killing 9 to 5, and I say that as
an American myself.The bad guys don't work that way.
Drug mules wedge themselves into
filthy, dangerous floatin fuel tanks full of cocaine and diesel.
Al qaedas
would think nothing of wedging themselves into a filthy floating fuel tank
full of drones.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31297170</id>
	<title>Re:Arm your citizens...</title>
	<author>gilgongo</author>
	<datestamp>1267291620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In fact... this is exactly the sort of thing the 2nd amendment was written for.  "The people" defending themselves from attack.</p></div><p>I'm afraid you'll find that armed conflict has progressed rather in favour of the state since that amendment was written. At least, it's fairly difficult for private citizens to own tanks and helicopter gun-ships. How long you think a few thousand people carrying small arms are going to last against a fuel air explosive? One, perhaps two seconds maximum I would say.</p><p>No. The 2nd amendment is there to make sure certain, shall we say, "special" interest groups in the population can keep certain others at bay. Let's leave it there before anyone mentions the Ku Klux Klan.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In fact... this is exactly the sort of thing the 2nd amendment was written for .
" The people " defending themselves from attack.I 'm afraid you 'll find that armed conflict has progressed rather in favour of the state since that amendment was written .
At least , it 's fairly difficult for private citizens to own tanks and helicopter gun-ships .
How long you think a few thousand people carrying small arms are going to last against a fuel air explosive ?
One , perhaps two seconds maximum I would say.No .
The 2nd amendment is there to make sure certain , shall we say , " special " interest groups in the population can keep certain others at bay .
Let 's leave it there before anyone mentions the Ku Klux Klan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In fact... this is exactly the sort of thing the 2nd amendment was written for.
"The people" defending themselves from attack.I'm afraid you'll find that armed conflict has progressed rather in favour of the state since that amendment was written.
At least, it's fairly difficult for private citizens to own tanks and helicopter gun-ships.
How long you think a few thousand people carrying small arms are going to last against a fuel air explosive?
One, perhaps two seconds maximum I would say.No.
The 2nd amendment is there to make sure certain, shall we say, "special" interest groups in the population can keep certain others at bay.
Let's leave it there before anyone mentions the Ku Klux Klan.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31297006</id>
	<title>To Begin With</title>
	<author>LennyP</author>
	<datestamp>1267290180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We should stop selling weapons to everyone and anyone as these same weapons end up being used against us.  We should nationalize the defense industry as part of our military; as great as our military is, is it more than capable of being in charge of it's own weapons production.  As long as our "defense" industries are profit based, they will require -- and "our" government will provide -- war.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We should stop selling weapons to everyone and anyone as these same weapons end up being used against us .
We should nationalize the defense industry as part of our military ; as great as our military is , is it more than capable of being in charge of it 's own weapons production .
As long as our " defense " industries are profit based , they will require -- and " our " government will provide -- war .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We should stop selling weapons to everyone and anyone as these same weapons end up being used against us.
We should nationalize the defense industry as part of our military; as great as our military is, is it more than capable of being in charge of it's own weapons production.
As long as our "defense" industries are profit based, they will require -- and "our" government will provide -- war.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296538</id>
	<title>There is a good, cheap counter</title>
	<author>baxnick</author>
	<datestamp>1267284900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does the counter to this threat really need to be high tech and expensive?

Clearly the perfect counter to UAVs are UAVs. You could take a few gamers and pay them minumum wage to sit around in a room on call. When a possible threat is detected a UAV is launched and remote control is handed over to an operator and they bring down the threat or surveil and report, then they can go back to their wow raid or play flight sims or whatever it is they want to do to keep busy in the meantime. Step it up a notch by training operators/doing background checks/having distributed locations etc but it's still pretty cheap. You don't need many people in order to have it so that there will always be someone ready to take over at a moments notice.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does the counter to this threat really need to be high tech and expensive ?
Clearly the perfect counter to UAVs are UAVs .
You could take a few gamers and pay them minumum wage to sit around in a room on call .
When a possible threat is detected a UAV is launched and remote control is handed over to an operator and they bring down the threat or surveil and report , then they can go back to their wow raid or play flight sims or whatever it is they want to do to keep busy in the meantime .
Step it up a notch by training operators/doing background checks/having distributed locations etc but it 's still pretty cheap .
You do n't need many people in order to have it so that there will always be someone ready to take over at a moments notice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does the counter to this threat really need to be high tech and expensive?
Clearly the perfect counter to UAVs are UAVs.
You could take a few gamers and pay them minumum wage to sit around in a room on call.
When a possible threat is detected a UAV is launched and remote control is handed over to an operator and they bring down the threat or surveil and report, then they can go back to their wow raid or play flight sims or whatever it is they want to do to keep busy in the meantime.
Step it up a notch by training operators/doing background checks/having distributed locations etc but it's still pretty cheap.
You don't need many people in order to have it so that there will always be someone ready to take over at a moments notice.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31297168</id>
	<title>Re:Defense?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267291620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Care to name all of these conflicts we supposedly started?</p></div><p>Care to name all the times since 1945 that a foreign government has fired shots on American soil?  Maybe to explain what the governments of Korea, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Panama, Grenada, Argentina, Chile, Philippines, Cuba, Indonesia and the Dominican Republic hoped to gain by their acts of aggression against the US?</p><p>The US has a history of responding to tough talk by petty dictators with marines and bombs.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Care to name all of these conflicts we supposedly started ? Care to name all the times since 1945 that a foreign government has fired shots on American soil ?
Maybe to explain what the governments of Korea , Vietnam , Nicaragua , Panama , Grenada , Argentina , Chile , Philippines , Cuba , Indonesia and the Dominican Republic hoped to gain by their acts of aggression against the US ? The US has a history of responding to tough talk by petty dictators with marines and bombs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Care to name all of these conflicts we supposedly started?Care to name all the times since 1945 that a foreign government has fired shots on American soil?
Maybe to explain what the governments of Korea, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Panama, Grenada, Argentina, Chile, Philippines, Cuba, Indonesia and the Dominican Republic hoped to gain by their acts of aggression against the US?The US has a history of responding to tough talk by petty dictators with marines and bombs.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296868</id>
	<title>I'll probably regret this.... but...</title>
	<author>GuyFawkes</author>
	<datestamp>1267288440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A 500 buck drone, capable of carrying 250g of c4, with a range of 5 km and an endurance of 30 minutes, could bring a country to its knees.</p><p>Targets?</p><p>Satellite dish LNBs, High Tension cable insulators, refinery pipework, radar dishes on weaponry, etc etc etc.</p><p>use two, the first the blow an access into a window, and EVERY important computer is a target, bank computers, traffic control computers, air traffic control, industrial process, etc etc etc.</p><p>Use 5, meshed together, and the fifth could be flown inside a rabbit warren, SCRAM control sensors in a reactor plant, you name it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A 500 buck drone , capable of carrying 250g of c4 , with a range of 5 km and an endurance of 30 minutes , could bring a country to its knees.Targets ? Satellite dish LNBs , High Tension cable insulators , refinery pipework , radar dishes on weaponry , etc etc etc.use two , the first the blow an access into a window , and EVERY important computer is a target , bank computers , traffic control computers , air traffic control , industrial process , etc etc etc.Use 5 , meshed together , and the fifth could be flown inside a rabbit warren , SCRAM control sensors in a reactor plant , you name it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A 500 buck drone, capable of carrying 250g of c4, with a range of 5 km and an endurance of 30 minutes, could bring a country to its knees.Targets?Satellite dish LNBs, High Tension cable insulators, refinery pipework, radar dishes on weaponry, etc etc etc.use two, the first the blow an access into a window, and EVERY important computer is a target, bank computers, traffic control computers, air traffic control, industrial process, etc etc etc.Use 5, meshed together, and the fifth could be flown inside a rabbit warren, SCRAM control sensors in a reactor plant, you name it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296746</id>
	<title>Re:DOS WAR</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267287120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually smells like the SDI that precipitated the fall of the USSR.. only in reverse.</p><p>As long as we give billions of dollars to the military/security interests, to protect us against marginal or very distant threats, they, and the terrorists, win.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually smells like the SDI that precipitated the fall of the USSR.. only in reverse.As long as we give billions of dollars to the military/security interests , to protect us against marginal or very distant threats , they , and the terrorists , win .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually smells like the SDI that precipitated the fall of the USSR.. only in reverse.As long as we give billions of dollars to the military/security interests, to protect us against marginal or very distant threats, they, and the terrorists, win.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296506</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31297112</id>
	<title>Re:Defense?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267291200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good start. Interesting how the major network &lsquo;news' seems to get it's funding from the military/big pharma complex. For an interesting look at the tangled webs we weave, google Adam Curtis. Check out all his work - it's not just the US, as such. It Felt Like a Kiss is latest - a must see, does focus on the US. Much of his work is available via the Internet Archive. Watch carefully- more than once... He makes you want to know more and so much more there is to know.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good start .
Interesting how the major network    news ' seems to get it 's funding from the military/big pharma complex .
For an interesting look at the tangled webs we weave , google Adam Curtis .
Check out all his work - it 's not just the US , as such .
It Felt Like a Kiss is latest - a must see , does focus on the US .
Much of his work is available via the Internet Archive .
Watch carefully- more than once... He makes you want to know more and so much more there is to know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good start.
Interesting how the major network ‘news' seems to get it's funding from the military/big pharma complex.
For an interesting look at the tangled webs we weave, google Adam Curtis.
Check out all his work - it's not just the US, as such.
It Felt Like a Kiss is latest - a must see, does focus on the US.
Much of his work is available via the Internet Archive.
Watch carefully- more than once... He makes you want to know more and so much more there is to know.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296478</id>
	<title>Defense?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267283880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Defense?  The purpose of the US military as per the US Constitution?  Heck, our military and political leaders forgot about defense a loooong time ago.  It's been all about offense since the end of WWII.  The US hasn't been involved in any military action that we didn't start in the first place, so this should be a tough one for the brass to wrap their heads around.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Defense ?
The purpose of the US military as per the US Constitution ?
Heck , our military and political leaders forgot about defense a loooong time ago .
It 's been all about offense since the end of WWII .
The US has n't been involved in any military action that we did n't start in the first place , so this should be a tough one for the brass to wrap their heads around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Defense?
The purpose of the US military as per the US Constitution?
Heck, our military and political leaders forgot about defense a loooong time ago.
It's been all about offense since the end of WWII.
The US hasn't been involved in any military action that we didn't start in the first place, so this should be a tough one for the brass to wrap their heads around.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31307716</id>
	<title>Stanislaw Lem predicted all this in 1986</title>
	<author>the\_olo</author>
	<datestamp>1267386300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The polish SF writer Stanislaw Lem has predicted the evolution of warfare we're observing today <a href="http://world.std.com/~mmcirvin/vitrifaxrevs.html#onehumanminute" title="std.com">as far back as 1986</a> [std.com]:</p><blockquote><div><p>The really interesting essay of the three, and the one with the greatest connection to the rest of Lem's work, is the middle one, "The Upside-Down Evolution." Lem announces that, by unspecified means, he's gotten hold of "a military history of the twenty-first century," and proceeds to describe the advent and evolution of warfare by micro- and nano-robots.</p></div></blockquote><p>It's been some time since I read it, but I recall him having envisioned evolution of war machinery as it became more and more miniaturized and swarm-like, until it was completely impossible to know if and who was attacking who. A country was able to e.g. form giant undetectable light-focusing lens overlaid in the upper layers of the atmosphere to influence agricultural yield of another country and affect its economy without needing to resort to direct contact and observable violence.</p><p>Very interesting to see the actual 21st century technology follow the exact path predicted by Stanislaw Lem. And we're only at its beginning.</p><p>All in all, a recommended read (like many other works by Lem).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The polish SF writer Stanislaw Lem has predicted the evolution of warfare we 're observing today as far back as 1986 [ std.com ] : The really interesting essay of the three , and the one with the greatest connection to the rest of Lem 's work , is the middle one , " The Upside-Down Evolution .
" Lem announces that , by unspecified means , he 's gotten hold of " a military history of the twenty-first century , " and proceeds to describe the advent and evolution of warfare by micro- and nano-robots.It 's been some time since I read it , but I recall him having envisioned evolution of war machinery as it became more and more miniaturized and swarm-like , until it was completely impossible to know if and who was attacking who .
A country was able to e.g .
form giant undetectable light-focusing lens overlaid in the upper layers of the atmosphere to influence agricultural yield of another country and affect its economy without needing to resort to direct contact and observable violence.Very interesting to see the actual 21st century technology follow the exact path predicted by Stanislaw Lem .
And we 're only at its beginning.All in all , a recommended read ( like many other works by Lem ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The polish SF writer Stanislaw Lem has predicted the evolution of warfare we're observing today as far back as 1986 [std.com]:The really interesting essay of the three, and the one with the greatest connection to the rest of Lem's work, is the middle one, "The Upside-Down Evolution.
" Lem announces that, by unspecified means, he's gotten hold of "a military history of the twenty-first century," and proceeds to describe the advent and evolution of warfare by micro- and nano-robots.It's been some time since I read it, but I recall him having envisioned evolution of war machinery as it became more and more miniaturized and swarm-like, until it was completely impossible to know if and who was attacking who.
A country was able to e.g.
form giant undetectable light-focusing lens overlaid in the upper layers of the atmosphere to influence agricultural yield of another country and affect its economy without needing to resort to direct contact and observable violence.Very interesting to see the actual 21st century technology follow the exact path predicted by Stanislaw Lem.
And we're only at its beginning.All in all, a recommended read (like many other works by Lem).
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31299096</id>
	<title>Re:Arm your citizens...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267304040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean like what our soldiers do to brown people?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean like what our soldiers do to brown people ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean like what our soldiers do to brown people?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31297364</id>
	<title>Cheap countermeasures</title>
	<author>PPH</author>
	<datestamp>1267293180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are some <a href="http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/02/12/176220/Directed-Energy-Weapon-Downs-Mosquitos" title="slashdot.org">inexpensive technologies</a> [slashdot.org] that could be scaled up a bit to knock down small drones.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are some inexpensive technologies [ slashdot.org ] that could be scaled up a bit to knock down small drones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are some inexpensive technologies [slashdot.org] that could be scaled up a bit to knock down small drones.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31297400</id>
	<title>A V-1 with better guidance</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267293600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
It's surprising that nobody has replicated the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-1\_flying\_bomb" title="wikipedia.org">V-1 "flying bomb"</a> [wikipedia.org] of WWII.  That was the first cruise missile, and wasn't expensive. Carrying 850Kg of explosive, it could take out medium-sized buildings.  Its main limitation was poor guidance.  The Nazis fired about 8,000 at London, but couldn't hit a target smaller than a big city.  The guidance system was a gyro/pendulum/magnetic compass system, and just flew the thing in a straight line until a small propeller/odometer had counted enough turns.
</p><p>
Since it flew straight and level, it was easy to shoot down.  Still, "easy to shoot down" meant hundreds of interceptors and hundreds of anti-aircraft guns, and the success rate at shoot-down only reached 75\% or so.
</p><p>
With a modern guidance system, one that could hit a target and didn't fly straight and level, these things could be formidable weapons today.  If someone launched twenty of them, each programmed to take a different path to the same target, some of them would get through.  Nobody has enough interceptors any more to take out an attack like that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's surprising that nobody has replicated the V-1 " flying bomb " [ wikipedia.org ] of WWII .
That was the first cruise missile , and was n't expensive .
Carrying 850Kg of explosive , it could take out medium-sized buildings .
Its main limitation was poor guidance .
The Nazis fired about 8,000 at London , but could n't hit a target smaller than a big city .
The guidance system was a gyro/pendulum/magnetic compass system , and just flew the thing in a straight line until a small propeller/odometer had counted enough turns .
Since it flew straight and level , it was easy to shoot down .
Still , " easy to shoot down " meant hundreds of interceptors and hundreds of anti-aircraft guns , and the success rate at shoot-down only reached 75 \ % or so .
With a modern guidance system , one that could hit a target and did n't fly straight and level , these things could be formidable weapons today .
If someone launched twenty of them , each programmed to take a different path to the same target , some of them would get through .
Nobody has enough interceptors any more to take out an attack like that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
It's surprising that nobody has replicated the V-1 "flying bomb" [wikipedia.org] of WWII.
That was the first cruise missile, and wasn't expensive.
Carrying 850Kg of explosive, it could take out medium-sized buildings.
Its main limitation was poor guidance.
The Nazis fired about 8,000 at London, but couldn't hit a target smaller than a big city.
The guidance system was a gyro/pendulum/magnetic compass system, and just flew the thing in a straight line until a small propeller/odometer had counted enough turns.
Since it flew straight and level, it was easy to shoot down.
Still, "easy to shoot down" meant hundreds of interceptors and hundreds of anti-aircraft guns, and the success rate at shoot-down only reached 75\% or so.
With a modern guidance system, one that could hit a target and didn't fly straight and level, these things could be formidable weapons today.
If someone launched twenty of them, each programmed to take a different path to the same target, some of them would get through.
Nobody has enough interceptors any more to take out an attack like that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31315976</id>
	<title>the iPhone will pawn all drones</title>
	<author>valduboisvert</author>
	<datestamp>1267458660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Screw them all drones. I am waiting for the next iPhone gadget that makes possible to shoot down drones with lasers. pew, pew !!

 which reminds me.. I have to buy an iPhone...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Screw them all drones .
I am waiting for the next iPhone gadget that makes possible to shoot down drones with lasers .
pew , pew ! !
which reminds me.. I have to buy an iPhone.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Screw them all drones.
I am waiting for the next iPhone gadget that makes possible to shoot down drones with lasers.
pew, pew !!
which reminds me.. I have to buy an iPhone...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31299336</id>
	<title>Here's how to do it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267262700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BypnhFI7HGY</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = BypnhFI7HGY</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BypnhFI7HGY</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31299086</id>
	<title>Re:DOS WAR</title>
	<author>wagnerrp</author>
	<datestamp>1267303980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Patriot is a 1500lb, Mach 5 missile, with over 100mi range, used against ballistic missiles and high altitude bombers.  Of course its ridiculously overkill against a drone.  Chances are it would end up causing more damage than the drone itself was capable of.  The Avenger system uses Stingers, and while still expensive are only 1/100th the cost.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Patriot is a 1500lb , Mach 5 missile , with over 100mi range , used against ballistic missiles and high altitude bombers .
Of course its ridiculously overkill against a drone .
Chances are it would end up causing more damage than the drone itself was capable of .
The Avenger system uses Stingers , and while still expensive are only 1/100th the cost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Patriot is a 1500lb, Mach 5 missile, with over 100mi range, used against ballistic missiles and high altitude bombers.
Of course its ridiculously overkill against a drone.
Chances are it would end up causing more damage than the drone itself was capable of.
The Avenger system uses Stingers, and while still expensive are only 1/100th the cost.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296506</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296974</id>
	<title>Gotta Feed the Military Industrial Complex</title>
	<author>MarkvW</author>
	<datestamp>1267289820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We gotta keep finding new threats.  Otherwise defense contractor stock would drop!  We can't have that!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We got ta keep finding new threats .
Otherwise defense contractor stock would drop !
We ca n't have that !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We gotta keep finding new threats.
Otherwise defense contractor stock would drop!
We can't have that!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31301090</id>
	<title>Re:I'll probably regret this.... but...</title>
	<author>RzUpAnmsCwrds</author>
	<datestamp>1267279380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>A 500 buck drone, capable of carrying 250g of c4, with a range of 5 km and an endurance of 30 minutes, could bring a country to its knees.</p></div></blockquote><p>Blowing up a power plant or disrupting a power grid doesn't bring us to our knees. We've had massive power outages, we've had plants shut down unexpectedly, we've had days where the market was closed, and we've had days where TV and radio were out.</p><p>There are too many people and too much stuff to take out with a few attacks.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A 500 buck drone , capable of carrying 250g of c4 , with a range of 5 km and an endurance of 30 minutes , could bring a country to its knees.Blowing up a power plant or disrupting a power grid does n't bring us to our knees .
We 've had massive power outages , we 've had plants shut down unexpectedly , we 've had days where the market was closed , and we 've had days where TV and radio were out.There are too many people and too much stuff to take out with a few attacks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A 500 buck drone, capable of carrying 250g of c4, with a range of 5 km and an endurance of 30 minutes, could bring a country to its knees.Blowing up a power plant or disrupting a power grid doesn't bring us to our knees.
We've had massive power outages, we've had plants shut down unexpectedly, we've had days where the market was closed, and we've had days where TV and radio were out.There are too many people and too much stuff to take out with a few attacks.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31300628</id>
	<title>Re:I'll probably regret this.... but...</title>
	<author>Plazmid</author>
	<datestamp>1267275000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Good luck flying inside a building to a target, especially if there's smoke from the explosion. Flying inside closed spaces can be done, it's just hard.

In a place like a nuclear powerplant, where there are armed guards, the UAV's probably going to get shot at.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Good luck flying inside a building to a target , especially if there 's smoke from the explosion .
Flying inside closed spaces can be done , it 's just hard .
In a place like a nuclear powerplant , where there are armed guards , the UAV 's probably going to get shot at .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good luck flying inside a building to a target, especially if there's smoke from the explosion.
Flying inside closed spaces can be done, it's just hard.
In a place like a nuclear powerplant, where there are armed guards, the UAV's probably going to get shot at.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31297144</id>
	<title>Re:There is a good, cheap counter</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1267291440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would disallow WoW, though. If you don't, you never tried to get someone standing a few fights from the boss to do something for your DAMN NOW. You could set the building on fire and they'd first want to finish the boss fight before they start looking for an exit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would disallow WoW , though .
If you do n't , you never tried to get someone standing a few fights from the boss to do something for your DAMN NOW .
You could set the building on fire and they 'd first want to finish the boss fight before they start looking for an exit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would disallow WoW, though.
If you don't, you never tried to get someone standing a few fights from the boss to do something for your DAMN NOW.
You could set the building on fire and they'd first want to finish the boss fight before they start looking for an exit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296538</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31299458</id>
	<title>Re:Defense?</title>
	<author>mano.m</author>
	<datestamp>1267263480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So he served the interests of his country's economy by compromising those of other countries. Bravo, I say.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So he served the interests of his country 's economy by compromising those of other countries .
Bravo , I say .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So he served the interests of his country's economy by compromising those of other countries.
Bravo, I say.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296754</id>
	<title>Relevance To Story?!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267287180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The quote is interesting, but what exactly is the relevance of it to the development of drone and UAVs by US adversaries?</p><p>Yeah I thought so.  I just utterly and completely destroyed you.</p><p>I love how military articles on slashdot always turn into a political flamewar, and gives the US haters an opportunity to bash for no reason.</p><p>This stuff is just offtopic and should be moderated as such.  This is a tech forum, not dkos.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The quote is interesting , but what exactly is the relevance of it to the development of drone and UAVs by US adversaries ? Yeah I thought so .
I just utterly and completely destroyed you.I love how military articles on slashdot always turn into a political flamewar , and gives the US haters an opportunity to bash for no reason.This stuff is just offtopic and should be moderated as such .
This is a tech forum , not dkos .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The quote is interesting, but what exactly is the relevance of it to the development of drone and UAVs by US adversaries?Yeah I thought so.
I just utterly and completely destroyed you.I love how military articles on slashdot always turn into a political flamewar, and gives the US haters an opportunity to bash for no reason.This stuff is just offtopic and should be moderated as such.
This is a tech forum, not dkos.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296782</id>
	<title>Re:Defense?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267287600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Care to name all of these conflicts we supposedly started? Please cite your sources to how we started them too. I think if you take the time to research this subject you're going to get a wicked eye opening.</p></div><p>
Ok, since we are going to have a go of it...
<br>
<br>
1st: Iraq. We invaded Iraq ostensibly to depose a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sadam\_Husein" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Dictator</a> [wikipedia.org], but instead only ended up wreaking havoc on the most politically and socially stable country in the middle east. Anyone who believes Bush seniors decision to invade Iraq following the Kuwait fiasco, needs only come and see me about a bridge I have for sale. The reasons for the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf\_war" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Gulf Ware</a> [wikipedia.org] were largely fabricated at the time by the Kuwaiti Royal family who by no co-incidence happen to be family friends of the Bush family. Whether knowingly or not, George Bush senior involved us in a war which gave the impression to the rest of the world to be an almost completely unwarranted  US invasion of an OPEC nation, for what appeared to be monetary reasons.
<br>
<br>
2nd: Iraq again, Round two, had even less valid reasons, and smelled worse than the first.
<br>
<br>
3rd: Afghanistan. Once again, we invade another country, This time for supporting terrorists, but if you had asked any of the senior Russian military personnel about catching terrorists in Afghanistan, they would have told you to save your effort. Even without US interference, Afghanistan was difficult for the USSR to handle, but then the US provided them with weapons to kill Soviets (and one another) with, but was no where to be found when the killing was over, and it was time to rebuild. We shouldn't have to wonder why the Taliban (who we actually supported at one time) think we're slime.
<br>
<br>
4th: Bay of pigs. You can look that one up on your own time.
<br>
<br>
5th: The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish-American\_War" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Spanish American war</a> [wikipedia.org]. The US on the path to empire takes on those who are in the way.
<br>
<br>
There is plenty more, that was just what I came across in a 10 minute trek through Wikipedia.
<br>
<br>
-=Geoskd</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Care to name all of these conflicts we supposedly started ?
Please cite your sources to how we started them too .
I think if you take the time to research this subject you 're going to get a wicked eye opening .
Ok , since we are going to have a go of it.. . 1st : Iraq .
We invaded Iraq ostensibly to depose a Dictator [ wikipedia.org ] , but instead only ended up wreaking havoc on the most politically and socially stable country in the middle east .
Anyone who believes Bush seniors decision to invade Iraq following the Kuwait fiasco , needs only come and see me about a bridge I have for sale .
The reasons for the Gulf Ware [ wikipedia.org ] were largely fabricated at the time by the Kuwaiti Royal family who by no co-incidence happen to be family friends of the Bush family .
Whether knowingly or not , George Bush senior involved us in a war which gave the impression to the rest of the world to be an almost completely unwarranted US invasion of an OPEC nation , for what appeared to be monetary reasons .
2nd : Iraq again , Round two , had even less valid reasons , and smelled worse than the first .
3rd : Afghanistan .
Once again , we invade another country , This time for supporting terrorists , but if you had asked any of the senior Russian military personnel about catching terrorists in Afghanistan , they would have told you to save your effort .
Even without US interference , Afghanistan was difficult for the USSR to handle , but then the US provided them with weapons to kill Soviets ( and one another ) with , but was no where to be found when the killing was over , and it was time to rebuild .
We should n't have to wonder why the Taliban ( who we actually supported at one time ) think we 're slime .
4th : Bay of pigs .
You can look that one up on your own time .
5th : The Spanish American war [ wikipedia.org ] .
The US on the path to empire takes on those who are in the way .
There is plenty more , that was just what I came across in a 10 minute trek through Wikipedia .
- = Geoskd</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Care to name all of these conflicts we supposedly started?
Please cite your sources to how we started them too.
I think if you take the time to research this subject you're going to get a wicked eye opening.
Ok, since we are going to have a go of it...


1st: Iraq.
We invaded Iraq ostensibly to depose a Dictator [wikipedia.org], but instead only ended up wreaking havoc on the most politically and socially stable country in the middle east.
Anyone who believes Bush seniors decision to invade Iraq following the Kuwait fiasco, needs only come and see me about a bridge I have for sale.
The reasons for the Gulf Ware [wikipedia.org] were largely fabricated at the time by the Kuwaiti Royal family who by no co-incidence happen to be family friends of the Bush family.
Whether knowingly or not, George Bush senior involved us in a war which gave the impression to the rest of the world to be an almost completely unwarranted  US invasion of an OPEC nation, for what appeared to be monetary reasons.
2nd: Iraq again, Round two, had even less valid reasons, and smelled worse than the first.
3rd: Afghanistan.
Once again, we invade another country, This time for supporting terrorists, but if you had asked any of the senior Russian military personnel about catching terrorists in Afghanistan, they would have told you to save your effort.
Even without US interference, Afghanistan was difficult for the USSR to handle, but then the US provided them with weapons to kill Soviets (and one another) with, but was no where to be found when the killing was over, and it was time to rebuild.
We shouldn't have to wonder why the Taliban (who we actually supported at one time) think we're slime.
4th: Bay of pigs.
You can look that one up on your own time.
5th: The Spanish American war [wikipedia.org].
The US on the path to empire takes on those who are in the way.
There is plenty more, that was just what I came across in a 10 minute trek through Wikipedia.
-=Geoskd
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31297320</id>
	<title>Begun, the drone wars have.</title>
	<author>buravirgil</author>
	<datestamp>1267292820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>--Winston Churchill.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>--Winston Churchill .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>--Winston Churchill.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31297020</id>
	<title>Re:I'll probably regret this.... but...</title>
	<author>B1ackDragon</author>
	<datestamp>1267290240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Somebody mod this guy up if only for his nickname.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Somebody mod this guy up if only for his nickname .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Somebody mod this guy up if only for his nickname.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31299434</id>
	<title>Simple</title>
	<author>jxliv7</author>
	<datestamp>1267263300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good grief, just crash a $500 drone into a $500 drone.<br>
&nbsp; <br>But the Pentagon would rather spend 50 times that - $25,000 - to create a committee that spends $250,000 coming up with $2,500,000 ideas that take $25,000,000 in R&amp;D dollars to demonstrate how cost in-effective a $500 drone is.<br>
&nbsp; <br>After all, when the drones are flying over us they don't want to give the local RC club any ideas...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good grief , just crash a $ 500 drone into a $ 500 drone .
  But the Pentagon would rather spend 50 times that - $ 25,000 - to create a committee that spends $ 250,000 coming up with $ 2,500,000 ideas that take $ 25,000,000 in R&amp;D dollars to demonstrate how cost in-effective a $ 500 drone is .
  After all , when the drones are flying over us they do n't want to give the local RC club any ideas.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good grief, just crash a $500 drone into a $500 drone.
  But the Pentagon would rather spend 50 times that - $25,000 - to create a committee that spends $250,000 coming up with $2,500,000 ideas that take $25,000,000 in R&amp;D dollars to demonstrate how cost in-effective a $500 drone is.
  After all, when the drones are flying over us they don't want to give the local RC club any ideas...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1317242_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31297112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1317242_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31300644
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1317242_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31299458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1317242_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31297508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1317242_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1317242_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31302122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1317242_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31297398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31297586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1317242_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1317242_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31297072
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1317242_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31297430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1317242_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31301964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1317242_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31298778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1317242_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1317242_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31297338
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1317242_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31298968
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1317242_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31297648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1317242_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31298250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31300054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1317242_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31303404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1317242_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31297490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1317242_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296702
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1317242_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31305058
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1317242_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1317242_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31297756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1317242_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296522
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1317242_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31305874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1317242_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31299984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1317242_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31299096
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1317242_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31297088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1317242_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296526
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31297496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1317242_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31301268
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1317242_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31297134
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1317242_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31297144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1317242_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31298680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1317242_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31297020
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1317242_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31299092
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1317242_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296754
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1317242_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31301090
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1317242_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31297744
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1317242_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1317242_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296968
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1317242_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31298918
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1317242_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31300534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1317242_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31299174
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1317242_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31297170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1317242_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31298096
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1317242_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1317242_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31299086
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1317242_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31301446
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1317242_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1317242_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1317242_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31430856
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1317242_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31300628
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1317242_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296762
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1317242_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31298528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1317242_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31304248
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1317242_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31301104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1317242_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31305030
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1317242_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31297062
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1317242_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31297816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1317242_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31297302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1317242_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31297168
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_1317242.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296684
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_1317242.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296688
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31302122
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_1317242.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296538
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31297144
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_1317242.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31297300
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_1317242.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31297006
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_1317242.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31297758
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_1317242.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296502
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31297490
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31297430
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31297170
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31297338
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296526
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31297496
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296576
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296702
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296648
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296776
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296990
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31298680
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31297134
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31299096
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296522
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296520
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31299984
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31297062
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296560
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31297088
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31298918
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31305030
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_1317242.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296868
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31298968
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31299174
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31300628
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31301964
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31297648
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31301090
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31297302
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31297020
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_1317242.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296478
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296534
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31297168
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296782
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31297112
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31303404
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31305874
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31430856
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31297398
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31297586
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296568
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296524
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296938
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31300534
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31297508
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31297816
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31297744
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31300644
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31298096
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31304248
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31305058
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31298250
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31300054
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31298778
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296968
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296598
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31299458
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296754
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296588
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31297072
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31301446
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296738
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296762
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296694
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_1317242.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31297970
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_1317242.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31297400
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_1317242.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31297512
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_1317242.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296640
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31298528
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31299092
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31297756
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31301268
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_1317242.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296506
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296842
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31296746
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31301104
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1317242.31299086
</commentlist>
</conversation>
