<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_26_0515224</id>
	<title>Facebook Goes After Greasemonkey Script Developer</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1269626400000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>palmerj3 writes <i>"The popular <a href="http://steeev.site50.net/fbpurity/">Facebook Purity greasemonkey script</a> (now renamed Fluff Buster Purity) has been used by thousands to rid their Facebook feeds from the likes of <em>Mafia Wars</em>, <em>Farmville</em>, and other annoying things.  Now, <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100324/1806018708.shtml">Facebook is threatening the developer</a> of this script.  Does Facebook have the right to govern their website's design and functionality once it's in the browser?"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>palmerj3 writes " The popular Facebook Purity greasemonkey script ( now renamed Fluff Buster Purity ) has been used by thousands to rid their Facebook feeds from the likes of Mafia Wars , Farmville , and other annoying things .
Now , Facebook is threatening the developer of this script .
Does Facebook have the right to govern their website 's design and functionality once it 's in the browser ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>palmerj3 writes "The popular Facebook Purity greasemonkey script (now renamed Fluff Buster Purity) has been used by thousands to rid their Facebook feeds from the likes of Mafia Wars, Farmville, and other annoying things.
Now, Facebook is threatening the developer of this script.
Does Facebook have the right to govern their website's design and functionality once it's in the browser?
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31624052</id>
	<title>Re:I would hope not</title>
	<author>ztransform</author>
	<datestamp>1269606480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This would not be too hard on their part, though obviously more computationally expensive.</p></div><p>Whoah, Facebook could do the simple things? They demonstrated a complete inability to do something that had been done for decades before - chat! That's right, ladies and gentlemen, Facebook could not even get something so simple as chat working. Must have been those fanciful types so tied into lustful dreams of Erlang instead of commercially-tried-and-tested languages. Or was it just an utter and complete lack of design?

</p><p>Facebook is a company that chose to be a natural monopoly. Then abuse that to the full extent possible through a combination of decimation of privacy, incompetent operation, and absent design.

</p><p>This would be like handing the power of water distribution to a private firm - sure, you could walk down to the ocean and perform your own desalination techniques, or put a rainwater tank on your roof, but the fact is certain services lend themselves to natural monopolies - and if your country's government was smart (about as likely as Facebook being efficient) it would design a functional and PRIVATE social network for its citizens.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This would not be too hard on their part , though obviously more computationally expensive.Whoah , Facebook could do the simple things ?
They demonstrated a complete inability to do something that had been done for decades before - chat !
That 's right , ladies and gentlemen , Facebook could not even get something so simple as chat working .
Must have been those fanciful types so tied into lustful dreams of Erlang instead of commercially-tried-and-tested languages .
Or was it just an utter and complete lack of design ?
Facebook is a company that chose to be a natural monopoly .
Then abuse that to the full extent possible through a combination of decimation of privacy , incompetent operation , and absent design .
This would be like handing the power of water distribution to a private firm - sure , you could walk down to the ocean and perform your own desalination techniques , or put a rainwater tank on your roof , but the fact is certain services lend themselves to natural monopolies - and if your country 's government was smart ( about as likely as Facebook being efficient ) it would design a functional and PRIVATE social network for its citizens .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This would not be too hard on their part, though obviously more computationally expensive.Whoah, Facebook could do the simple things?
They demonstrated a complete inability to do something that had been done for decades before - chat!
That's right, ladies and gentlemen, Facebook could not even get something so simple as chat working.
Must have been those fanciful types so tied into lustful dreams of Erlang instead of commercially-tried-and-tested languages.
Or was it just an utter and complete lack of design?
Facebook is a company that chose to be a natural monopoly.
Then abuse that to the full extent possible through a combination of decimation of privacy, incompetent operation, and absent design.
This would be like handing the power of water distribution to a private firm - sure, you could walk down to the ocean and perform your own desalination techniques, or put a rainwater tank on your roof, but the fact is certain services lend themselves to natural monopolies - and if your country's government was smart (about as likely as Facebook being efficient) it would design a functional and PRIVATE social network for its citizens.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622686</id>
	<title>no.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269546780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They should also go after makers of duck tape while they are at it. amazing how many ads a little piece of tape blocks!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They should also go after makers of duck tape while they are at it .
amazing how many ads a little piece of tape blocks !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They should also go after makers of duck tape while they are at it.
amazing how many ads a little piece of tape blocks!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31623212</id>
	<title>Missing the point</title>
	<author>Alioth</author>
	<datestamp>1269597360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lots of people here are totally missing the point.</p><p>Facebook isn't trying to stop people from writing scripts that modify the content of the page (get rid of spam), and if it were to go to court, this would not be the subject of the court case. The actual complaint is a trademark violation one for using the term "Facebook", and later, "FB". It also seems their lawyers are unable to do a whois search because they are also demanding he turns over a domain to them that he doesn't actually own.</p><p>However, the "cease and desist" (from the scant information that's actually avaialble if you go to the author's web page) is solely about trademark issues. Nothing about what the script actually does. This may or may not be heavy handed, I don't know - but what I can tell is that it has nothing at all to do with what the script does, merely what it was called.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lots of people here are totally missing the point.Facebook is n't trying to stop people from writing scripts that modify the content of the page ( get rid of spam ) , and if it were to go to court , this would not be the subject of the court case .
The actual complaint is a trademark violation one for using the term " Facebook " , and later , " FB " .
It also seems their lawyers are unable to do a whois search because they are also demanding he turns over a domain to them that he does n't actually own.However , the " cease and desist " ( from the scant information that 's actually avaialble if you go to the author 's web page ) is solely about trademark issues .
Nothing about what the script actually does .
This may or may not be heavy handed , I do n't know - but what I can tell is that it has nothing at all to do with what the script does , merely what it was called .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lots of people here are totally missing the point.Facebook isn't trying to stop people from writing scripts that modify the content of the page (get rid of spam), and if it were to go to court, this would not be the subject of the court case.
The actual complaint is a trademark violation one for using the term "Facebook", and later, "FB".
It also seems their lawyers are unable to do a whois search because they are also demanding he turns over a domain to them that he doesn't actually own.However, the "cease and desist" (from the scant information that's actually avaialble if you go to the author's web page) is solely about trademark issues.
Nothing about what the script actually does.
This may or may not be heavy handed, I don't know - but what I can tell is that it has nothing at all to do with what the script does, merely what it was called.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622810</id>
	<title>I *knew* there were advantages..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269635040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>.. to never ever using Facebook.  Hurray!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>.. to never ever using Facebook .
Hurray ! : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.. to never ever using Facebook.
Hurray! :-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622834</id>
	<title>zuckerberg is a jew</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269635340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>so he is greedy. what do you expect?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>so he is greedy .
what do you expect ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so he is greedy.
what do you expect?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31625372</id>
	<title>Re:Thank you Facebook</title>
	<author>Lord Ender</author>
	<datestamp>1269614940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He will spend all that time playing video games, you know.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He will spend all that time playing video games , you know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He will spend all that time playing video games, you know.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622752</id>
	<title>and since people laugh at eulas in...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269634260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...every other country than the US, they will accomplish what, exactly?</p><p>Any attempts to enforce EULAs would be laughed out of court in the rest of the world. Consumer rights authorities in the EU are currently investigating whether it even is legal to present EULAs to consumers since there's currently a court case pending in Finland where someone was blocked from using a free service because they had filled out bogus info about themselves and the EULA "obliged" users to disclose real info.</p><p>Ps. It would be nice if someone (a Finn?) has more info about that case, I can't come up with search terms that don't result in too many irrelevant hits and I just cannot remember the foreign names well enough.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...every other country than the US , they will accomplish what , exactly ? Any attempts to enforce EULAs would be laughed out of court in the rest of the world .
Consumer rights authorities in the EU are currently investigating whether it even is legal to present EULAs to consumers since there 's currently a court case pending in Finland where someone was blocked from using a free service because they had filled out bogus info about themselves and the EULA " obliged " users to disclose real info.Ps .
It would be nice if someone ( a Finn ?
) has more info about that case , I ca n't come up with search terms that do n't result in too many irrelevant hits and I just can not remember the foreign names well enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...every other country than the US, they will accomplish what, exactly?Any attempts to enforce EULAs would be laughed out of court in the rest of the world.
Consumer rights authorities in the EU are currently investigating whether it even is legal to present EULAs to consumers since there's currently a court case pending in Finland where someone was blocked from using a free service because they had filled out bogus info about themselves and the EULA "obliged" users to disclose real info.Ps.
It would be nice if someone (a Finn?
) has more info about that case, I can't come up with search terms that don't result in too many irrelevant hits and I just cannot remember the foreign names well enough.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31623184</id>
	<title>Re:But Facebook lets you block App stories</title>
	<author>NorQue</author>
	<datestamp>1269597120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't get it either - just click on "Hide" and it's gone. My Options show that I'm currently blocking 10 Apps, that's getting rid of most of the Spam.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't get it either - just click on " Hide " and it 's gone .
My Options show that I 'm currently blocking 10 Apps , that 's getting rid of most of the Spam .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't get it either - just click on "Hide" and it's gone.
My Options show that I'm currently blocking 10 Apps, that's getting rid of most of the Spam.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622860</id>
	<title>Can't see the forest for the trees</title>
	<author>davmoo</author>
	<datestamp>1269635700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Instead of threatening the dude for writing the Greasemonkey script, they should maybe be thinking about why people want to use this script in the first place.  If a major portion of your website users find part of your site to be that effing annoying, then fixing that portion of your website to be less annoying is a more important issue than the existence of a Greasemonkey script.  Facebook needs to go shopping at the Clue Factory Outlet.</p><p>I also agree with others in this thread who have pointed out the Streisand Effect.  I never heard of the script, but you can bet your donkey that I'll be installing it as soon as I get done typing this reply.  I like Facebook and all, but a lot of that crap has to go.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Instead of threatening the dude for writing the Greasemonkey script , they should maybe be thinking about why people want to use this script in the first place .
If a major portion of your website users find part of your site to be that effing annoying , then fixing that portion of your website to be less annoying is a more important issue than the existence of a Greasemonkey script .
Facebook needs to go shopping at the Clue Factory Outlet.I also agree with others in this thread who have pointed out the Streisand Effect .
I never heard of the script , but you can bet your donkey that I 'll be installing it as soon as I get done typing this reply .
I like Facebook and all , but a lot of that crap has to go .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Instead of threatening the dude for writing the Greasemonkey script, they should maybe be thinking about why people want to use this script in the first place.
If a major portion of your website users find part of your site to be that effing annoying, then fixing that portion of your website to be less annoying is a more important issue than the existence of a Greasemonkey script.
Facebook needs to go shopping at the Clue Factory Outlet.I also agree with others in this thread who have pointed out the Streisand Effect.
I never heard of the script, but you can bet your donkey that I'll be installing it as soon as I get done typing this reply.
I like Facebook and all, but a lot of that crap has to go.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622676</id>
	<title>Ahem...</title>
	<author>sonicmerlin</author>
	<datestamp>1269546660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Allow me to answer this with a complex, well-thought out, rational and legalistic response:


No.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Allow me to answer this with a complex , well-thought out , rational and legalistic response : No .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Allow me to answer this with a complex, well-thought out, rational and legalistic response:


No.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31630088</id>
	<title>Re:Thank you Facebook</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269631620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>And you'll find yourself with a shitload of newly free hours in the day in which you can do all sorts of stuff. Write a book. Write some free software. Learn a new language. You'll amaze yourself with just how much you can achieve in just one hour extra a day.</p></div></blockquote><p>Either it would free up a lot more time, because I wouldn't know what party or dance club to go to or it would cost me and my friends a lot more time setting up events.  Facebook is a tool.  It's your choice to use it to improve your social life, instead of replacing it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And you 'll find yourself with a shitload of newly free hours in the day in which you can do all sorts of stuff .
Write a book .
Write some free software .
Learn a new language .
You 'll amaze yourself with just how much you can achieve in just one hour extra a day.Either it would free up a lot more time , because I would n't know what party or dance club to go to or it would cost me and my friends a lot more time setting up events .
Facebook is a tool .
It 's your choice to use it to improve your social life , instead of replacing it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And you'll find yourself with a shitload of newly free hours in the day in which you can do all sorts of stuff.
Write a book.
Write some free software.
Learn a new language.
You'll amaze yourself with just how much you can achieve in just one hour extra a day.Either it would free up a lot more time, because I wouldn't know what party or dance club to go to or it would cost me and my friends a lot more time setting up events.
Facebook is a tool.
It's your choice to use it to improve your social life, instead of replacing it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622494</id>
	<title>No they dont, and they better not threaten the dev</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269544620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>even the mention of this story will upset their pr in dev community A LOT. we web developers, contrary to some who are developing for more closed platforms like ipod, do NOT like being herded, goaded, or ordered about. this will have consequences.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>even the mention of this story will upset their pr in dev community A LOT .
we web developers , contrary to some who are developing for more closed platforms like ipod , do NOT like being herded , goaded , or ordered about .
this will have consequences .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>even the mention of this story will upset their pr in dev community A LOT.
we web developers, contrary to some who are developing for more closed platforms like ipod, do NOT like being herded, goaded, or ordered about.
this will have consequences.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31625394</id>
	<title>Re:But Facebook lets you block App stories</title>
	<author>Garble Snarky</author>
	<datestamp>1269614940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What I don't see is why people even use this script in the first place - what functionality does it provide that the site itself doesn't?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What I do n't see is why people even use this script in the first place - what functionality does it provide that the site itself does n't ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I don't see is why people even use this script in the first place - what functionality does it provide that the site itself doesn't?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31623198</id>
	<title>Re:No they dont, and they better not threaten the</title>
	<author>CharlyFoxtrot</author>
	<datestamp>1269597300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>we web developers, contrary to some who are developing for more closed platforms like ipod, do NOT like being herded, goaded, or ordered about. this will have consequences.</p></div><p>That's deeply ironic if you develop applications for the walled garden that is the Facebook Platform.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>we web developers , contrary to some who are developing for more closed platforms like ipod , do NOT like being herded , goaded , or ordered about .
this will have consequences.That 's deeply ironic if you develop applications for the walled garden that is the Facebook Platform .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we web developers, contrary to some who are developing for more closed platforms like ipod, do NOT like being herded, goaded, or ordered about.
this will have consequences.That's deeply ironic if you develop applications for the walled garden that is the Facebook Platform.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622774</id>
	<title>What threat?</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1269634680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
The link in the Slashdot article links to a blog which links to a Facebook page which links to an ad-heavy web site and a Twitter log.  Nowhere is the actual "legal threat" defined.
</p><p>
If the legal threat is real, post it to <a href="http://www.chillingeffects.org/" title="chillingeffects.org">Chilling Effects.</a> [chillingeffects.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The link in the Slashdot article links to a blog which links to a Facebook page which links to an ad-heavy web site and a Twitter log .
Nowhere is the actual " legal threat " defined .
If the legal threat is real , post it to Chilling Effects .
[ chillingeffects.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
The link in the Slashdot article links to a blog which links to a Facebook page which links to an ad-heavy web site and a Twitter log.
Nowhere is the actual "legal threat" defined.
If the legal threat is real, post it to Chilling Effects.
[chillingeffects.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622874</id>
	<title>Re:EULA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269635940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>like an EULA is binding in all countries fuck you your EULA and fuck Zuckerberg too</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>like an EULA is binding in all countries fuck you your EULA and fuck Zuckerberg too</tokentext>
<sentencetext>like an EULA is binding in all countries fuck you your EULA and fuck Zuckerberg too</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622442</id>
	<title>Re:EULA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269544140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree, I don't think they have any legal right to stop the dev from creating a completely user-side tool. The only thing they could do (IMO) is block its functionality for users.</p><p>Facebook is getting more and more annoying. It's unfortunate how much of a deathchoke they have on social networking (I don't know very many people without facebook; it is my main mode of online communication).</p><p>It's known that an IPO is inevitable; if their motives have been in question now, it won't be when public stockholders are involved.</p><p>Time to hop on the next social bandwagon. How hard can it be to host asite with 400,000,000 unique VISITORS a month?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree , I do n't think they have any legal right to stop the dev from creating a completely user-side tool .
The only thing they could do ( IMO ) is block its functionality for users.Facebook is getting more and more annoying .
It 's unfortunate how much of a deathchoke they have on social networking ( I do n't know very many people without facebook ; it is my main mode of online communication ) .It 's known that an IPO is inevitable ; if their motives have been in question now , it wo n't be when public stockholders are involved.Time to hop on the next social bandwagon .
How hard can it be to host asite with 400,000,000 unique VISITORS a month ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree, I don't think they have any legal right to stop the dev from creating a completely user-side tool.
The only thing they could do (IMO) is block its functionality for users.Facebook is getting more and more annoying.
It's unfortunate how much of a deathchoke they have on social networking (I don't know very many people without facebook; it is my main mode of online communication).It's known that an IPO is inevitable; if their motives have been in question now, it won't be when public stockholders are involved.Time to hop on the next social bandwagon.
How hard can it be to host asite with 400,000,000 unique VISITORS a month?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31623006</id>
	<title>Re:What about NoScript? AdBlockers?</title>
	<author>skine</author>
	<datestamp>1269594720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The issue with DVDs would likely be breaking encryption.</p><p>For example, it's perfectly legal for one to save backups of their movies for personal use. However, if a DVD is at all encrypted, then its backup must maintain the encryption (such as using blank DVDs or saving to ISO).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The issue with DVDs would likely be breaking encryption.For example , it 's perfectly legal for one to save backups of their movies for personal use .
However , if a DVD is at all encrypted , then its backup must maintain the encryption ( such as using blank DVDs or saving to ISO ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The issue with DVDs would likely be breaking encryption.For example, it's perfectly legal for one to save backups of their movies for personal use.
However, if a DVD is at all encrypted, then its backup must maintain the encryption (such as using blank DVDs or saving to ISO).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31629950</id>
	<title>Re:Thank you Facebook</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1269631080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On their scale, all data storage requirments cost them pennies per user.  Saving every change every user ever makes isn't really a big deal.</p><p>GMail is over 7G at least of storage for free accounts<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... do you realize how many 'facebook changes' can be stored in 7G.</p><p>I'd bet a months pay they use more disk space for table indexes than active data for profiles.</p><p>All of that information can be sold to dataminers.</p><p>So what cost them pennies per user can be sold, to multiple organizations for profit.</p><p>For them to delete data or not record changes is like me throwing $100 bills on a fire because it makes my wallet to thick.  The cost of the space consumed is insignificant in relation to its value.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On their scale , all data storage requirments cost them pennies per user .
Saving every change every user ever makes is n't really a big deal.GMail is over 7G at least of storage for free accounts ... do you realize how many 'facebook changes ' can be stored in 7G.I 'd bet a months pay they use more disk space for table indexes than active data for profiles.All of that information can be sold to dataminers.So what cost them pennies per user can be sold , to multiple organizations for profit.For them to delete data or not record changes is like me throwing $ 100 bills on a fire because it makes my wallet to thick .
The cost of the space consumed is insignificant in relation to its value .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On their scale, all data storage requirments cost them pennies per user.
Saving every change every user ever makes isn't really a big deal.GMail is over 7G at least of storage for free accounts ... do you realize how many 'facebook changes' can be stored in 7G.I'd bet a months pay they use more disk space for table indexes than active data for profiles.All of that information can be sold to dataminers.So what cost them pennies per user can be sold, to multiple organizations for profit.For them to delete data or not record changes is like me throwing $100 bills on a fire because it makes my wallet to thick.
The cost of the space consumed is insignificant in relation to its value.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622554</id>
	<title>Re:It's no problem...</title>
	<author>jitendraharlalka</author>
	<datestamp>1269545160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A legal course or anything alike will only give Facebook bad repute (btw, its privacy policy is already under fire which it keeps changing now and then).

If Facebook has gotten an impression that only because it has got huge user base it can get evil and control things at user end, let me let Mark Zuckerberg, the countdown begins. Humans are so good at adaptation. They adapted when they switched from Myspace, Orkut to Facebook. They would adapt well to new social media from FB if they decide to.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A legal course or anything alike will only give Facebook bad repute ( btw , its privacy policy is already under fire which it keeps changing now and then ) .
If Facebook has gotten an impression that only because it has got huge user base it can get evil and control things at user end , let me let Mark Zuckerberg , the countdown begins .
Humans are so good at adaptation .
They adapted when they switched from Myspace , Orkut to Facebook .
They would adapt well to new social media from FB if they decide to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A legal course or anything alike will only give Facebook bad repute (btw, its privacy policy is already under fire which it keeps changing now and then).
If Facebook has gotten an impression that only because it has got huge user base it can get evil and control things at user end, let me let Mark Zuckerberg, the countdown begins.
Humans are so good at adaptation.
They adapted when they switched from Myspace, Orkut to Facebook.
They would adapt well to new social media from FB if they decide to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31631460</id>
	<title>Re:What's the point of this script?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269637140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's not good enough. That is like having to manually select every crap advert you ever see and block it one at a time. The point of a central bit of code is that it can pull that list from a community effort and perform updates on it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's not good enough .
That is like having to manually select every crap advert you ever see and block it one at a time .
The point of a central bit of code is that it can pull that list from a community effort and perform updates on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's not good enough.
That is like having to manually select every crap advert you ever see and block it one at a time.
The point of a central bit of code is that it can pull that list from a community effort and perform updates on it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622890</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31623202</id>
	<title>If it is their own trademark then they are quick..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269597300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On the other hand Facebook support isn't doing shit when you try to contact them. I tried to write email to them several times. You don't even get an answer. I heard by other people that you have to pester them constantly to get any reaction at all. If that's how this company works, then I rather stay away from the page - it's not like it is any innovative anymore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On the other hand Facebook support is n't doing shit when you try to contact them .
I tried to write email to them several times .
You do n't even get an answer .
I heard by other people that you have to pester them constantly to get any reaction at all .
If that 's how this company works , then I rather stay away from the page - it 's not like it is any innovative anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the other hand Facebook support isn't doing shit when you try to contact them.
I tried to write email to them several times.
You don't even get an answer.
I heard by other people that you have to pester them constantly to get any reaction at all.
If that's how this company works, then I rather stay away from the page - it's not like it is any innovative anymore.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31624072</id>
	<title>Oh Wow...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269606600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Facebook users are such a giant crowd of losers. They could be doing much more worthy things, like playing World of Warcraft.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Facebook users are such a giant crowd of losers .
They could be doing much more worthy things , like playing World of Warcraft .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Facebook users are such a giant crowd of losers.
They could be doing much more worthy things, like playing World of Warcraft.
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622750</id>
	<title>Re:Thank you Facebook</title>
	<author>cbope</author>
	<datestamp>1269634140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whatever you do, don't delete your account. That just gives FB a snapshot of your current profile to keep for all eternity. If you want FB to keep as little data on you as possible, it's really quite simple although it requires patience. Gradually remove all information and apps from your FB profile, in the end leave only the bare minimum that's required to keep the profile alive. Then leave it that way for a while, at least a year or two. Then delete the account.</p><p>FB can't possibly keep backups of every state of your profile and eventually they will be overwriting your older data with your updated and reduced profile footprint. Eventually this means they will have little data on you. Do it gradually, so it does not trip un-known snapshots of your profile which might be saved for longer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whatever you do , do n't delete your account .
That just gives FB a snapshot of your current profile to keep for all eternity .
If you want FB to keep as little data on you as possible , it 's really quite simple although it requires patience .
Gradually remove all information and apps from your FB profile , in the end leave only the bare minimum that 's required to keep the profile alive .
Then leave it that way for a while , at least a year or two .
Then delete the account.FB ca n't possibly keep backups of every state of your profile and eventually they will be overwriting your older data with your updated and reduced profile footprint .
Eventually this means they will have little data on you .
Do it gradually , so it does not trip un-known snapshots of your profile which might be saved for longer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whatever you do, don't delete your account.
That just gives FB a snapshot of your current profile to keep for all eternity.
If you want FB to keep as little data on you as possible, it's really quite simple although it requires patience.
Gradually remove all information and apps from your FB profile, in the end leave only the bare minimum that's required to keep the profile alive.
Then leave it that way for a while, at least a year or two.
Then delete the account.FB can't possibly keep backups of every state of your profile and eventually they will be overwriting your older data with your updated and reduced profile footprint.
Eventually this means they will have little data on you.
Do it gradually, so it does not trip un-known snapshots of your profile which might be saved for longer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622514</id>
	<title>What about NoScript? AdBlockers?</title>
	<author>rhythmx</author>
	<datestamp>1269544800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Can I not telnet to facebook.com on port 80 and make a request by hand? Sorry, but their copyright ends after they distribute a URI over HTTP. What I do with the response is my prerogative. My browser does anything it wants to with your data... even if I'm not using a browser to connect to tcp/80 at the time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can I not telnet to facebook.com on port 80 and make a request by hand ?
Sorry , but their copyright ends after they distribute a URI over HTTP .
What I do with the response is my prerogative .
My browser does anything it wants to with your data... even if I 'm not using a browser to connect to tcp/80 at the time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can I not telnet to facebook.com on port 80 and make a request by hand?
Sorry, but their copyright ends after they distribute a URI over HTTP.
What I do with the response is my prerogative.
My browser does anything it wants to with your data... even if I'm not using a browser to connect to tcp/80 at the time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622706</id>
	<title>Re:What about NoScript? AdBlockers?</title>
	<author>R3d M3rcury</author>
	<datestamp>1269633600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A while back, there was a company that was editing copyrighted material and distributing their edits.  I'm too lazy to look it up here on Slashdot, but you could go buy an R-rated movie from them and they would cut out the appropriate naughty bits to make it a G-rated movie which they would send to you.  Needless to say, the studios shrieked to high heaven and the courts shut it down.</p><p>So, if I create a webpage and copyright it and you create something that modifies the copyrighted material and distributes it to the user, could we say that you have violated my copyright?  With software to rip DVDs and such coming under fire, the courts seem to be saying that, "Yes, you can write your own tool to do it for your own personal use and we can't do anything about it.  But if you try to distribute a tool which helps people violate copyright, you're in trouble."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A while back , there was a company that was editing copyrighted material and distributing their edits .
I 'm too lazy to look it up here on Slashdot , but you could go buy an R-rated movie from them and they would cut out the appropriate naughty bits to make it a G-rated movie which they would send to you .
Needless to say , the studios shrieked to high heaven and the courts shut it down.So , if I create a webpage and copyright it and you create something that modifies the copyrighted material and distributes it to the user , could we say that you have violated my copyright ?
With software to rip DVDs and such coming under fire , the courts seem to be saying that , " Yes , you can write your own tool to do it for your own personal use and we ca n't do anything about it .
But if you try to distribute a tool which helps people violate copyright , you 're in trouble .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A while back, there was a company that was editing copyrighted material and distributing their edits.
I'm too lazy to look it up here on Slashdot, but you could go buy an R-rated movie from them and they would cut out the appropriate naughty bits to make it a G-rated movie which they would send to you.
Needless to say, the studios shrieked to high heaven and the courts shut it down.So, if I create a webpage and copyright it and you create something that modifies the copyrighted material and distributes it to the user, could we say that you have violated my copyright?
With software to rip DVDs and such coming under fire, the courts seem to be saying that, "Yes, you can write your own tool to do it for your own personal use and we can't do anything about it.
But if you try to distribute a tool which helps people violate copyright, you're in trouble.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31627052</id>
	<title>Yet another one who can't tell bitspace from reali</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1269621360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If he wanted an action to be only done by a human, he should have added a captcha to the interface. ReCaptcha is always great.<br>If he missed that opportunity, then the only thing he can do, is STFU. Big time.</p><p>Seems he did never in his whole life actually <strong>use</strong> a computer. You know. For its purpose: To <strong>automate</strong> things!<br>Playing with colorful clickables does not make you a computer user. It only makes you an appliance user. That that appliance is software that runs on a computer, is irrelevant. Especially since every phone, washing machine, car, etc, has a small computer running on the inside nowadays.</p><p>That&rsquo;s why people should not be allowed to make decisions that affect other people&rsquo;s lives, when they got zero competency on the subject.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If he wanted an action to be only done by a human , he should have added a captcha to the interface .
ReCaptcha is always great.If he missed that opportunity , then the only thing he can do , is STFU .
Big time.Seems he did never in his whole life actually use a computer .
You know .
For its purpose : To automate things ! Playing with colorful clickables does not make you a computer user .
It only makes you an appliance user .
That that appliance is software that runs on a computer , is irrelevant .
Especially since every phone , washing machine , car , etc , has a small computer running on the inside nowadays.That    s why people should not be allowed to make decisions that affect other people    s lives , when they got zero competency on the subject .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If he wanted an action to be only done by a human, he should have added a captcha to the interface.
ReCaptcha is always great.If he missed that opportunity, then the only thing he can do, is STFU.
Big time.Seems he did never in his whole life actually use a computer.
You know.
For its purpose: To automate things!Playing with colorful clickables does not make you a computer user.
It only makes you an appliance user.
That that appliance is software that runs on a computer, is irrelevant.
Especially since every phone, washing machine, car, etc, has a small computer running on the inside nowadays.That’s why people should not be allowed to make decisions that affect other people’s lives, when they got zero competency on the subject.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622650</id>
	<title>Let us not discuss this here</title>
	<author>nikanth</author>
	<datestamp>1269546300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let us have this discussion in facebook.. why waste slashdot resource for this<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let us have this discussion in facebook.. why waste slashdot resource for this ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let us have this discussion in facebook.. why waste slashdot resource for this ;-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622468</id>
	<title>AWESOME</title>
	<author>trawg</author>
	<datestamp>1269544320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now I know how to get rid of all that shit (short of culling my noob friends).</p><p>Thank you, Streisand effect!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now I know how to get rid of all that shit ( short of culling my noob friends ) .Thank you , Streisand effect !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now I know how to get rid of all that shit (short of culling my noob friends).Thank you, Streisand effect!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31623980</id>
	<title>Re:EULA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269605880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/hi/technology/newsid\_10070000/newsid\_10072300/10072386.stm" title="bbc.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://news.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/hi/technology/newsid\_10070000/newsid\_10072300/10072386.stm</a> [bbc.co.uk]</p><p>Link discusses ClearPlay and their way to filter out bad content from the DVDs that are played at the moment, as a result they were sued by American Directors Guild :</p><p>"A judge decided that wasn't the case because no fixed copy of the altered version of the motion picture was created"</p><p>Could the same apply to this case?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //news.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/hi/technology/newsid \ _10070000/newsid \ _10072300/10072386.stm [ bbc.co.uk ] Link discusses ClearPlay and their way to filter out bad content from the DVDs that are played at the moment , as a result they were sued by American Directors Guild : " A judge decided that was n't the case because no fixed copy of the altered version of the motion picture was created " Could the same apply to this case ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://news.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/hi/technology/newsid\_10070000/newsid\_10072300/10072386.stm [bbc.co.uk]Link discusses ClearPlay and their way to filter out bad content from the DVDs that are played at the moment, as a result they were sued by American Directors Guild :"A judge decided that wasn't the case because no fixed copy of the altered version of the motion picture was created"Could the same apply to this case?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622442</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31627156</id>
	<title>don't they need to defend their trademark?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269621900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>now, i'm not a facebook fan per se.  It's a tool, blah, blah.</p><p>i'm on greasemonkeys side, but isn't there some kinda law that says if you don't defend or at least persue protecting your trademark you lose it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>now , i 'm not a facebook fan per se .
It 's a tool , blah , blah.i 'm on greasemonkeys side , but is n't there some kinda law that says if you do n't defend or at least persue protecting your trademark you lose it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>now, i'm not a facebook fan per se.
It's a tool, blah, blah.i'm on greasemonkeys side, but isn't there some kinda law that says if you don't defend or at least persue protecting your trademark you lose it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31624416</id>
	<title>SO FUCKBOOK AND FACEBOOK OF SEX IS LEGAL...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269609540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... but FB Purity isn't.  Someone has some fucked up priorities.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... but FB Purity is n't .
Someone has some fucked up priorities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... but FB Purity isn't.
Someone has some fucked up priorities.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31657954</id>
	<title>Property rights</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269880620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is Facebooks property for their own webpage, whether or not we want applications posting feeds automatically is completely our choice so they can get screwed</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is Facebooks property for their own webpage , whether or not we want applications posting feeds automatically is completely our choice so they can get screwed</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is Facebooks property for their own webpage, whether or not we want applications posting feeds automatically is completely our choice so they can get screwed</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622894</id>
	<title>Rights ?</title>
	<author>ankitasdeveloper</author>
	<datestamp>1269636120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>once a website is on client's browser, the owner cannot govern any rule.
we shld not forget: Web is open, and it's this nature has made it popular.</htmltext>
<tokenext>once a website is on client 's browser , the owner can not govern any rule .
we shld not forget : Web is open , and it 's this nature has made it popular .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>once a website is on client's browser, the owner cannot govern any rule.
we shld not forget: Web is open, and it's this nature has made it popular.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31623760</id>
	<title>Re:EULA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269603480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>2nd post!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>2nd post !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2nd post!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622442</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31625818</id>
	<title>Re:What's the point of this script?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269616920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe Facebook wants to be the one that knows what all you "don't want to hear about" so they can sell that info along with the rest about you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe Facebook wants to be the one that knows what all you " do n't want to hear about " so they can sell that info along with the rest about you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe Facebook wants to be the one that knows what all you "don't want to hear about" so they can sell that info along with the rest about you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622890</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31626478</id>
	<title>Re:What about NoScript? AdBlockers?</title>
	<author>david\_thornley</author>
	<datestamp>1269619200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
In the case you mentioned, the company was modifying a movie and redistributing the modified version, which is something they aren't allowed to do by copyright law.  Further, by distributing a hacked-up version of a movie, they potentially confused the public into believing that it's an incoherent movie, and that's a potential trademark problem.
</p><p>
If they'd sold a DVD player or attachment that would simply skip specified bits, and provided a list of the "good bits" in those movies, there wouldn't have been a problem.
</p><p>
In this case, the guy's distributing a tool that allows the end user to filter, and is not modifying the copyrightable material himself.  This is analogous to the second case, not the first.
</p><p>
And, yes, we've had discussions here about copyright violations with ISPs that substitute their own ads in web pages.  It sounds like one lawsuit using RIAA-sponsored laws that I'd really cheer for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the case you mentioned , the company was modifying a movie and redistributing the modified version , which is something they are n't allowed to do by copyright law .
Further , by distributing a hacked-up version of a movie , they potentially confused the public into believing that it 's an incoherent movie , and that 's a potential trademark problem .
If they 'd sold a DVD player or attachment that would simply skip specified bits , and provided a list of the " good bits " in those movies , there would n't have been a problem .
In this case , the guy 's distributing a tool that allows the end user to filter , and is not modifying the copyrightable material himself .
This is analogous to the second case , not the first .
And , yes , we 've had discussions here about copyright violations with ISPs that substitute their own ads in web pages .
It sounds like one lawsuit using RIAA-sponsored laws that I 'd really cheer for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
In the case you mentioned, the company was modifying a movie and redistributing the modified version, which is something they aren't allowed to do by copyright law.
Further, by distributing a hacked-up version of a movie, they potentially confused the public into believing that it's an incoherent movie, and that's a potential trademark problem.
If they'd sold a DVD player or attachment that would simply skip specified bits, and provided a list of the "good bits" in those movies, there wouldn't have been a problem.
In this case, the guy's distributing a tool that allows the end user to filter, and is not modifying the copyrightable material himself.
This is analogous to the second case, not the first.
And, yes, we've had discussions here about copyright violations with ISPs that substitute their own ads in web pages.
It sounds like one lawsuit using RIAA-sponsored laws that I'd really cheer for.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622710</id>
	<title>Re:Thank you Facebook</title>
	<author>mdm42</author>
	<datestamp>1269633660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>And you'll find yourself with a shitload of newly free hours in the day in which you can do all sorts of stuff. Write a book. Write some free software. Learn a new language. You'll amaze yourself with just how much you can achieve in just one hour extra a day.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And you 'll find yourself with a shitload of newly free hours in the day in which you can do all sorts of stuff .
Write a book .
Write some free software .
Learn a new language .
You 'll amaze yourself with just how much you can achieve in just one hour extra a day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And you'll find yourself with a shitload of newly free hours in the day in which you can do all sorts of stuff.
Write a book.
Write some free software.
Learn a new language.
You'll amaze yourself with just how much you can achieve in just one hour extra a day.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622488</id>
	<title>options</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269544500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>solving this problem is easy: make them options.  all you need to do is call it FB Mod Script or something and then put in options for how you want to manipulate the page.  not that difficult to figure out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>solving this problem is easy : make them options .
all you need to do is call it FB Mod Script or something and then put in options for how you want to manipulate the page .
not that difficult to figure out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>solving this problem is easy: make them options.
all you need to do is call it FB Mod Script or something and then put in options for how you want to manipulate the page.
not that difficult to figure out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31630402</id>
	<title>Re:What about NoScript? AdBlockers?</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1269632820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You could not possibly be more wrong.</p><p>Copyright doesn't 'end', eventually it will expire (maybe) and content can be sold or licensed<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...  <strong>by your account when you transfer a copy of Linux to me, the copyright ends and I can do whatever I want if I get it over http.</strong></p><p>Clearly that is not the case.</p><p>Facebook may not authorize you to connect to their webservers with anything other than a specific piece of software.  The most certainly can consider access using another application, such as telnet an unauthorized access to the system, whats better is that if you've got a facebook account, you've agreed to these rules and have been made aware of them.</p><p>You are going there as their guest, they do have a fair amount of control over what you are allowed to do with their content, regardless of how much you like it, you can't go into someone elses home and start telling them what to do.  The law can, but you can't.  This really isn't any different.</p><p>Solution?  Don't go into their home if you don't like it.  And more importantly, don't agree to go into their home by their rules then tell them to fuck off and do whatever you want anyway.</p><p>What you're doing is basically saying <strong>Facebook is a bunch of assholes and I don't like what their doing, but rather than not using their service, I'm just going to be an asshole too!</strong>.  At least where I grew up, that wasn't considered acceptable behavior.</p><p>Whats not a solution is sitting around trying to figure out ways to force them do what you want, but just admit that the relationship didn't work out and move on to the next party.  If they decide they'd rather have you at their party than show the crap that this script blocks then maybe you can come back then.</p><p>Can they sue the maker of some script that screws with their pages?  Most certainly, you can sue anyone when you feel wronged, and then someone will have to sit down and figure out which one of you is really wrong and how much so and finally, if something can actually be done about it.</p><p>Will they win?  Muh, probably not.  Even if they did there aren't going to be 'massive implications!@$!\%$!@\%' from it.  Its not going to suddenly result in every greasemonkey script becoming an outlaw because this is one specific case with a specific situation and the next lawsuit will be different.</p><p>In short<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... I see two groups of people/parasites who rely on each other to survive and are completely unwilling to do anything more than bitch and moan to change the situation.  You've got the money grubbing facebook doing whatever they can to make a buck off you versus the attention whoring facebook user base doing whatever they can to make sure they get the absolutely most attention possible.</p><p>I could give a shit who wins, Facebook and its users, in my experience are just douche bags who deserve each other.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You could not possibly be more wrong.Copyright does n't 'end ' , eventually it will expire ( maybe ) and content can be sold or licensed ... but ... by your account when you transfer a copy of Linux to me , the copyright ends and I can do whatever I want if I get it over http.Clearly that is not the case.Facebook may not authorize you to connect to their webservers with anything other than a specific piece of software .
The most certainly can consider access using another application , such as telnet an unauthorized access to the system , whats better is that if you 've got a facebook account , you 've agreed to these rules and have been made aware of them.You are going there as their guest , they do have a fair amount of control over what you are allowed to do with their content , regardless of how much you like it , you ca n't go into someone elses home and start telling them what to do .
The law can , but you ca n't .
This really is n't any different.Solution ?
Do n't go into their home if you do n't like it .
And more importantly , do n't agree to go into their home by their rules then tell them to fuck off and do whatever you want anyway.What you 're doing is basically saying Facebook is a bunch of assholes and I do n't like what their doing , but rather than not using their service , I 'm just going to be an asshole too ! .
At least where I grew up , that was n't considered acceptable behavior.Whats not a solution is sitting around trying to figure out ways to force them do what you want , but just admit that the relationship did n't work out and move on to the next party .
If they decide they 'd rather have you at their party than show the crap that this script blocks then maybe you can come back then.Can they sue the maker of some script that screws with their pages ?
Most certainly , you can sue anyone when you feel wronged , and then someone will have to sit down and figure out which one of you is really wrong and how much so and finally , if something can actually be done about it.Will they win ?
Muh , probably not .
Even if they did there are n't going to be 'massive implications ! @ $ ! \ % $ !
@ \ % ' from it .
Its not going to suddenly result in every greasemonkey script becoming an outlaw because this is one specific case with a specific situation and the next lawsuit will be different.In short ... I see two groups of people/parasites who rely on each other to survive and are completely unwilling to do anything more than bitch and moan to change the situation .
You 've got the money grubbing facebook doing whatever they can to make a buck off you versus the attention whoring facebook user base doing whatever they can to make sure they get the absolutely most attention possible.I could give a shit who wins , Facebook and its users , in my experience are just douche bags who deserve each other .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You could not possibly be more wrong.Copyright doesn't 'end', eventually it will expire (maybe) and content can be sold or licensed ... but ...  by your account when you transfer a copy of Linux to me, the copyright ends and I can do whatever I want if I get it over http.Clearly that is not the case.Facebook may not authorize you to connect to their webservers with anything other than a specific piece of software.
The most certainly can consider access using another application, such as telnet an unauthorized access to the system, whats better is that if you've got a facebook account, you've agreed to these rules and have been made aware of them.You are going there as their guest, they do have a fair amount of control over what you are allowed to do with their content, regardless of how much you like it, you can't go into someone elses home and start telling them what to do.
The law can, but you can't.
This really isn't any different.Solution?
Don't go into their home if you don't like it.
And more importantly, don't agree to go into their home by their rules then tell them to fuck off and do whatever you want anyway.What you're doing is basically saying Facebook is a bunch of assholes and I don't like what their doing, but rather than not using their service, I'm just going to be an asshole too!.
At least where I grew up, that wasn't considered acceptable behavior.Whats not a solution is sitting around trying to figure out ways to force them do what you want, but just admit that the relationship didn't work out and move on to the next party.
If they decide they'd rather have you at their party than show the crap that this script blocks then maybe you can come back then.Can they sue the maker of some script that screws with their pages?
Most certainly, you can sue anyone when you feel wronged, and then someone will have to sit down and figure out which one of you is really wrong and how much so and finally, if something can actually be done about it.Will they win?
Muh, probably not.
Even if they did there aren't going to be 'massive implications!@$!\%$!
@\%' from it.
Its not going to suddenly result in every greasemonkey script becoming an outlaw because this is one specific case with a specific situation and the next lawsuit will be different.In short ... I see two groups of people/parasites who rely on each other to survive and are completely unwilling to do anything more than bitch and moan to change the situation.
You've got the money grubbing facebook doing whatever they can to make a buck off you versus the attention whoring facebook user base doing whatever they can to make sure they get the absolutely most attention possible.I could give a shit who wins, Facebook and its users, in my experience are just douche bags who deserve each other.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31639488</id>
	<title>Nop!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269705360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nop!<br>Kill Grease monkey and New Monkey will be born</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nop ! Kill Grease monkey and New Monkey will be born</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nop!Kill Grease monkey and New Monkey will be born</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31624394</id>
	<title>Simple Question:</title>
	<author>markbark</author>
	<datestamp>1269609300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the greasemonkey script is illegal, wouldn't popup blockers also be a no-no under the same line of thinking?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the greasemonkey script is illegal , would n't popup blockers also be a no-no under the same line of thinking ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the greasemonkey script is illegal, wouldn't popup blockers also be a no-no under the same line of thinking?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622818</id>
	<title>Maybe just me but......</title>
	<author>failedlogic</author>
	<datestamp>1269635160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just never bothered signing up for a Facebook account. I'm 30-something. From talking to friends and co-workers that have FB, its either to stay in contact with the BFF (best-friend-forever), because you run a business (or the company you work for) that requires a lot of public exposure to generate money and a reputation, or everyone just asks you do it.</p><p>Even though I'd have quite a few people in my profile, the only advantage would be that I could easily reach people outside of where I live. But there's not a lot of people in that category that I know well enough. There's just way way way too much info that goes into these profiles its too dangerous. It just takes one person who knows someone who knows someone who knows *YOU* to spoil everything. I've heard there's still the option of 'private invite only', but someone will have to convince me why this might be a good idea.</p><p>IMO, the whole thing just feels like all the GFs I've had that want to "talk on the phone" with me or any other guys their dating for 2 hours asking "what are you doing?" - this just seems like a "What are you doing?" for everybody you know and don't know + your GF.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just never bothered signing up for a Facebook account .
I 'm 30-something .
From talking to friends and co-workers that have FB , its either to stay in contact with the BFF ( best-friend-forever ) , because you run a business ( or the company you work for ) that requires a lot of public exposure to generate money and a reputation , or everyone just asks you do it.Even though I 'd have quite a few people in my profile , the only advantage would be that I could easily reach people outside of where I live .
But there 's not a lot of people in that category that I know well enough .
There 's just way way way too much info that goes into these profiles its too dangerous .
It just takes one person who knows someone who knows someone who knows * YOU * to spoil everything .
I 've heard there 's still the option of 'private invite only ' , but someone will have to convince me why this might be a good idea.IMO , the whole thing just feels like all the GFs I 've had that want to " talk on the phone " with me or any other guys their dating for 2 hours asking " what are you doing ?
" - this just seems like a " What are you doing ?
" for everybody you know and do n't know + your GF .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just never bothered signing up for a Facebook account.
I'm 30-something.
From talking to friends and co-workers that have FB, its either to stay in contact with the BFF (best-friend-forever), because you run a business (or the company you work for) that requires a lot of public exposure to generate money and a reputation, or everyone just asks you do it.Even though I'd have quite a few people in my profile, the only advantage would be that I could easily reach people outside of where I live.
But there's not a lot of people in that category that I know well enough.
There's just way way way too much info that goes into these profiles its too dangerous.
It just takes one person who knows someone who knows someone who knows *YOU* to spoil everything.
I've heard there's still the option of 'private invite only', but someone will have to convince me why this might be a good idea.IMO, the whole thing just feels like all the GFs I've had that want to "talk on the phone" with me or any other guys their dating for 2 hours asking "what are you doing?
" - this just seems like a "What are you doing?
" for everybody you know and don't know + your GF.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31624472</id>
	<title>Just more censorship</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269609900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is typical of spoiled morons, you know, the kids who got angry because you wouldn't play the game their way and ran crying to get the teacher or their parents.  The reality is that desire for something better with the freedom to communicate creates competition and constant improvement.  The stagnation that organizations like microcrap and facebook try to shove their idea of how to live down everyone's throat the way the church did during the dark ages always results in disaster.If courts side with stagnation and censorship again it just means we are following the same road to failure that Rome took two thousand years ago.  When Julius Caesar tried changing things back and it got him stabbed to death on the floor of the Roman Senate.  Once this cultural momentum starts, it takes the fall of the entire culture to end it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is typical of spoiled morons , you know , the kids who got angry because you would n't play the game their way and ran crying to get the teacher or their parents .
The reality is that desire for something better with the freedom to communicate creates competition and constant improvement .
The stagnation that organizations like microcrap and facebook try to shove their idea of how to live down everyone 's throat the way the church did during the dark ages always results in disaster.If courts side with stagnation and censorship again it just means we are following the same road to failure that Rome took two thousand years ago .
When Julius Caesar tried changing things back and it got him stabbed to death on the floor of the Roman Senate .
Once this cultural momentum starts , it takes the fall of the entire culture to end it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is typical of spoiled morons, you know, the kids who got angry because you wouldn't play the game their way and ran crying to get the teacher or their parents.
The reality is that desire for something better with the freedom to communicate creates competition and constant improvement.
The stagnation that organizations like microcrap and facebook try to shove their idea of how to live down everyone's throat the way the church did during the dark ages always results in disaster.If courts side with stagnation and censorship again it just means we are following the same road to failure that Rome took two thousand years ago.
When Julius Caesar tried changing things back and it got him stabbed to death on the floor of the Roman Senate.
Once this cultural momentum starts, it takes the fall of the entire culture to end it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622880</id>
	<title>Re:EULA</title>
	<author>deniable</author>
	<datestamp>1269635940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As an added benefit, violating a web site's TOS is good for a year in prison.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As an added benefit , violating a web site 's TOS is good for a year in prison .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As an added benefit, violating a web site's TOS is good for a year in prison.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622958</id>
	<title>Re:I didn't even know about greasemonkey until tod</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269637080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously, the script's impact probably just ten-folded (at least) due to them making a fuss about it.</p><p>Keep using that brain of yours, Facebook!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , the script 's impact probably just ten-folded ( at least ) due to them making a fuss about it.Keep using that brain of yours , Facebook !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, the script's impact probably just ten-folded (at least) due to them making a fuss about it.Keep using that brain of yours, Facebook!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622454</id>
	<title>It's no problem...</title>
	<author>iztehsux</author>
	<datestamp>1269544200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't see how this is any different than running noscript, or redirecting entries in your host file to 127.0.0.1... Even if this does go to court, I doubt Facebook would come out on top. Explaining to someone how browser content can be modified on the fly using GreaseMonkey might be a little tricky. No harm, no foul. Good luck Facebook, you money-hoarding bastards.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see how this is any different than running noscript , or redirecting entries in your host file to 127.0.0.1... Even if this does go to court , I doubt Facebook would come out on top .
Explaining to someone how browser content can be modified on the fly using GreaseMonkey might be a little tricky .
No harm , no foul .
Good luck Facebook , you money-hoarding bastards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see how this is any different than running noscript, or redirecting entries in your host file to 127.0.0.1... Even if this does go to court, I doubt Facebook would come out on top.
Explaining to someone how browser content can be modified on the fly using GreaseMonkey might be a little tricky.
No harm, no foul.
Good luck Facebook, you money-hoarding bastards.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31630116</id>
	<title>Re:No they dont, and they better not threaten the</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1269631740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Too bad you 'web developers' don't understand that it has one particular 'web developer' (Facebook) acting like a douche bag to web users.</p><p>Greasemonkey is a client side extension that allows a user to script the browser to do neat modifications of web pages that douche bags such as yourself (and facebook) create that piss us users off.</p><p>Its an extension that lets us users tell you to take your freedom as a web developer and shove it up your ass because our freedom is more important than whatever retarded thing you're trying to cram down our throats today, regardless of how 'cool' you think the blink tag is, or how 'awesome' the ads you throw at us are, or how 'modern' the retarded noisy CPU hogging flash game is.  Greasemonkey lets us give you the finger.  You might want to know which group you belong too before you try to jump on the bandwagon.</p><p>I have a sneaking suspecion however that you're definition of being a web developer means you've clicked the view source menu item by the sound of your post and lack of understanding which group you fall into in this case.  Next time instead of trying to be all angsty and get your OMG IPOD CLOSED, XBOX SO BIG, EVIL IF NOT GPL!@#!@$!@$ ignorance all out at once, perhaps you should slow down a little, get a clue, and try to form a coherent thought before showing everyone what they acted like when they were 16.</p><p>Finally<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>Facebook 'dev community'<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... seriously<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...  did you really just say that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Too bad you 'web developers ' do n't understand that it has one particular 'web developer ' ( Facebook ) acting like a douche bag to web users.Greasemonkey is a client side extension that allows a user to script the browser to do neat modifications of web pages that douche bags such as yourself ( and facebook ) create that piss us users off.Its an extension that lets us users tell you to take your freedom as a web developer and shove it up your ass because our freedom is more important than whatever retarded thing you 're trying to cram down our throats today , regardless of how 'cool ' you think the blink tag is , or how 'awesome ' the ads you throw at us are , or how 'modern ' the retarded noisy CPU hogging flash game is .
Greasemonkey lets us give you the finger .
You might want to know which group you belong too before you try to jump on the bandwagon.I have a sneaking suspecion however that you 're definition of being a web developer means you 've clicked the view source menu item by the sound of your post and lack of understanding which group you fall into in this case .
Next time instead of trying to be all angsty and get your OMG IPOD CLOSED , XBOX SO BIG , EVIL IF NOT GPL ! @ # ! @ $ !
@ $ ignorance all out at once , perhaps you should slow down a little , get a clue , and try to form a coherent thought before showing everyone what they acted like when they were 16.Finally ...Facebook 'dev community ' ... seriously ... did you really just say that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too bad you 'web developers' don't understand that it has one particular 'web developer' (Facebook) acting like a douche bag to web users.Greasemonkey is a client side extension that allows a user to script the browser to do neat modifications of web pages that douche bags such as yourself (and facebook) create that piss us users off.Its an extension that lets us users tell you to take your freedom as a web developer and shove it up your ass because our freedom is more important than whatever retarded thing you're trying to cram down our throats today, regardless of how 'cool' you think the blink tag is, or how 'awesome' the ads you throw at us are, or how 'modern' the retarded noisy CPU hogging flash game is.
Greasemonkey lets us give you the finger.
You might want to know which group you belong too before you try to jump on the bandwagon.I have a sneaking suspecion however that you're definition of being a web developer means you've clicked the view source menu item by the sound of your post and lack of understanding which group you fall into in this case.
Next time instead of trying to be all angsty and get your OMG IPOD CLOSED, XBOX SO BIG, EVIL IF NOT GPL!@#!@$!
@$ ignorance all out at once, perhaps you should slow down a little, get a clue, and try to form a coherent thought before showing everyone what they acted like when they were 16.Finally ...Facebook 'dev community' ... seriously ...  did you really just say that?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31636664</id>
	<title>Re:Missing the point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269623760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I propose using the moniker 'BaseFook'<br>Fook 'em.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...Lorenzo</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I propose using the moniker 'BaseFook'Fook 'em .
...Lorenzo</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I propose using the moniker 'BaseFook'Fook 'em.
...Lorenzo</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31623212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31625082</id>
	<title>Re:Thank you Facebook</title>
	<author>fulldecent</author>
	<datestamp>1269613620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't worry about other people talking about not deleting your account because the last saved version will persist. First, your data isn't important. Second, all data is also copied to your friends' wall and photos anyway. Third, they will keep all versions of data to eternity unless you try flooding data into the system to make them delete you -- which will only result in them sending the lawyers.</p><p>In all, please edit this phrase "going to delete my Facebook account" to past tense and then post a screenshot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't worry about other people talking about not deleting your account because the last saved version will persist .
First , your data is n't important .
Second , all data is also copied to your friends ' wall and photos anyway .
Third , they will keep all versions of data to eternity unless you try flooding data into the system to make them delete you -- which will only result in them sending the lawyers.In all , please edit this phrase " going to delete my Facebook account " to past tense and then post a screenshot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't worry about other people talking about not deleting your account because the last saved version will persist.
First, your data isn't important.
Second, all data is also copied to your friends' wall and photos anyway.
Third, they will keep all versions of data to eternity unless you try flooding data into the system to make them delete you -- which will only result in them sending the lawyers.In all, please edit this phrase "going to delete my Facebook account" to past tense and then post a screenshot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31623074</id>
	<title>Thanks facebook!</title>
	<author>chucklebutte</author>
	<datestamp>1269595800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>for informing me of such a wondrous thing!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>for informing me of such a wondrous thing !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>for informing me of such a wondrous thing!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31627258</id>
	<title>Re:What about NoScript? AdBlockers?</title>
	<author>TubeSteak</author>
	<datestamp>1269622320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A while back, there was a company that was editing copyrighted material and distributing their edits. I'm too lazy to look it up here on Slashdot, but you could go buy an R-rated movie from them and they would cut out the appropriate naughty bits to make it a G-rated movie which they would send to you. Needless to say, the studios shrieked to high heaven and the courts shut it down.</p></div><p>In the USA, authors of visual works of art have a <i>moral right</i> to maintain the integrity of their piece, even after it has been sold.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral\_rights\_(copyright\_law)" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral\_rights\_(copyright\_law)</a> [wikipedia.org]<br>The Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990<br>"right to prevent distortion, mutilation, or modification that would prejudice the author's honor or reputation"</p><p>That's why the first few attempts at editing films and distributing them got smacked down hard.<br>The workaround has been to distribute dvd players capable of skipping content based on downloadable filters.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A while back , there was a company that was editing copyrighted material and distributing their edits .
I 'm too lazy to look it up here on Slashdot , but you could go buy an R-rated movie from them and they would cut out the appropriate naughty bits to make it a G-rated movie which they would send to you .
Needless to say , the studios shrieked to high heaven and the courts shut it down.In the USA , authors of visual works of art have a moral right to maintain the integrity of their piece , even after it has been sold.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral \ _rights \ _ ( copyright \ _law ) [ wikipedia.org ] The Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 " right to prevent distortion , mutilation , or modification that would prejudice the author 's honor or reputation " That 's why the first few attempts at editing films and distributing them got smacked down hard.The workaround has been to distribute dvd players capable of skipping content based on downloadable filters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A while back, there was a company that was editing copyrighted material and distributing their edits.
I'm too lazy to look it up here on Slashdot, but you could go buy an R-rated movie from them and they would cut out the appropriate naughty bits to make it a G-rated movie which they would send to you.
Needless to say, the studios shrieked to high heaven and the courts shut it down.In the USA, authors of visual works of art have a moral right to maintain the integrity of their piece, even after it has been sold.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral\_rights\_(copyright\_law) [wikipedia.org]The Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990"right to prevent distortion, mutilation, or modification that would prejudice the author's honor or reputation"That's why the first few attempts at editing films and distributing them got smacked down hard.The workaround has been to distribute dvd players capable of skipping content based on downloadable filters.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622914</id>
	<title>Re:Thank you Facebook</title>
	<author>lena\_10326</author>
	<datestamp>1269636300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Gradually remove all information and apps from your FB profile, in the end leave only the bare minimum that's required to keep the profile alive.</p></div></blockquote><p>


I remember watching a video of a Facebook developer giving a presentation on their data storage architecture. I can't find the video, but the gist of it was that they use a homegrown flat file structure for archiving data which includes image data. External to the archives is an index which points to offsets into the archive files. New data is appended at the end and deleted data gets dereferenced, so the deleted data still resides inside the archive. The developer even mentioned that it was possible to recover the deleted data and then proceeded to speek a little on the privacy concerns because technically the data persists forever because they don't run jobs to condense the archives. This is non-intuitive to even well informed users.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Gradually remove all information and apps from your FB profile , in the end leave only the bare minimum that 's required to keep the profile alive .
I remember watching a video of a Facebook developer giving a presentation on their data storage architecture .
I ca n't find the video , but the gist of it was that they use a homegrown flat file structure for archiving data which includes image data .
External to the archives is an index which points to offsets into the archive files .
New data is appended at the end and deleted data gets dereferenced , so the deleted data still resides inside the archive .
The developer even mentioned that it was possible to recover the deleted data and then proceeded to speek a little on the privacy concerns because technically the data persists forever because they do n't run jobs to condense the archives .
This is non-intuitive to even well informed users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gradually remove all information and apps from your FB profile, in the end leave only the bare minimum that's required to keep the profile alive.
I remember watching a video of a Facebook developer giving a presentation on their data storage architecture.
I can't find the video, but the gist of it was that they use a homegrown flat file structure for archiving data which includes image data.
External to the archives is an index which points to offsets into the archive files.
New data is appended at the end and deleted data gets dereferenced, so the deleted data still resides inside the archive.
The developer even mentioned that it was possible to recover the deleted data and then proceeded to speek a little on the privacy concerns because technically the data persists forever because they don't run jobs to condense the archives.
This is non-intuitive to even well informed users.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31624048</id>
	<title>Re:Thank you Facebook</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269606480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thats weird. Here in Poland you can ask company/whoever to delete your personal data and they have to comply. And I mean DELETE, not stop displaying. It means no backup, not on paper, not anywhere.<br>If you don't comply with such request, you will be forced to stop using ALL your personal data storage, in with case if Facebook had (they do?) some data center in Poland, they couldn't use it anymore, at least not for personal data.</p><p>Seems like a common sense for me, keeping snapshots of personal data even tho that person doesn't want you to? What the shit?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thats weird .
Here in Poland you can ask company/whoever to delete your personal data and they have to comply .
And I mean DELETE , not stop displaying .
It means no backup , not on paper , not anywhere.If you do n't comply with such request , you will be forced to stop using ALL your personal data storage , in with case if Facebook had ( they do ?
) some data center in Poland , they could n't use it anymore , at least not for personal data.Seems like a common sense for me , keeping snapshots of personal data even tho that person does n't want you to ?
What the shit ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thats weird.
Here in Poland you can ask company/whoever to delete your personal data and they have to comply.
And I mean DELETE, not stop displaying.
It means no backup, not on paper, not anywhere.If you don't comply with such request, you will be forced to stop using ALL your personal data storage, in with case if Facebook had (they do?
) some data center in Poland, they couldn't use it anymore, at least not for personal data.Seems like a common sense for me, keeping snapshots of personal data even tho that person doesn't want you to?
What the shit?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31623254</id>
	<title>Re:Thank you Facebook</title>
	<author>John Saffran</author>
	<datestamp>1269597840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Am I the only one who finds this really disturbing? Does the fact that you uploaded the data onto their system give them ownership of it in perpetuity?</p><p>Surely a letter or email requesting deletion of your data should legally require them to delete it. No amount of terms and conditions should be able to override your exclusive ownership of data about you.</p><p>Or maybe I'm just engaging in wishful thinking<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Am I the only one who finds this really disturbing ?
Does the fact that you uploaded the data onto their system give them ownership of it in perpetuity ? Surely a letter or email requesting deletion of your data should legally require them to delete it .
No amount of terms and conditions should be able to override your exclusive ownership of data about you.Or maybe I 'm just engaging in wishful thinking . .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Am I the only one who finds this really disturbing?
Does the fact that you uploaded the data onto their system give them ownership of it in perpetuity?Surely a letter or email requesting deletion of your data should legally require them to delete it.
No amount of terms and conditions should be able to override your exclusive ownership of data about you.Or maybe I'm just engaging in wishful thinking ..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31624708</id>
	<title>Distributed Social Network</title>
	<author>altp</author>
	<datestamp>1269611460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe its time we start pushing distributed social networking.</p><p>Think "HelloWorld" from years ago, but more modern. HelloWorld was great, just ahead of its time.</p><p><a href="http://www.cooperatingsystems.com/index.htm" title="cooperatingsystems.com">http://www.cooperatingsystems.com/index.htm</a> [cooperatingsystems.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe its time we start pushing distributed social networking.Think " HelloWorld " from years ago , but more modern .
HelloWorld was great , just ahead of its time.http : //www.cooperatingsystems.com/index.htm [ cooperatingsystems.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe its time we start pushing distributed social networking.Think "HelloWorld" from years ago, but more modern.
HelloWorld was great, just ahead of its time.http://www.cooperatingsystems.com/index.htm [cooperatingsystems.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31624024</id>
	<title>Easily hide app notifications</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269606240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I really dont get why people keep whining about farmville and other app updates. You can easily disable notifications from specific app when you click 'hide' next to the notification. Then you can either hide notifications from that person or from that specific app.<br>Also I notice that the longer people are on facebook the less STUPID tests they take, such as 'which transformer suits you best' and junk like that...<br>btw, I also use Facebook Fixer, I just love the preview of photo's when you hover them!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I really dont get why people keep whining about farmville and other app updates .
You can easily disable notifications from specific app when you click 'hide ' next to the notification .
Then you can either hide notifications from that person or from that specific app.Also I notice that the longer people are on facebook the less STUPID tests they take , such as 'which transformer suits you best ' and junk like that...btw , I also use Facebook Fixer , I just love the preview of photo 's when you hover them !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really dont get why people keep whining about farmville and other app updates.
You can easily disable notifications from specific app when you click 'hide' next to the notification.
Then you can either hide notifications from that person or from that specific app.Also I notice that the longer people are on facebook the less STUPID tests they take, such as 'which transformer suits you best' and junk like that...btw, I also use Facebook Fixer, I just love the preview of photo's when you hover them!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31624420</id>
	<title>Thanks for the tip! Installing it now!</title>
	<author>zizzybaloobah</author>
	<datestamp>1269609540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd never had known about this script if Facebook had left well enough alone. I'm installing the script now, and encourage everyone else to do the same. I do know how to block FB apps, but am still annoyed by the occasional status update or event invite that includes stuff I don't wanna see.

Yippee Skippee!

(<i>Don't you just love the Streisand Effect?</i>)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd never had known about this script if Facebook had left well enough alone .
I 'm installing the script now , and encourage everyone else to do the same .
I do know how to block FB apps , but am still annoyed by the occasional status update or event invite that includes stuff I do n't wan na see .
Yippee Skippee !
( Do n't you just love the Streisand Effect ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd never had known about this script if Facebook had left well enough alone.
I'm installing the script now, and encourage everyone else to do the same.
I do know how to block FB apps, but am still annoyed by the occasional status update or event invite that includes stuff I don't wanna see.
Yippee Skippee!
(Don't you just love the Streisand Effect?
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31623030</id>
	<title>Re:It's no problem...</title>
	<author>Threni</author>
	<datestamp>1269595020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't understand (yes, I've read the article) what they can sue him for anyway.  Breach of contract? No.  Theft of services? No.  Trademark violation? No.   Seems like a clear case of Facebook trying to intimidate him.  Anyway, the script is out there now, so what can they possibly hope to achieve?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand ( yes , I 've read the article ) what they can sue him for anyway .
Breach of contract ?
No. Theft of services ?
No. Trademark violation ?
No. Seems like a clear case of Facebook trying to intimidate him .
Anyway , the script is out there now , so what can they possibly hope to achieve ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't understand (yes, I've read the article) what they can sue him for anyway.
Breach of contract?
No.  Theft of services?
No.  Trademark violation?
No.   Seems like a clear case of Facebook trying to intimidate him.
Anyway, the script is out there now, so what can they possibly hope to achieve?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622408</id>
	<title>dont use facebook</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269543780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>first<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>first : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>first :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622462</id>
	<title>Thank you Facebook</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269544320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You don't let me export my data directly. You play games threatening to disable my account if I try to export the data by using a 3rd party script. Your employees are able to access my private information easily. I just hate logging into your website these days.</p><p>I'm going to delete my Facebook account. I can hear how my friends are doing by calling them once in a while.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't let me export my data directly .
You play games threatening to disable my account if I try to export the data by using a 3rd party script .
Your employees are able to access my private information easily .
I just hate logging into your website these days.I 'm going to delete my Facebook account .
I can hear how my friends are doing by calling them once in a while .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't let me export my data directly.
You play games threatening to disable my account if I try to export the data by using a 3rd party script.
Your employees are able to access my private information easily.
I just hate logging into your website these days.I'm going to delete my Facebook account.
I can hear how my friends are doing by calling them once in a while.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31625114</id>
	<title>Re:Thank you Facebook</title>
	<author>WML MUNSON</author>
	<datestamp>1269613740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Gradually remove all information and apps from your FB profile, in the end leave only the bare minimum that's required to keep the profile alive. Then leave it that way for a while, at least a year or two. Then delete the account.</p></div><p>
I recently spoke to a Facebook developer about this at a Uganda Linux User Group meeting.  I asked whether or not they keep revision history for profiles.  They don't.
<br> <br>
So, currently, there's no need to wait 2 years.  Simply filling your profile with bad data prior to deletion would be sufficient.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Gradually remove all information and apps from your FB profile , in the end leave only the bare minimum that 's required to keep the profile alive .
Then leave it that way for a while , at least a year or two .
Then delete the account .
I recently spoke to a Facebook developer about this at a Uganda Linux User Group meeting .
I asked whether or not they keep revision history for profiles .
They do n't .
So , currently , there 's no need to wait 2 years .
Simply filling your profile with bad data prior to deletion would be sufficient .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gradually remove all information and apps from your FB profile, in the end leave only the bare minimum that's required to keep the profile alive.
Then leave it that way for a while, at least a year or two.
Then delete the account.
I recently spoke to a Facebook developer about this at a Uganda Linux User Group meeting.
I asked whether or not they keep revision history for profiles.
They don't.
So, currently, there's no need to wait 2 years.
Simply filling your profile with bad data prior to deletion would be sufficient.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31624112</id>
	<title>the way i see it</title>
	<author>FudRucker</author>
	<datestamp>1269607020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>this is MY computer, i own the goddamn thing, and i can install any software i want and that includes things like greasemonkey facebook purdy if i chose to do so, after all the sleazy advertising crap that went on a few years back i was really grateful for tools like Adblock Plus &amp; NoScript, i don't use social networking sites like Facebook, MySpace &amp; Twitter, if i want to contact my friends i do it via two-way radio or a telephone if i have something more confidential to talk about.
<br> <br>
some of my friends have never owned a computer, computers can be troublesome and annoying so i really dont blame them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>this is MY computer , i own the goddamn thing , and i can install any software i want and that includes things like greasemonkey facebook purdy if i chose to do so , after all the sleazy advertising crap that went on a few years back i was really grateful for tools like Adblock Plus &amp; NoScript , i do n't use social networking sites like Facebook , MySpace &amp; Twitter , if i want to contact my friends i do it via two-way radio or a telephone if i have something more confidential to talk about .
some of my friends have never owned a computer , computers can be troublesome and annoying so i really dont blame them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this is MY computer, i own the goddamn thing, and i can install any software i want and that includes things like greasemonkey facebook purdy if i chose to do so, after all the sleazy advertising crap that went on a few years back i was really grateful for tools like Adblock Plus &amp; NoScript, i don't use social networking sites like Facebook, MySpace &amp; Twitter, if i want to contact my friends i do it via two-way radio or a telephone if i have something more confidential to talk about.
some of my friends have never owned a computer, computers can be troublesome and annoying so i really dont blame them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31625520</id>
	<title>Not smart</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269615660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I didn't know about this script, because of Facebook actions, I do now. So... Thanks Facebook for shooting yourself in the foot!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I did n't know about this script , because of Facebook actions , I do now .
So... Thanks Facebook for shooting yourself in the foot !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I didn't know about this script, because of Facebook actions, I do now.
So... Thanks Facebook for shooting yourself in the foot!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31624686</id>
	<title>It dosn't matter</title>
	<author>Rallias Ubernerd</author>
	<datestamp>1269611340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When I signed up for these games, facebook informed me that they couldn't post things to your wall anymore. They required your email if you wanted to send you updates. I obliged, knowing they would go into a special filter in my Gmail inbox.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When I signed up for these games , facebook informed me that they could n't post things to your wall anymore .
They required your email if you wanted to send you updates .
I obliged , knowing they would go into a special filter in my Gmail inbox .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I signed up for these games, facebook informed me that they couldn't post things to your wall anymore.
They required your email if you wanted to send you updates.
I obliged, knowing they would go into a special filter in my Gmail inbox.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31623146</id>
	<title>Re:EULA</title>
	<author>CharlyFoxtrot</author>
	<datestamp>1269596700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If they just stick a clause in the EULA the prohibits people from doing just that, they could stop it. Although I am not sure if they could go after the author, just those who use it. How they would detect that, I'm not sure, but I know there are a few sites that can detect AdBlock.</p></div><p>Firefox extensions can be <a href="http://ha.ckers.org/blog/20060823/detecting-firefox-extentions/" title="ckers.org">detected</a> [ckers.org] through Javascript, including <a href="http://jeremiahgrossman.blogspot.com/2006/08/i-know-what-youve-got-firefox.html" title="blogspot.com">Greasemonkey</a> [blogspot.com]. I don't think they would be able to detect specific Greasemonkey script though and the extension detection can be defeated.</p><p>As to the morality of blocking a client with a specific feature set: how many people here block IE from their site ? There are a lot of precedents, you don't need to put it in the EULA. It has always been the webserver's business what code he serves to which clients.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they just stick a clause in the EULA the prohibits people from doing just that , they could stop it .
Although I am not sure if they could go after the author , just those who use it .
How they would detect that , I 'm not sure , but I know there are a few sites that can detect AdBlock.Firefox extensions can be detected [ ckers.org ] through Javascript , including Greasemonkey [ blogspot.com ] .
I do n't think they would be able to detect specific Greasemonkey script though and the extension detection can be defeated.As to the morality of blocking a client with a specific feature set : how many people here block IE from their site ?
There are a lot of precedents , you do n't need to put it in the EULA .
It has always been the webserver 's business what code he serves to which clients .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they just stick a clause in the EULA the prohibits people from doing just that, they could stop it.
Although I am not sure if they could go after the author, just those who use it.
How they would detect that, I'm not sure, but I know there are a few sites that can detect AdBlock.Firefox extensions can be detected [ckers.org] through Javascript, including Greasemonkey [blogspot.com].
I don't think they would be able to detect specific Greasemonkey script though and the extension detection can be defeated.As to the morality of blocking a client with a specific feature set: how many people here block IE from their site ?
There are a lot of precedents, you don't need to put it in the EULA.
It has always been the webserver's business what code he serves to which clients.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31636526</id>
	<title>Re:No... Oh Yes =)</title>
	<author>NSN A392-99-964-5927</author>
	<datestamp>1269622560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well facebook have gone after <a href="http://www.suicidemachine.com/" title="suicidemachine.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.suicidemachine.com/</a> [suicidemachine.com]  which is quite funny.  I must say, I am rather disappointed with slashdot being on facebook. Since when did<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. need facebook? I say commit social networking suicide =) But that could be the point of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. building up a massive user database and following. Then<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. commits suicide.... and facebook cry!  hell I will even sign up with a fake account if that is the master plan!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well facebook have gone after http : //www.suicidemachine.com/ [ suicidemachine.com ] which is quite funny .
I must say , I am rather disappointed with slashdot being on facebook .
Since when did / .
need facebook ?
I say commit social networking suicide = ) But that could be the point of / .
building up a massive user database and following .
Then / .
commits suicide.... and facebook cry !
hell I will even sign up with a fake account if that is the master plan !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well facebook have gone after http://www.suicidemachine.com/ [suicidemachine.com]  which is quite funny.
I must say, I am rather disappointed with slashdot being on facebook.
Since when did /.
need facebook?
I say commit social networking suicide =) But that could be the point of /.
building up a massive user database and following.
Then /.
commits suicide.... and facebook cry!
hell I will even sign up with a fake account if that is the master plan!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622890</id>
	<title>What's the point of this script?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269636060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Facebook has inbuilt "ignore this"-feature. Every post has an X on the top-right corner, click it, and you can choose do you want to ignore application or the user who spams your newsfeed (in case you don't want to lose him/her from your friendlist). I did this months ago, and since then I've forgotten that Mafia Wars even exist.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Facebook has inbuilt " ignore this " -feature .
Every post has an X on the top-right corner , click it , and you can choose do you want to ignore application or the user who spams your newsfeed ( in case you do n't want to lose him/her from your friendlist ) .
I did this months ago , and since then I 've forgotten that Mafia Wars even exist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Facebook has inbuilt "ignore this"-feature.
Every post has an X on the top-right corner, click it, and you can choose do you want to ignore application or the user who spams your newsfeed (in case you don't want to lose him/her from your friendlist).
I did this months ago, and since then I've forgotten that Mafia Wars even exist.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31625328</id>
	<title>Re:Of course not</title>
	<author>Lord Ender</author>
	<datestamp>1269614760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's hard for a judge to apply SLAPP liberally when he's dealing with a subject he doesn't understand at all.</p><p>Wait for the kids who grew up online to dominate the courts. Then the legal climate for the Internet will start to become reasonable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's hard for a judge to apply SLAPP liberally when he 's dealing with a subject he does n't understand at all.Wait for the kids who grew up online to dominate the courts .
Then the legal climate for the Internet will start to become reasonable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's hard for a judge to apply SLAPP liberally when he's dealing with a subject he doesn't understand at all.Wait for the kids who grew up online to dominate the courts.
Then the legal climate for the Internet will start to become reasonable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31630988</id>
	<title>A good start...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269635280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When the Greasemonkey script comes out that blocks everything on FB but chat and messages, I'm there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When the Greasemonkey script comes out that blocks everything on FB but chat and messages , I 'm there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When the Greasemonkey script comes out that blocks everything on FB but chat and messages, I'm there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622926</id>
	<title>I use this script on Opera</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269636480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and it's VERY handy...</p><p>PS.  Does slashdot want to put an Opera icon on the top, as clearly Greasemonkey/UserJS is not just for Firefox, it originated in Opera long before there was a Firefox extension.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and it 's VERY handy...PS .
Does slashdot want to put an Opera icon on the top , as clearly Greasemonkey/UserJS is not just for Firefox , it originated in Opera long before there was a Firefox extension .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and it's VERY handy...PS.
Does slashdot want to put an Opera icon on the top, as clearly Greasemonkey/UserJS is not just for Firefox, it originated in Opera long before there was a Firefox extension.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31623276</id>
	<title>Re:Thank you Facebook</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269598140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you know how flawed your logic is???</p><p>"FB can't possibly keep backups of every state of your profile"</p><p>Any textual changes to your profile, modifying info, adding status things, comments, etc. are just PLAIN TEXT. If they have no trouble storing all the images on their website, then an extra 1\% of harddrive space to keep every single plain text update added to their website is NOT a big deal.</p><p>Most people upload hundreds of pictures before they delete any... So an extra 1\% of harddrive space again allows facebook to keep any photo that ever gets deleted.</p><p>You are very much underestimating how cheap harddrives are, and you are also underestimating how little content gets deleted compared to uploaded.</p><p>Data IS what is worth money to facebook. They might remove a reference to the data, but they certainly would never throw it away.</p><p>Mike</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you know how flawed your logic is ? ? ?
" FB ca n't possibly keep backups of every state of your profile " Any textual changes to your profile , modifying info , adding status things , comments , etc .
are just PLAIN TEXT .
If they have no trouble storing all the images on their website , then an extra 1 \ % of harddrive space to keep every single plain text update added to their website is NOT a big deal.Most people upload hundreds of pictures before they delete any... So an extra 1 \ % of harddrive space again allows facebook to keep any photo that ever gets deleted.You are very much underestimating how cheap harddrives are , and you are also underestimating how little content gets deleted compared to uploaded.Data IS what is worth money to facebook .
They might remove a reference to the data , but they certainly would never throw it away.Mike</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you know how flawed your logic is???
"FB can't possibly keep backups of every state of your profile"Any textual changes to your profile, modifying info, adding status things, comments, etc.
are just PLAIN TEXT.
If they have no trouble storing all the images on their website, then an extra 1\% of harddrive space to keep every single plain text update added to their website is NOT a big deal.Most people upload hundreds of pictures before they delete any... So an extra 1\% of harddrive space again allows facebook to keep any photo that ever gets deleted.You are very much underestimating how cheap harddrives are, and you are also underestimating how little content gets deleted compared to uploaded.Data IS what is worth money to facebook.
They might remove a reference to the data, but they certainly would never throw it away.Mike</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622744</id>
	<title>Re:Thank you Facebook</title>
	<author>TheSpoom</author>
	<datestamp>1269634140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can't delete your Facebook account unless you contact them with a (good) lawyer.  You can only disable it, which only stops the emails.  Your account remains accessible to everyone and, of course, every last shred of information about you remains in their database.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't delete your Facebook account unless you contact them with a ( good ) lawyer .
You can only disable it , which only stops the emails .
Your account remains accessible to everyone and , of course , every last shred of information about you remains in their database .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't delete your Facebook account unless you contact them with a (good) lawyer.
You can only disable it, which only stops the emails.
Your account remains accessible to everyone and, of course, every last shred of information about you remains in their database.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31624068</id>
	<title>Re:Thank you Facebook</title>
	<author>ztransform</author>
	<datestamp>1269606600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And you'll find yourself with a shitload of newly free hours in the day in which you can do all sorts of stuff.</p></div><p>Now if only I could find a way to free myself from slashdot...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And you 'll find yourself with a shitload of newly free hours in the day in which you can do all sorts of stuff.Now if only I could find a way to free myself from slashdot.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And you'll find yourself with a shitload of newly free hours in the day in which you can do all sorts of stuff.Now if only I could find a way to free myself from slashdot...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31623188</id>
	<title>Re:Thank you Facebook</title>
	<author>DMiax</author>
	<datestamp>1269597180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>And if you can get people off of slashdot too, we'll get humanity on Mars in a couple of weeks as a bonus.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And if you can get people off of slashdot too , we 'll get humanity on Mars in a couple of weeks as a bonus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And if you can get people off of slashdot too, we'll get humanity on Mars in a couple of weeks as a bonus.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622800</id>
	<title>It's already a feature in Facebook</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269634980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I noticed when one of my friends keept bothering me with Zombiefarm that if you click hide on the person, the option to hide the application or the user is available.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I noticed when one of my friends keept bothering me with Zombiefarm that if you click hide on the person , the option to hide the application or the user is available .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I noticed when one of my friends keept bothering me with Zombiefarm that if you click hide on the person, the option to hide the application or the user is available.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31627420</id>
	<title>Re:No...</title>
	<author>Have Brain Will Rent</author>
	<datestamp>1269622980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah that would be like broadcasters having the right to say what you do with their signal once it was on the airwaves and coming, uninvited, into your own home.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah that would be like broadcasters having the right to say what you do with their signal once it was on the airwaves and coming , uninvited , into your own home .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah that would be like broadcasters having the right to say what you do with their signal once it was on the airwaves and coming, uninvited, into your own home.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31624284</id>
	<title>Re:Of course not</title>
	<author>Kijori</author>
	<datestamp>1269608340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I wish judges were a little more liberal with SLAPP summary judgments against litigious corporations.</p></div><p>As far as I am aware there is no SLAPP protection that would allow a judge to dismiss this out of hand; even the most comprehensive protections only extend to constitutionally-protected activities, which would not cover FB Purity.</p><p>Given the renaming my guess would be that the problem was with the name "FaceBook Purity". This would seem a difficult case to bring, since (subject to the standard "I am not a US lawyer and this is not legal advice" disclaimer) a suit for trademark infringement or passing off would require them to prove actual confusion, i.e. that someone had intended to deal with Facebook but had instead dealt with this chap, under the belief that he <i>was</i> Facebook. In court his counsel is just going to say "you're a well-educated person; are you <i>really</i> telling me that you looked at this page, with a dodgy logo, spelling and grammar mistakes you honestly could not tell that it was the website of some young man and not of a huge multi-national corporation?", the witness is going to say "well I could tell, but I knew it was a rip-off" and the counsel will get the case dismissed. And even if they showed actual confusion - which seems astronomically implausible - they would have to show that there was damage to their trademark, which again seems incredibly unlikely.</p><p>So my judgement would be that while there is no statutory protection for him, if they are actually threatening legal action he should get a consultation with a legal firm offering no-win-no-fee IP representation; given that he is almost certain to win they will take it on and reclaim costs from Facebook if it goes to court.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wish judges were a little more liberal with SLAPP summary judgments against litigious corporations.As far as I am aware there is no SLAPP protection that would allow a judge to dismiss this out of hand ; even the most comprehensive protections only extend to constitutionally-protected activities , which would not cover FB Purity.Given the renaming my guess would be that the problem was with the name " FaceBook Purity " .
This would seem a difficult case to bring , since ( subject to the standard " I am not a US lawyer and this is not legal advice " disclaimer ) a suit for trademark infringement or passing off would require them to prove actual confusion , i.e .
that someone had intended to deal with Facebook but had instead dealt with this chap , under the belief that he was Facebook .
In court his counsel is just going to say " you 're a well-educated person ; are you really telling me that you looked at this page , with a dodgy logo , spelling and grammar mistakes you honestly could not tell that it was the website of some young man and not of a huge multi-national corporation ?
" , the witness is going to say " well I could tell , but I knew it was a rip-off " and the counsel will get the case dismissed .
And even if they showed actual confusion - which seems astronomically implausible - they would have to show that there was damage to their trademark , which again seems incredibly unlikely.So my judgement would be that while there is no statutory protection for him , if they are actually threatening legal action he should get a consultation with a legal firm offering no-win-no-fee IP representation ; given that he is almost certain to win they will take it on and reclaim costs from Facebook if it goes to court .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wish judges were a little more liberal with SLAPP summary judgments against litigious corporations.As far as I am aware there is no SLAPP protection that would allow a judge to dismiss this out of hand; even the most comprehensive protections only extend to constitutionally-protected activities, which would not cover FB Purity.Given the renaming my guess would be that the problem was with the name "FaceBook Purity".
This would seem a difficult case to bring, since (subject to the standard "I am not a US lawyer and this is not legal advice" disclaimer) a suit for trademark infringement or passing off would require them to prove actual confusion, i.e.
that someone had intended to deal with Facebook but had instead dealt with this chap, under the belief that he was Facebook.
In court his counsel is just going to say "you're a well-educated person; are you really telling me that you looked at this page, with a dodgy logo, spelling and grammar mistakes you honestly could not tell that it was the website of some young man and not of a huge multi-national corporation?
", the witness is going to say "well I could tell, but I knew it was a rip-off" and the counsel will get the case dismissed.
And even if they showed actual confusion - which seems astronomically implausible - they would have to show that there was damage to their trademark, which again seems incredibly unlikely.So my judgement would be that while there is no statutory protection for him, if they are actually threatening legal action he should get a consultation with a legal firm offering no-win-no-fee IP representation; given that he is almost certain to win they will take it on and reclaim costs from Facebook if it goes to court.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31625158</id>
	<title>Re:EULA</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1269613980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Time to hop on the next social bandwagon</i></p><p>I never was much one for bandwagons, especially this kind of bandwagon. My sister, who explains how computers work with a shrug and "it's magic" is on it. So are her kids. I wouldn't be surprised if her nine year old grandson was on it. My mom's on it.</p><p>I never had it load in my browser. I tried MySpace years ago at the urging of some young musician friends, and found it wanting. I abandoned the page, and don't even know if it's still there.</p><p>We have slashdot, why would we need FaceBook? We're nerds, not yuppies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Time to hop on the next social bandwagonI never was much one for bandwagons , especially this kind of bandwagon .
My sister , who explains how computers work with a shrug and " it 's magic " is on it .
So are her kids .
I would n't be surprised if her nine year old grandson was on it .
My mom 's on it.I never had it load in my browser .
I tried MySpace years ago at the urging of some young musician friends , and found it wanting .
I abandoned the page , and do n't even know if it 's still there.We have slashdot , why would we need FaceBook ?
We 're nerds , not yuppies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Time to hop on the next social bandwagonI never was much one for bandwagons, especially this kind of bandwagon.
My sister, who explains how computers work with a shrug and "it's magic" is on it.
So are her kids.
I wouldn't be surprised if her nine year old grandson was on it.
My mom's on it.I never had it load in my browser.
I tried MySpace years ago at the urging of some young musician friends, and found it wanting.
I abandoned the page, and don't even know if it's still there.We have slashdot, why would we need FaceBook?
We're nerds, not yuppies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622442</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31625270</id>
	<title>Re:Of course not</title>
	<author>swillden</author>
	<datestamp>1269614460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the developer can't possibly afford to defend himself so he'll comply</p></div><p>I've sent an e-mail to the EFF encouraging them to take up his case if it goes that far, and saying that I'll contribute another $100 if they do.

</p><p>This sort of thing is a serious danger to on-line freedom, and everyone who cares about it should chip in to make sure that the fight goes the way we want it to.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the developer ca n't possibly afford to defend himself so he 'll complyI 've sent an e-mail to the EFF encouraging them to take up his case if it goes that far , and saying that I 'll contribute another $ 100 if they do .
This sort of thing is a serious danger to on-line freedom , and everyone who cares about it should chip in to make sure that the fight goes the way we want it to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the developer can't possibly afford to defend himself so he'll complyI've sent an e-mail to the EFF encouraging them to take up his case if it goes that far, and saying that I'll contribute another $100 if they do.
This sort of thing is a serious danger to on-line freedom, and everyone who cares about it should chip in to make sure that the fight goes the way we want it to.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622474</id>
	<title>Redundant</title>
	<author>Katchu</author>
	<datestamp>1269544380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Facebook has a new feature to hide output from applications. You can still see friends posts, but don't see the output of Farmville, Mafia Wars, or other "noisy" applications.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Facebook has a new feature to hide output from applications .
You can still see friends posts , but do n't see the output of Farmville , Mafia Wars , or other " noisy " applications .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Facebook has a new feature to hide output from applications.
You can still see friends posts, but don't see the output of Farmville, Mafia Wars, or other "noisy" applications.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622450</id>
	<title>I didn't even know about greasemonkey until today</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269544140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm going to install it now.</p><p>Thanks for bringing this to script to my attention, Facebook!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm going to install it now.Thanks for bringing this to script to my attention , Facebook !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm going to install it now.Thanks for bringing this to script to my attention, Facebook!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31627938</id>
	<title>Too late on both counts</title>
	<author>istartedi</author>
	<datestamp>1269624720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First, the cat's out of the bag.
Somebody else will just come up
with a similar script.  Second, the
aforementioned silly items already
make FB worthless for me.</p><p>I never got attached enough to FB to care
about installing a script.  I went back to
the simplicity of Twitter for that kind of thing,
and check my FB once every few weeks just to
see if anything is really different.  Every time
I do that, I see page after page of people's horoscopes
from yesterday.  I sigh and close the window.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First , the cat 's out of the bag .
Somebody else will just come up with a similar script .
Second , the aforementioned silly items already make FB worthless for me.I never got attached enough to FB to care about installing a script .
I went back to the simplicity of Twitter for that kind of thing , and check my FB once every few weeks just to see if anything is really different .
Every time I do that , I see page after page of people 's horoscopes from yesterday .
I sigh and close the window .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, the cat's out of the bag.
Somebody else will just come up
with a similar script.
Second, the
aforementioned silly items already
make FB worthless for me.I never got attached enough to FB to care
about installing a script.
I went back to
the simplicity of Twitter for that kind of thing,
and check my FB once every few weeks just to
see if anything is really different.
Every time
I do that, I see page after page of people's horoscopes
from yesterday.
I sigh and close the window.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622944</id>
	<title>Re:What about NoScript? AdBlockers?</title>
	<author>Tim C</author>
	<datestamp>1269636780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NO, copyright does not end after distribution over HTTP.</p><p>However, copyright has nothing to do with this. If I buy a book or a newspaper, I am not allowed to copy it and give it to others; but there is nothing preventing me from taking a pair of scissors to it and removing sections I do not want to read. I could tear out every other page and burn it if I wanted to.</p><p>I really fail to see how this is any different, except that I am instructing a piece of software to do it for me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NO , copyright does not end after distribution over HTTP.However , copyright has nothing to do with this .
If I buy a book or a newspaper , I am not allowed to copy it and give it to others ; but there is nothing preventing me from taking a pair of scissors to it and removing sections I do not want to read .
I could tear out every other page and burn it if I wanted to.I really fail to see how this is any different , except that I am instructing a piece of software to do it for me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NO, copyright does not end after distribution over HTTP.However, copyright has nothing to do with this.
If I buy a book or a newspaper, I am not allowed to copy it and give it to others; but there is nothing preventing me from taking a pair of scissors to it and removing sections I do not want to read.
I could tear out every other page and burn it if I wanted to.I really fail to see how this is any different, except that I am instructing a piece of software to do it for me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31624698</id>
	<title>Extrapolate the precedent of this case...</title>
	<author>Junior J. Junior III</author>
	<datestamp>1269611400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I sincerely hope that Facebook does not prevail here.  If they do, then the next thing that we'll have to deal with is <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=facebook+syphilis" title="google.com">condom manufacturers getting into trouble due to blocking syphilis</a> [google.com].  We really don't need that.  I hope Facebook's legal department thinks about this and reconsiders.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I sincerely hope that Facebook does not prevail here .
If they do , then the next thing that we 'll have to deal with is condom manufacturers getting into trouble due to blocking syphilis [ google.com ] .
We really do n't need that .
I hope Facebook 's legal department thinks about this and reconsiders .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I sincerely hope that Facebook does not prevail here.
If they do, then the next thing that we'll have to deal with is condom manufacturers getting into trouble due to blocking syphilis [google.com].
We really don't need that.
I hope Facebook's legal department thinks about this and reconsiders.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31624488</id>
	<title>Re:I would hope not</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269610080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Once it's on your monitor, it's just a bunch of well formed data.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Once it 's on your monitor , it 's just a bunch of well formed data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once it's on your monitor, it's just a bunch of well formed data.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622448</id>
	<title>Of course not</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269544140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Of course they don't, but it doesn't matter because the developer can't possibly afford to defend himself so he'll comply because it doesn't matter if you're right if you're homeless. I wish judges were a little more liberal with SLAPP summary judgments against litigious corporations.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course they do n't , but it does n't matter because the developer ca n't possibly afford to defend himself so he 'll comply because it does n't matter if you 're right if you 're homeless .
I wish judges were a little more liberal with SLAPP summary judgments against litigious corporations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course they don't, but it doesn't matter because the developer can't possibly afford to defend himself so he'll comply because it doesn't matter if you're right if you're homeless.
I wish judges were a little more liberal with SLAPP summary judgments against litigious corporations.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31624788</id>
	<title>Re:EULA</title>
	<author>Midnight Thunder</author>
	<datestamp>1269611940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>If they just stick a clause in the EULA the prohibits people from doing just that, they could stop it. Although I am not sure if they could go after the author, just those who use it. How they would detect that, I'm not sure, but I know there are a few sites that can detect AdBlock.</i></p><p>Would that make it illegal to view their web site through IE6 or Netscape 1.0? The point is that once something is data on your computer a program's author should not be sued because of personal content filtering or a web browser that is not rendering things faithfully. Facebook has the right to print something, and the viewer should have the right to not view something in its original form if they chose not to. Facebook should work out how to defeat this plug-in if they really want to do away with it, using technical solutions. Until then Facebook has just enacted the Streisand effect, since a whole bunch more people are aware of the tool.</p><p>BTW Even with a EULA, there are limitations to what can legally be stated without invalidating it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they just stick a clause in the EULA the prohibits people from doing just that , they could stop it .
Although I am not sure if they could go after the author , just those who use it .
How they would detect that , I 'm not sure , but I know there are a few sites that can detect AdBlock.Would that make it illegal to view their web site through IE6 or Netscape 1.0 ?
The point is that once something is data on your computer a program 's author should not be sued because of personal content filtering or a web browser that is not rendering things faithfully .
Facebook has the right to print something , and the viewer should have the right to not view something in its original form if they chose not to .
Facebook should work out how to defeat this plug-in if they really want to do away with it , using technical solutions .
Until then Facebook has just enacted the Streisand effect , since a whole bunch more people are aware of the tool.BTW Even with a EULA , there are limitations to what can legally be stated without invalidating it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they just stick a clause in the EULA the prohibits people from doing just that, they could stop it.
Although I am not sure if they could go after the author, just those who use it.
How they would detect that, I'm not sure, but I know there are a few sites that can detect AdBlock.Would that make it illegal to view their web site through IE6 or Netscape 1.0?
The point is that once something is data on your computer a program's author should not be sued because of personal content filtering or a web browser that is not rendering things faithfully.
Facebook has the right to print something, and the viewer should have the right to not view something in its original form if they chose not to.
Facebook should work out how to defeat this plug-in if they really want to do away with it, using technical solutions.
Until then Facebook has just enacted the Streisand effect, since a whole bunch more people are aware of the tool.BTW Even with a EULA, there are limitations to what can legally be stated without invalidating it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622412</id>
	<title>No...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269543840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>No. They don't...</htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
They do n't.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
They don't...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622798</id>
	<title>Wha?!</title>
	<author>nilbog</author>
	<datestamp>1269634860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Holy crap there's a facebook purity greasemonkey script?  Thanks for letting me know about it, Facebook.  I'm off to install it now!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Holy crap there 's a facebook purity greasemonkey script ?
Thanks for letting me know about it , Facebook .
I 'm off to install it now !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Holy crap there's a facebook purity greasemonkey script?
Thanks for letting me know about it, Facebook.
I'm off to install it now!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622424</id>
	<title>But Facebook lets you block App stories</title>
	<author>assassinator42</author>
	<datestamp>1269543960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can hide all news feed posts from a certain application without using any addons. I don't see why they would be against this. I half-expected the "going after" him in the headline was to offer him a job before reading the summary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can hide all news feed posts from a certain application without using any addons .
I do n't see why they would be against this .
I half-expected the " going after " him in the headline was to offer him a job before reading the summary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can hide all news feed posts from a certain application without using any addons.
I don't see why they would be against this.
I half-expected the "going after" him in the headline was to offer him a job before reading the summary.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622996</id>
	<title>Re:I didn't even know about greasemonkey until tod</title>
	<author>Low Ranked Craig</author>
	<datestamp>1269594480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ditto.  Added with thanks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ditto .
Added with thanks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ditto.
Added with thanks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31633574</id>
	<title>Re:Thank you Facebook</title>
	<author>Abcd1234</author>
	<datestamp>1269603240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>And you'll find yourself with a shitload of newly free hours in the day</i></p><p>Uhh... what the fuck.  How are you spending *hours* on Facebook every single day??</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And you 'll find yourself with a shitload of newly free hours in the dayUhh... what the fuck .
How are you spending * hours * on Facebook every single day ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And you'll find yourself with a shitload of newly free hours in the dayUhh... what the fuck.
How are you spending *hours* on Facebook every single day?
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622560</id>
	<title>Re:EULA</title>
	<author>Greyfox</author>
	<datestamp>1269545220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>One of the nice things compared to google buzz is that you don't get a ton of farmville spam whenever you log in there. You don't get much else either, which some people might view as a down side, but if other sites get more annoying things might pick up over there. You can hide a lot of the spam in Facebook now, but that just seems to make the game developers branch out into similar annoying games.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the nice things compared to google buzz is that you do n't get a ton of farmville spam whenever you log in there .
You do n't get much else either , which some people might view as a down side , but if other sites get more annoying things might pick up over there .
You can hide a lot of the spam in Facebook now , but that just seems to make the game developers branch out into similar annoying games .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the nice things compared to google buzz is that you don't get a ton of farmville spam whenever you log in there.
You don't get much else either, which some people might view as a down side, but if other sites get more annoying things might pick up over there.
You can hide a lot of the spam in Facebook now, but that just seems to make the game developers branch out into similar annoying games.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622442</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31623690</id>
	<title>Re:What's the point of this script?</title>
	<author>Frantactical Fruke</author>
	<datestamp>1269602520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a few game addicts in my friend list. Who try every bleeding game they come across. Still, today, after hitting literally hundreds of ignore buttons, my news feed is usually fluff free. Boy, do I feel stupid for not using the greasemonkey script to spare me all that work...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a few game addicts in my friend list .
Who try every bleeding game they come across .
Still , today , after hitting literally hundreds of ignore buttons , my news feed is usually fluff free .
Boy , do I feel stupid for not using the greasemonkey script to spare me all that work.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a few game addicts in my friend list.
Who try every bleeding game they come across.
Still, today, after hitting literally hundreds of ignore buttons, my news feed is usually fluff free.
Boy, do I feel stupid for not using the greasemonkey script to spare me all that work...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622890</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622788</id>
	<title>Is it so tough...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269634740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Click "Hide"<br>Click "Hide "</p><p>There. Done.</p><p>The only time I get game spam is when a friend finds a new game. Otherwise, I don't see any of it - Mafia Wars, Vampire Wars, Farmville - all *gasp* hidden.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Click " Hide " Click " Hide " There .
Done.The only time I get game spam is when a friend finds a new game .
Otherwise , I do n't see any of it - Mafia Wars , Vampire Wars , Farmville - all * gasp * hidden .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Click "Hide"Click "Hide "There.
Done.The only time I get game spam is when a friend finds a new game.
Otherwise, I don't see any of it - Mafia Wars, Vampire Wars, Farmville - all *gasp* hidden.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31626616</id>
	<title>Re:Thank you Facebook</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269619680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://suicidemachine.org/</p><p>Might still work. =)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //suicidemachine.org/Might still work .
= )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://suicidemachine.org/Might still work.
=)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622414</id>
	<title>EULA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269543840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If they just stick a clause in the EULA the prohibits people from doing just that, they could stop it. Although I am not sure if they could go after the author, just those who use it. How they would detect that, I'm not sure, but I know there are a few sites that can detect AdBlock.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they just stick a clause in the EULA the prohibits people from doing just that , they could stop it .
Although I am not sure if they could go after the author , just those who use it .
How they would detect that , I 'm not sure , but I know there are a few sites that can detect AdBlock .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they just stick a clause in the EULA the prohibits people from doing just that, they could stop it.
Although I am not sure if they could go after the author, just those who use it.
How they would detect that, I'm not sure, but I know there are a few sites that can detect AdBlock.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31624454</id>
	<title>Re:Thank you Facebook</title>
	<author>inkyblue2</author>
	<datestamp>1269609780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"FB can't possibly keep backups of every state of your profile"</p><p>Wrong, for two reasons: (1) as sites and traffic grow, old data becomes a smaller and smaller slice of the total storage pie, and (2) storage just keeps getting cheaper. Also... just how much space do you thing profile information takes up, anyway? I'm guessing photos and activity logs are the bulk of their storage costs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" FB ca n't possibly keep backups of every state of your profile " Wrong , for two reasons : ( 1 ) as sites and traffic grow , old data becomes a smaller and smaller slice of the total storage pie , and ( 2 ) storage just keeps getting cheaper .
Also... just how much space do you thing profile information takes up , anyway ?
I 'm guessing photos and activity logs are the bulk of their storage costs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"FB can't possibly keep backups of every state of your profile"Wrong, for two reasons: (1) as sites and traffic grow, old data becomes a smaller and smaller slice of the total storage pie, and (2) storage just keeps getting cheaper.
Also... just how much space do you thing profile information takes up, anyway?
I'm guessing photos and activity logs are the bulk of their storage costs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622836</id>
	<title>lite.facebook.com</title>
	<author>amchugh</author>
	<datestamp>1269635400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does this script give you anything that lite.facebook.com doesn't already?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does this script give you anything that lite.facebook.com does n't already ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does this script give you anything that lite.facebook.com doesn't already?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31624034</id>
	<title>Re:Thank you Facebook</title>
	<author>digitalsushi</author>
	<datestamp>1269606360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>FB can't possibly keep backups of every state of your profile</i></p><p>It's called a database.  And yeah, it's really easy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FB ca n't possibly keep backups of every state of your profileIt 's called a database .
And yeah , it 's really easy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FB can't possibly keep backups of every state of your profileIt's called a database.
And yeah, it's really easy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622812</id>
	<title>Its your browser...</title>
	<author>AHuxley</author>
	<datestamp>1269635040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>On your computer, running an 'app'/'script' on your browser on your computer  with your bandwidth.<br>
Its all local.<br>
All I can suggest is a firefox web2.0 edition.<br>
To the web presents a perfect clean firefox with all all options running, to you the user its script ready and never shall the two layers meet<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;).<br>
As for facebook, we the net using population cannot help your profit dreams.<br>
Unless you build a wall with a password and pay per play entry- your 'experience' is open for all on any browser.</htmltext>
<tokenext>On your computer , running an 'app'/'script ' on your browser on your computer with your bandwidth .
Its all local .
All I can suggest is a firefox web2.0 edition .
To the web presents a perfect clean firefox with all all options running , to you the user its script ready and never shall the two layers meet ; ) .
As for facebook , we the net using population can not help your profit dreams .
Unless you build a wall with a password and pay per play entry- your 'experience ' is open for all on any browser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On your computer, running an 'app'/'script' on your browser on your computer  with your bandwidth.
Its all local.
All I can suggest is a firefox web2.0 edition.
To the web presents a perfect clean firefox with all all options running, to you the user its script ready and never shall the two layers meet ;).
As for facebook, we the net using population cannot help your profit dreams.
Unless you build a wall with a password and pay per play entry- your 'experience' is open for all on any browser.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31623118</id>
	<title>What, precisely, are they threatening?</title>
	<author>julesh</author>
	<datestamp>1269596460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I see no details in the article.  Looking at the <a href="http://steeev.site50.net/fbpurity/news.htm" title="site50.net">developer's site</a> [site50.net], it seems their actions are:</p><p>- Shutting down the facebook profile associated with the script.  This is poor behaviour, but entirely within their rights: it's their web site, if they don't want to support stuff like this it is their choice to do so.<br>- Threaten to take legal action to seize control of a domain called "facebookplus.org", which the author claims is entirely unrelated to him.</p><p>So, what's the big fuss about?  The former is annoying, but hardly "threatening to close him down"; the second appears to be a case of mistaken identity which will go away if he ignores it.  Or is there some other threat I haven't seen?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I see no details in the article .
Looking at the developer 's site [ site50.net ] , it seems their actions are : - Shutting down the facebook profile associated with the script .
This is poor behaviour , but entirely within their rights : it 's their web site , if they do n't want to support stuff like this it is their choice to do so.- Threaten to take legal action to seize control of a domain called " facebookplus.org " , which the author claims is entirely unrelated to him.So , what 's the big fuss about ?
The former is annoying , but hardly " threatening to close him down " ; the second appears to be a case of mistaken identity which will go away if he ignores it .
Or is there some other threat I have n't seen ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see no details in the article.
Looking at the developer's site [site50.net], it seems their actions are:- Shutting down the facebook profile associated with the script.
This is poor behaviour, but entirely within their rights: it's their web site, if they don't want to support stuff like this it is their choice to do so.- Threaten to take legal action to seize control of a domain called "facebookplus.org", which the author claims is entirely unrelated to him.So, what's the big fuss about?
The former is annoying, but hardly "threatening to close him down"; the second appears to be a case of mistaken identity which will go away if he ignores it.
Or is there some other threat I haven't seen?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31624332</id>
	<title>Streisand Effect</title>
	<author>misfit815</author>
	<datestamp>1269608880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Never heard of this until now. *Definitely* looking into it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Never heard of this until now .
* Definitely * looking into it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Never heard of this until now.
*Definitely* looking into it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31623656</id>
	<title>Re:EULA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269602280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They can alter the EULA to prohibit the development as easily as they can prohibit it's use.  Since he's a user of their service he's bound by their EULA too.</p><p>They make money from Facebook apps, the last thing they want is people coding for their service in a way that doesn't make them money.  I don't like this approach to end users, but if it bothered me that much I'd just stop using Facebook, and clearly that's not the case.  Yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They can alter the EULA to prohibit the development as easily as they can prohibit it 's use .
Since he 's a user of their service he 's bound by their EULA too.They make money from Facebook apps , the last thing they want is people coding for their service in a way that does n't make them money .
I do n't like this approach to end users , but if it bothered me that much I 'd just stop using Facebook , and clearly that 's not the case .
Yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They can alter the EULA to prohibit the development as easily as they can prohibit it's use.
Since he's a user of their service he's bound by their EULA too.They make money from Facebook apps, the last thing they want is people coding for their service in a way that doesn't make them money.
I don't like this approach to end users, but if it bothered me that much I'd just stop using Facebook, and clearly that's not the case.
Yet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622442</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622568</id>
	<title>Re:I didn't even know about greasemonkey until tod</title>
	<author>The Altruist</author>
	<datestamp>1269545280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><b>Streisand Effect FOR THE WIN!</b> <br>
Seriously, she should start offering training courses.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Streisand Effect FOR THE WIN !
Seriously , she should start offering training courses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Streisand Effect FOR THE WIN!
Seriously, she should start offering training courses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31624982</id>
	<title>Re:Thank you Facebook</title>
	<author>SlashBugs</author>
	<datestamp>1269613080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Does the fact that you uploaded the data onto their system give them ownership of it in perpetuity?</i> <br> <br>

IIRC, when I signed up to FB, the Terms and Conditions for explicitly said that they own the rights for anything you upload: pictures, text, video, etc. I think they said it wouldn't be sold to third parties, but they do have the right to keep it forever, show it to other members and use it for any other purpose, including advertising the site.<br> <br>

If you believe the Consumerist and similar slightly-hysterical sites, the newer T&amp;Cs do give FB the right to sell your data, e.g. selling photos to image banks if FB ever goes bust. I haven't looked at the newer agreement in detail, though, so I can't vouch for this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does the fact that you uploaded the data onto their system give them ownership of it in perpetuity ?
IIRC , when I signed up to FB , the Terms and Conditions for explicitly said that they own the rights for anything you upload : pictures , text , video , etc .
I think they said it would n't be sold to third parties , but they do have the right to keep it forever , show it to other members and use it for any other purpose , including advertising the site .
If you believe the Consumerist and similar slightly-hysterical sites , the newer T&amp;Cs do give FB the right to sell your data , e.g .
selling photos to image banks if FB ever goes bust .
I have n't looked at the newer agreement in detail , though , so I ca n't vouch for this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does the fact that you uploaded the data onto their system give them ownership of it in perpetuity?
IIRC, when I signed up to FB, the Terms and Conditions for explicitly said that they own the rights for anything you upload: pictures, text, video, etc.
I think they said it wouldn't be sold to third parties, but they do have the right to keep it forever, show it to other members and use it for any other purpose, including advertising the site.
If you believe the Consumerist and similar slightly-hysterical sites, the newer T&amp;Cs do give FB the right to sell your data, e.g.
selling photos to image banks if FB ever goes bust.
I haven't looked at the newer agreement in detail, though, so I can't vouch for this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31623254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31629758</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe just me but......</title>
	<author>geminidomino</author>
	<datestamp>1269630420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm also 30-something. In those 30 years, my family and friends have spread throughout the country (Ok, well sort of. They just seem to gravitate to the coasts, but the point stands). My old man and uncle back home, my brother and cousins all the way on the other side of the country, my other brother in the next town over, etc.</p><p>It's a good way to keep in touch -- especially since it's managed to seep into the mainstream -- and, when you're dealing with people you've already known all you're life, you don't have to put in all that profile wankery.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm also 30-something .
In those 30 years , my family and friends have spread throughout the country ( Ok , well sort of .
They just seem to gravitate to the coasts , but the point stands ) .
My old man and uncle back home , my brother and cousins all the way on the other side of the country , my other brother in the next town over , etc.It 's a good way to keep in touch -- especially since it 's managed to seep into the mainstream -- and , when you 're dealing with people you 've already known all you 're life , you do n't have to put in all that profile wankery .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm also 30-something.
In those 30 years, my family and friends have spread throughout the country (Ok, well sort of.
They just seem to gravitate to the coasts, but the point stands).
My old man and uncle back home, my brother and cousins all the way on the other side of the country, my other brother in the next town over, etc.It's a good way to keep in touch -- especially since it's managed to seep into the mainstream -- and, when you're dealing with people you've already known all you're life, you don't have to put in all that profile wankery.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31623642</id>
	<title>join the facebook page for Fluff Busting Purity</title>
	<author>amn108</author>
	<datestamp>1269602040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Join the Facebook page for Fluff Busting Purity (the script), that will show them:</p><p><a href="http://www.facebook.com/#!/fluffbustingpurity?ref=mf" title="facebook.com">http://www.facebook.com/#!/fluffbustingpurity?ref=mf</a> [facebook.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Join the Facebook page for Fluff Busting Purity ( the script ) , that will show them : http : //www.facebook.com/ # ! /fluffbustingpurity ? ref = mf [ facebook.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Join the Facebook page for Fluff Busting Purity (the script), that will show them:http://www.facebook.com/#!/fluffbustingpurity?ref=mf [facebook.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31632072</id>
	<title>Re:What about NoScript? AdBlockers?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269596400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe you're talking about Clean Flicks - a popular service among Mormons and other conservative Christian types.  I couldn't comment on the fate of the company, however the lawsuit [Huntsman v. Soderbergh, 2005] would not have been the cause of Clean Flicks' demise.  Before the court could rule on the summary judgment motions put forth by the movie studios, congress passed the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005, which exempted technology which limits content of a motion picture at the discretion of the end user.  That is, if the technology didn't create a fixed copy of the altered work.  Since Clean Flicks only added software that told DVD players to skip certain bits of content - not altering the work directly, it was found to be exempt under the act and the infringement claims were dismissed.</p><p>Copyright doesn't really apply in this instance anyway, since the page you view when signed in to your Facebook account is not a fixed work, and it doesn't originate from Facebook (any information you see on the page originates from the respective users of Facebook).  [Even if Facebook compiled the information into your account into a fixed work, they still wouldn't hold the copyright - it would be owned by your friends, groups, and fan pages.]  However, even if copyright did apply to this purity script debacle, I would say that Huntsman v. Soderbergh establishes a nice case law that would clear the script writer, since it works in a very similar manner.</p><p>Interesting that you would bring that up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe you 're talking about Clean Flicks - a popular service among Mormons and other conservative Christian types .
I could n't comment on the fate of the company , however the lawsuit [ Huntsman v. Soderbergh , 2005 ] would not have been the cause of Clean Flicks ' demise .
Before the court could rule on the summary judgment motions put forth by the movie studios , congress passed the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005 , which exempted technology which limits content of a motion picture at the discretion of the end user .
That is , if the technology did n't create a fixed copy of the altered work .
Since Clean Flicks only added software that told DVD players to skip certain bits of content - not altering the work directly , it was found to be exempt under the act and the infringement claims were dismissed.Copyright does n't really apply in this instance anyway , since the page you view when signed in to your Facebook account is not a fixed work , and it does n't originate from Facebook ( any information you see on the page originates from the respective users of Facebook ) .
[ Even if Facebook compiled the information into your account into a fixed work , they still would n't hold the copyright - it would be owned by your friends , groups , and fan pages .
] However , even if copyright did apply to this purity script debacle , I would say that Huntsman v. Soderbergh establishes a nice case law that would clear the script writer , since it works in a very similar manner.Interesting that you would bring that up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe you're talking about Clean Flicks - a popular service among Mormons and other conservative Christian types.
I couldn't comment on the fate of the company, however the lawsuit [Huntsman v. Soderbergh, 2005] would not have been the cause of Clean Flicks' demise.
Before the court could rule on the summary judgment motions put forth by the movie studios, congress passed the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005, which exempted technology which limits content of a motion picture at the discretion of the end user.
That is, if the technology didn't create a fixed copy of the altered work.
Since Clean Flicks only added software that told DVD players to skip certain bits of content - not altering the work directly, it was found to be exempt under the act and the infringement claims were dismissed.Copyright doesn't really apply in this instance anyway, since the page you view when signed in to your Facebook account is not a fixed work, and it doesn't originate from Facebook (any information you see on the page originates from the respective users of Facebook).
[Even if Facebook compiled the information into your account into a fixed work, they still wouldn't hold the copyright - it would be owned by your friends, groups, and fan pages.
]  However, even if copyright did apply to this purity script debacle, I would say that Huntsman v. Soderbergh establishes a nice case law that would clear the script writer, since it works in a very similar manner.Interesting that you would bring that up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31627780</id>
	<title>no</title>
	<author>josepha48</author>
	<datestamp>1269624240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>once their html is on my machine it's mine all mine.  but who wants all that farmville and other crap anyway.
<p>I wonder what they think of motoblur which shows all my facebook contacts and just their status and not all that other crap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>once their html is on my machine it 's mine all mine .
but who wants all that farmville and other crap anyway .
I wonder what they think of motoblur which shows all my facebook contacts and just their status and not all that other crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>once their html is on my machine it's mine all mine.
but who wants all that farmville and other crap anyway.
I wonder what they think of motoblur which shows all my facebook contacts and just their status and not all that other crap.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31630160</id>
	<title>why would they...</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1269631920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think they should care about this, as the user should be allowed to delete info on their accounts associated through third party softwares if all in all they wish to</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think they should care about this , as the user should be allowed to delete info on their accounts associated through third party softwares if all in all they wish to</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think they should care about this, as the user should be allowed to delete info on their accounts associated through third party softwares if all in all they wish to</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622434</id>
	<title>I would hope not</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269544080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Once it's in your browser, it's just a bunch of well formed data. These days almost any browser has extensions that may inadvertently modify this data, even without getting into specific tools like Greasemonkey.</p><p>If they really feel that strongly about a topic, they could try to obfuscate the data somehow, to make it more difficult to write such an extension. This would not be too hard on their part, though obviously more computationally expensive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Once it 's in your browser , it 's just a bunch of well formed data .
These days almost any browser has extensions that may inadvertently modify this data , even without getting into specific tools like Greasemonkey.If they really feel that strongly about a topic , they could try to obfuscate the data somehow , to make it more difficult to write such an extension .
This would not be too hard on their part , though obviously more computationally expensive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once it's in your browser, it's just a bunch of well formed data.
These days almost any browser has extensions that may inadvertently modify this data, even without getting into specific tools like Greasemonkey.If they really feel that strongly about a topic, they could try to obfuscate the data somehow, to make it more difficult to write such an extension.
This would not be too hard on their part, though obviously more computationally expensive.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31627194</id>
	<title>Re:What's the point of this script?</title>
	<author>DdJ</author>
	<datestamp>1269622080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FYI, this isn't the safe way to do things.</p><p>Facebook makes the <em>safe</em> way to do things extremely annoying.</p><p>If you hide/ignore the application, you do not see its output.  But that is the only change in the relationship between you and that application.  Any information about <em>you</em> that your <em>friends</em> expose to <em>their applications</em> still gets through to it.</p><p>To eliminate <em>that</em>, you have to actually click through to the application itself and click on "block this application".  Anything less than that is potentially unsafe.  Both Facebook and the app owners hate it when you do that, but that's what you have to do to completely cut yourself off from these apps.</p><p>The real flaw is, I don't want a "default permitted" policy with an explicit blacklist.  I want a "default denied" policy with an explicit whitelist.  Alas, even using this script doesn't accomplish that, as it only does the "hide" step, not the "block" step (from what I can see).  So I fear using this script is actually worse than nothing, because it only prevents me from <em>seeing</em> the stupid apps, which prevents me from discovering new things that I need to explicitly block.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FYI , this is n't the safe way to do things.Facebook makes the safe way to do things extremely annoying.If you hide/ignore the application , you do not see its output .
But that is the only change in the relationship between you and that application .
Any information about you that your friends expose to their applications still gets through to it.To eliminate that , you have to actually click through to the application itself and click on " block this application " .
Anything less than that is potentially unsafe .
Both Facebook and the app owners hate it when you do that , but that 's what you have to do to completely cut yourself off from these apps.The real flaw is , I do n't want a " default permitted " policy with an explicit blacklist .
I want a " default denied " policy with an explicit whitelist .
Alas , even using this script does n't accomplish that , as it only does the " hide " step , not the " block " step ( from what I can see ) .
So I fear using this script is actually worse than nothing , because it only prevents me from seeing the stupid apps , which prevents me from discovering new things that I need to explicitly block .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FYI, this isn't the safe way to do things.Facebook makes the safe way to do things extremely annoying.If you hide/ignore the application, you do not see its output.
But that is the only change in the relationship between you and that application.
Any information about you that your friends expose to their applications still gets through to it.To eliminate that, you have to actually click through to the application itself and click on "block this application".
Anything less than that is potentially unsafe.
Both Facebook and the app owners hate it when you do that, but that's what you have to do to completely cut yourself off from these apps.The real flaw is, I don't want a "default permitted" policy with an explicit blacklist.
I want a "default denied" policy with an explicit whitelist.
Alas, even using this script doesn't accomplish that, as it only does the "hide" step, not the "block" step (from what I can see).
So I fear using this script is actually worse than nothing, because it only prevents me from seeing the stupid apps, which prevents me from discovering new things that I need to explicitly block.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622890</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31624920</id>
	<title>Re:EUL</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1269612600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They have every right to stop a user from accessing their site, if they detect its use somehow. But a "EUL" doesn't give them the right to "go after" them. If they think it does, then my EULA says they agree to pay me a billion dollars should they do that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They have every right to stop a user from accessing their site , if they detect its use somehow .
But a " EUL " does n't give them the right to " go after " them .
If they think it does , then my EULA says they agree to pay me a billion dollars should they do that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They have every right to stop a user from accessing their site, if they detect its use somehow.
But a "EUL" doesn't give them the right to "go after" them.
If they think it does, then my EULA says they agree to pay me a billion dollars should they do that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622446</id>
	<title>Answer is ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269544140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_0515224_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31624034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_0515224_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31623030
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_0515224_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31630088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_0515224_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31632072
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_0515224_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31623006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_0515224_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31625158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_0515224_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31623212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31636664
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_0515224_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31623656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_0515224_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31624284
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_0515224_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31630116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_0515224_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31627258
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_0515224_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_0515224_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_0515224_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31624048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_0515224_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31623760
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_0515224_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31626478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_0515224_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622890
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31631460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_0515224_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31624788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_0515224_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31623254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31624982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_0515224_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31624052
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_0515224_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622744
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_0515224_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622890
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31627194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_0515224_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_0515224_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31623184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_0515224_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31623276
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_0515224_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31626616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_0515224_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31624068
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_0515224_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_0515224_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622560
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_0515224_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31623188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_0515224_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31623146
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_0515224_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31625082
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_0515224_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_0515224_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_0515224_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31625270
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_0515224_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31624454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_0515224_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31623198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_0515224_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622890
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31625818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_0515224_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31623980
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_0515224_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31625328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_0515224_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_0515224_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31636526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_0515224_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31624488
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_0515224_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31625372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_0515224_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31629950
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_0515224_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31627420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_0515224_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31625114
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_0515224_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31630402
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_0515224_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_0515224_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31625394
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_0515224_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31633574
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_0515224_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31629758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_0515224_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622944
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_0515224_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31624920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_0515224_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622890
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31623690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_0515224.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622494
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31623198
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31630116
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_0515224.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31624416
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_0515224.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622774
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_0515224.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622926
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_0515224.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31625520
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_0515224.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622818
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31629758
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_0515224.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622462
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622744
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622710
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31630088
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31623188
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31633574
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31625372
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31624068
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31625082
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622750
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31624034
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31626616
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622914
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31624454
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31625114
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31624048
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31623254
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31624982
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31629950
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31623276
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_0515224.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31624024
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_0515224.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622424
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31623184
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31625394
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_0515224.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622412
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31636526
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31627420
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_0515224.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622890
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31623690
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31631460
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31625818
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31627194
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_0515224.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31624394
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_0515224.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622450
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622568
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622958
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622996
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_0515224.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622810
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_0515224.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31623212
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31636664
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_0515224.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622448
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31625270
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31625328
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31624284
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_0515224.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622414
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31624920
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31623146
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31624788
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622752
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622880
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622874
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622442
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31623980
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622560
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31623760
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31625158
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31623656
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_0515224.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622860
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_0515224.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622514
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31630402
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622706
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31623006
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31632072
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31626478
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31627258
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622944
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_0515224.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622434
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31624488
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31624052
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_0515224.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622454
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31623030
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31622554
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_0515224.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_0515224.31624708
</commentlist>
</conversation>
