<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_30_136249</id>
	<title>The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 Passes Senate Panel</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1269960300000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"The <a href="http://www.opencongress.org/articles/view/1773-Senate-panel-passes-Cybersecurity-Act-with-revised-kill-switch-language">Cybersecurity Act of 2009 passed a Senate panel</a>, giving the president unprecedented power to issue a nation-wide blackout or restriction on websites without congressional approval. The bill, written by Sen. Jay Rockefeller [D-WV] and revised by Sen. Olympia Snow [R-ME], was drafted in an attempt to thwart internet-based terrorist threats, and gives the president this 'kill switch' without oversight or explanation. The bill is up for Senate vote."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 passed a Senate panel , giving the president unprecedented power to issue a nation-wide blackout or restriction on websites without congressional approval .
The bill , written by Sen. Jay Rockefeller [ D-WV ] and revised by Sen. Olympia Snow [ R-ME ] , was drafted in an attempt to thwart internet-based terrorist threats , and gives the president this 'kill switch ' without oversight or explanation .
The bill is up for Senate vote .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 passed a Senate panel, giving the president unprecedented power to issue a nation-wide blackout or restriction on websites without congressional approval.
The bill, written by Sen. Jay Rockefeller [D-WV] and revised by Sen. Olympia Snow [R-ME], was drafted in an attempt to thwart internet-based terrorist threats, and gives the president this 'kill switch' without oversight or explanation.
The bill is up for Senate vote.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31675732</id>
	<title>Re:Oh yeah?</title>
	<author>Kirin Fenrir</author>
	<datestamp>1269980880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I sense a new Candlejack mem</htmltext>
<tokenext>I sense a new Candlejack mem</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I sense a new Candlejack mem</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31674792</id>
	<title>Re:Dangerous and disturbing this is</title>
	<author>Maestro485</author>
	<datestamp>1269976920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This bill just came out of committee. It must be passed by the Senate and the House and then signed by the President to become law.</p><p>None of these things have happened yet. There is plenty of time to debate the issue and plenty of time for you to write to your Congressman.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This bill just came out of committee .
It must be passed by the Senate and the House and then signed by the President to become law.None of these things have happened yet .
There is plenty of time to debate the issue and plenty of time for you to write to your Congressman .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This bill just came out of committee.
It must be passed by the Senate and the House and then signed by the President to become law.None of these things have happened yet.
There is plenty of time to debate the issue and plenty of time for you to write to your Congressman.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671086</id>
	<title>Re:Need to have a fast method if needed</title>
	<author>HungryHobo</author>
	<datestamp>1269965340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I cannot think of a single situation where pressing the kill switch is less damaging than not pressing it</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can not think of a single situation where pressing the kill switch is less damaging than not pressing it</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I cannot think of a single situation where pressing the kill switch is less damaging than not pressing it</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671118</id>
	<title>Slippery Slope</title>
	<author>Dripdry</author>
	<datestamp>1269965460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know, drugs, pirated content, and discussion groups all contribute to terrorism!<br>Goodbye erowid, bittorrent, and slashdot! Extreme and unlikely, but it can happen now and that's the awful thing. This is ridiculous.</p><p>In this age of information, there should be some sort of amendment added to the rules where the people themselves can weigh in on bills like this and kill them before they get anywhere.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , drugs , pirated content , and discussion groups all contribute to terrorism ! Goodbye erowid , bittorrent , and slashdot !
Extreme and unlikely , but it can happen now and that 's the awful thing .
This is ridiculous.In this age of information , there should be some sort of amendment added to the rules where the people themselves can weigh in on bills like this and kill them before they get anywhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, drugs, pirated content, and discussion groups all contribute to terrorism!Goodbye erowid, bittorrent, and slashdot!
Extreme and unlikely, but it can happen now and that's the awful thing.
This is ridiculous.In this age of information, there should be some sort of amendment added to the rules where the people themselves can weigh in on bills like this and kill them before they get anywhere.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31678980</id>
	<title>just wait and see the riots</title>
	<author>Nyder</author>
	<datestamp>1269949620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>oh yes, this is going to turn out good.</p><p>"Millions Americans hit the streets last night when apparently the President got pissed at being pwnd in Counter Strike Source, decides to take internet down.   With nothing to do, apparently Americans decided to play a live version of Grand Theft Auto..."</p><p>More at 11.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>oh yes , this is going to turn out good .
" Millions Americans hit the streets last night when apparently the President got pissed at being pwnd in Counter Strike Source , decides to take internet down .
With nothing to do , apparently Americans decided to play a live version of Grand Theft Auto... " More at 11 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>oh yes, this is going to turn out good.
"Millions Americans hit the streets last night when apparently the President got pissed at being pwnd in Counter Strike Source, decides to take internet down.
With nothing to do, apparently Americans decided to play a live version of Grand Theft Auto..."More at 11.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671104</id>
	<title>Re:It's ok people</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1269965340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Laws like these tend to have a long life. Who in their sane mind would give that out of his hand again? Once granted, it will stay. Even if you eventually get someone that makes Dubja look like Mahatma Ghandi.</p><p>To avoid Godwin, I'll pull a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollfuss" title="wikipedia.org">Dollfu&#223;</a> [wikipedia.org]. He was the dictator of Austria before it was absorbed by the German Reich. Think of him as Mini-Hitler. He ruled with a law from the first world war that allowed the administration to make laws without oversight in case of "need". He simply declared the perpetual "need" and thus circumvented the government.</p><p>Once such power is granted, it will not go away. And it invevitably will eventually fall into the wrong hands.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Laws like these tend to have a long life .
Who in their sane mind would give that out of his hand again ?
Once granted , it will stay .
Even if you eventually get someone that makes Dubja look like Mahatma Ghandi.To avoid Godwin , I 'll pull a Dollfu   [ wikipedia.org ] .
He was the dictator of Austria before it was absorbed by the German Reich .
Think of him as Mini-Hitler .
He ruled with a law from the first world war that allowed the administration to make laws without oversight in case of " need " .
He simply declared the perpetual " need " and thus circumvented the government.Once such power is granted , it will not go away .
And it invevitably will eventually fall into the wrong hands .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Laws like these tend to have a long life.
Who in their sane mind would give that out of his hand again?
Once granted, it will stay.
Even if you eventually get someone that makes Dubja look like Mahatma Ghandi.To avoid Godwin, I'll pull a Dollfuß [wikipedia.org].
He was the dictator of Austria before it was absorbed by the German Reich.
Think of him as Mini-Hitler.
He ruled with a law from the first world war that allowed the administration to make laws without oversight in case of "need".
He simply declared the perpetual "need" and thus circumvented the government.Once such power is granted, it will not go away.
And it invevitably will eventually fall into the wrong hands.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31672720</id>
	<title>Re:Bye, bye freedom...</title>
	<author>radtea</author>
	<datestamp>1269970020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It makes me sick watching it happen and knowing there is nothing we can do about it.</p></div><p>Others have responded at length, but I want to point out that there is only one thing stopping you or anyone else from doing something about it:  fear.  You may fear losing your job or your social standing... some guy a few comments down thinks that any sort of opposition to the government at all risks turning the US into Rawanda, and suggests that farmers living on a razor-thin margin were better revolutionaries than modern Americans because they were so poor that least disruption of the social order would result in mass starvation.  I'm not sure I follow his logic:  it just looks like an abject coward trying to fabricate a justification for his actions.</p><p>The Founders of the United States did not behave reasonably:  they were fired by a powerful philosophy that said any restriction on their own liberties was unacceptable (restricting the liberties of women, the poor and people with somewhat darker skins than their own was ok.)</p><p>So remember, "there is nothing we can do" just means is "there is nothing we have the guts to do."  You can change your country and the world.  But it won't be comfortable.  It won't be safe.  It might not work out the way you hope and dream.  But getting up out of your armchair is infinitely superior to laying back and claiming "there is nothing we can do."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It makes me sick watching it happen and knowing there is nothing we can do about it.Others have responded at length , but I want to point out that there is only one thing stopping you or anyone else from doing something about it : fear .
You may fear losing your job or your social standing... some guy a few comments down thinks that any sort of opposition to the government at all risks turning the US into Rawanda , and suggests that farmers living on a razor-thin margin were better revolutionaries than modern Americans because they were so poor that least disruption of the social order would result in mass starvation .
I 'm not sure I follow his logic : it just looks like an abject coward trying to fabricate a justification for his actions.The Founders of the United States did not behave reasonably : they were fired by a powerful philosophy that said any restriction on their own liberties was unacceptable ( restricting the liberties of women , the poor and people with somewhat darker skins than their own was ok. ) So remember , " there is nothing we can do " just means is " there is nothing we have the guts to do .
" You can change your country and the world .
But it wo n't be comfortable .
It wo n't be safe .
It might not work out the way you hope and dream .
But getting up out of your armchair is infinitely superior to laying back and claiming " there is nothing we can do .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It makes me sick watching it happen and knowing there is nothing we can do about it.Others have responded at length, but I want to point out that there is only one thing stopping you or anyone else from doing something about it:  fear.
You may fear losing your job or your social standing... some guy a few comments down thinks that any sort of opposition to the government at all risks turning the US into Rawanda, and suggests that farmers living on a razor-thin margin were better revolutionaries than modern Americans because they were so poor that least disruption of the social order would result in mass starvation.
I'm not sure I follow his logic:  it just looks like an abject coward trying to fabricate a justification for his actions.The Founders of the United States did not behave reasonably:  they were fired by a powerful philosophy that said any restriction on their own liberties was unacceptable (restricting the liberties of women, the poor and people with somewhat darker skins than their own was ok.)So remember, "there is nothing we can do" just means is "there is nothing we have the guts to do.
"  You can change your country and the world.
But it won't be comfortable.
It won't be safe.
It might not work out the way you hope and dream.
But getting up out of your armchair is infinitely superior to laying back and claiming "there is nothing we can do.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670760</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670886</id>
	<title>An expansion of existing presidential authorities</title>
	<author>I\_am\_the\_cheese</author>
	<datestamp>1269964740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So the president can make and put into action such a plan but this is not an expansion of existing authorities? Since when did the president have authority to censor speech?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So the president can make and put into action such a plan but this is not an expansion of existing authorities ?
Since when did the president have authority to censor speech ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the president can make and put into action such a plan but this is not an expansion of existing authorities?
Since when did the president have authority to censor speech?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670804</id>
	<title>Wikileaks</title>
	<author>Thanshin</author>
	<datestamp>1269964440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A page must be created right now to prepare the bets and polls on which page will be blocked first.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A page must be created right now to prepare the bets and polls on which page will be blocked first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A page must be created right now to prepare the bets and polls on which page will be blocked first.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31681988</id>
	<title>Re:Better than the alternative?</title>
	<author>that this is not und</author>
	<datestamp>1269964260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><em>and permanently damaging the trust that people have in a connected society. </em></p><p>This part of it might be a good thing.  People could use a wake-up call.  The Internet was designed to be robust and decentralized.  It's supposed to be able to recover quickly from centralized efforts to interrupt it.</p><p>There are lots of us who remember when there really wasn't any Internet at all, and we got by.  Perhaps as an exercise the Internet should be interrupted for 24 hours every year or so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and permanently damaging the trust that people have in a connected society .
This part of it might be a good thing .
People could use a wake-up call .
The Internet was designed to be robust and decentralized .
It 's supposed to be able to recover quickly from centralized efforts to interrupt it.There are lots of us who remember when there really was n't any Internet at all , and we got by .
Perhaps as an exercise the Internet should be interrupted for 24 hours every year or so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and permanently damaging the trust that people have in a connected society.
This part of it might be a good thing.
People could use a wake-up call.
The Internet was designed to be robust and decentralized.
It's supposed to be able to recover quickly from centralized efforts to interrupt it.There are lots of us who remember when there really wasn't any Internet at all, and we got by.
Perhaps as an exercise the Internet should be interrupted for 24 hours every year or so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31676084</id>
	<title>Re:Obama certainly deserves criticism here, but..</title>
	<author>Red Flayer</author>
	<datestamp>1269982140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>You are belittling a woman who is active in the political arena and is espousing a point of view you disagree with. Rather than addressing her point of view with any intelligent arguments you attempt to dismiss her point of view by calling her a name.</p></div> </blockquote><p>Those who show themselves worthy of ridicule will be ridiculed.<br> <br>Deal with it.<br> <br>FWIW, I believe everyone, myself included, is deserving of ridicule.  She put herself in the public eye, and both she and you need to come to terms with the fact that people will ridicule her for being a hunter, an ignoramus, and a former beauty pageant contestant.  This is the price you pay for stepping up onto a national stage.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are belittling a woman who is active in the political arena and is espousing a point of view you disagree with .
Rather than addressing her point of view with any intelligent arguments you attempt to dismiss her point of view by calling her a name .
Those who show themselves worthy of ridicule will be ridiculed .
Deal with it .
FWIW , I believe everyone , myself included , is deserving of ridicule .
She put herself in the public eye , and both she and you need to come to terms with the fact that people will ridicule her for being a hunter , an ignoramus , and a former beauty pageant contestant .
This is the price you pay for stepping up onto a national stage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are belittling a woman who is active in the political arena and is espousing a point of view you disagree with.
Rather than addressing her point of view with any intelligent arguments you attempt to dismiss her point of view by calling her a name.
Those who show themselves worthy of ridicule will be ridiculed.
Deal with it.
FWIW, I believe everyone, myself included, is deserving of ridicule.
She put herself in the public eye, and both she and you need to come to terms with the fact that people will ridicule her for being a hunter, an ignoramus, and a former beauty pageant contestant.
This is the price you pay for stepping up onto a national stage.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671446</id>
	<title>Re:Better than the alternative?</title>
	<author>digitaldrunkenmonk</author>
	<datestamp>1269966360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Most cases probably won't shut the entire American back bone down, as it would be catastrophic. Rather, he can probably choose certain servers/networks to kill in order to isolate a threat, rather than completely wreck communication and the economy. Ideally, the attack would come from outside the US so we could clamp it at the coasts and maintain, at least, an American intranet.

This, of course, would be a moot point if the attack came from a botnet like Storm.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most cases probably wo n't shut the entire American back bone down , as it would be catastrophic .
Rather , he can probably choose certain servers/networks to kill in order to isolate a threat , rather than completely wreck communication and the economy .
Ideally , the attack would come from outside the US so we could clamp it at the coasts and maintain , at least , an American intranet .
This , of course , would be a moot point if the attack came from a botnet like Storm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most cases probably won't shut the entire American back bone down, as it would be catastrophic.
Rather, he can probably choose certain servers/networks to kill in order to isolate a threat, rather than completely wreck communication and the economy.
Ideally, the attack would come from outside the US so we could clamp it at the coasts and maintain, at least, an American intranet.
This, of course, would be a moot point if the attack came from a botnet like Storm.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31673834</id>
	<title>There is an easy fix</title>
	<author>Montezumaa</author>
	<datestamp>1269973560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obtain your amateur radio license, then hook a computer to your radio and communicate that way.  You can send emails, files, etc over amateur radio bands and there is no "shutoff" button for the President to get to on that.  In a way, you are tell the President to fuck off and leave my communication means alone.  Sure, the connection will be slow, but it is better than nothing.</p><p>In the end, I have a feeling this will die quickly.  This is a violation of our personal freedoms and violates so many laws that is is not funny.  This will probably end up giving the President, or someone in government, the ability to shut off the Federal Governments private networks from the backbones of what we refer to as "the internet".  I could be wrong, but this will not survive for very long.  If the bill is passed, then the courts will chew it up and nullify it.</p><p>In the end, we will find a way to work around any cut offs.  Unless the President is going to send agents to every home to shut of their computers, there is nothing that can stop this massive network.  That and corporations are not interested in pissing off their customers so bad that they leave in droves and take their money elsewhere.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obtain your amateur radio license , then hook a computer to your radio and communicate that way .
You can send emails , files , etc over amateur radio bands and there is no " shutoff " button for the President to get to on that .
In a way , you are tell the President to fuck off and leave my communication means alone .
Sure , the connection will be slow , but it is better than nothing.In the end , I have a feeling this will die quickly .
This is a violation of our personal freedoms and violates so many laws that is is not funny .
This will probably end up giving the President , or someone in government , the ability to shut off the Federal Governments private networks from the backbones of what we refer to as " the internet " .
I could be wrong , but this will not survive for very long .
If the bill is passed , then the courts will chew it up and nullify it.In the end , we will find a way to work around any cut offs .
Unless the President is going to send agents to every home to shut of their computers , there is nothing that can stop this massive network .
That and corporations are not interested in pissing off their customers so bad that they leave in droves and take their money elsewhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obtain your amateur radio license, then hook a computer to your radio and communicate that way.
You can send emails, files, etc over amateur radio bands and there is no "shutoff" button for the President to get to on that.
In a way, you are tell the President to fuck off and leave my communication means alone.
Sure, the connection will be slow, but it is better than nothing.In the end, I have a feeling this will die quickly.
This is a violation of our personal freedoms and violates so many laws that is is not funny.
This will probably end up giving the President, or someone in government, the ability to shut off the Federal Governments private networks from the backbones of what we refer to as "the internet".
I could be wrong, but this will not survive for very long.
If the bill is passed, then the courts will chew it up and nullify it.In the end, we will find a way to work around any cut offs.
Unless the President is going to send agents to every home to shut of their computers, there is nothing that can stop this massive network.
That and corporations are not interested in pissing off their customers so bad that they leave in droves and take their money elsewhere.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31675922</id>
	<title>Re:Obama certainly deserves criticism here, but..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269981540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>How's that hope and change workin' out for ya?</p></div><p>is parroting Caribou Barbie really the most effective way of doing it?</p></div><p>Maybe, maybe not. Say, wouldn't it be nice to have a big red button to push to shut everything down before this sort of unprogressive opinion gets out of control?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How 's that hope and change workin ' out for ya ? is parroting Caribou Barbie really the most effective way of doing it ? Maybe , maybe not .
Say , would n't it be nice to have a big red button to push to shut everything down before this sort of unprogressive opinion gets out of control ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How's that hope and change workin' out for ya?is parroting Caribou Barbie really the most effective way of doing it?Maybe, maybe not.
Say, wouldn't it be nice to have a big red button to push to shut everything down before this sort of unprogressive opinion gets out of control?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31672158</id>
	<title>Re:Where are the technical people on /.</title>
	<author>vlm</author>
	<datestamp>1269968220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Not to mention the hacking opportunity this presents. Yes, I am sure there will be many many layers of security....but still.....if the president can do it, then someone else can also do it.</p></div><p>Humorously, as you'd expect, the number of grotesque BGP accidents has VASTLY exceeded the number of successful hacks.</p><p>Over the past couple decades (and I've been there) incompetence has been a much more successful threat than the hackers.</p><p>If Obama thinks he's going to be the first dude to try to advertise a 0/0 route into BGP, he doesn't have a lot of experience in the art and science of network engineering.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to mention the hacking opportunity this presents .
Yes , I am sure there will be many many layers of security....but still.....if the president can do it , then someone else can also do it.Humorously , as you 'd expect , the number of grotesque BGP accidents has VASTLY exceeded the number of successful hacks.Over the past couple decades ( and I 've been there ) incompetence has been a much more successful threat than the hackers.If Obama thinks he 's going to be the first dude to try to advertise a 0/0 route into BGP , he does n't have a lot of experience in the art and science of network engineering .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to mention the hacking opportunity this presents.
Yes, I am sure there will be many many layers of security....but still.....if the president can do it, then someone else can also do it.Humorously, as you'd expect, the number of grotesque BGP accidents has VASTLY exceeded the number of successful hacks.Over the past couple decades (and I've been there) incompetence has been a much more successful threat than the hackers.If Obama thinks he's going to be the first dude to try to advertise a 0/0 route into BGP, he doesn't have a lot of experience in the art and science of network engineering.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671726</id>
	<title>Re:Where are the technical people on /.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269967080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Shut down the core routing networks. You don't need to completely disable the entire network, just cripple it into uselessness. All networks have a weak point somewhere.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Shut down the core routing networks .
You do n't need to completely disable the entire network , just cripple it into uselessness .
All networks have a weak point somewhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shut down the core routing networks.
You don't need to completely disable the entire network, just cripple it into uselessness.
All networks have a weak point somewhere.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31683392</id>
	<title>Re:It's ok people</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269974880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would take the last administration over this one in a heartbeat!  We were free under President Bush.  We are heading down the socialist path now, and you can't deny that.  Members of this administration have said so themselves.  Maybe your to young, or unversed in politics.  Either way, you should be careful what you wish for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would take the last administration over this one in a heartbeat !
We were free under President Bush .
We are heading down the socialist path now , and you ca n't deny that .
Members of this administration have said so themselves .
Maybe your to young , or unversed in politics .
Either way , you should be careful what you wish for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would take the last administration over this one in a heartbeat!
We were free under President Bush.
We are heading down the socialist path now, and you can't deny that.
Members of this administration have said so themselves.
Maybe your to young, or unversed in politics.
Either way, you should be careful what you wish for.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31673948</id>
	<title>Re:Not so terrible</title>
	<author>Libertarian\_Geek</author>
	<datestamp>1269973920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>From page 53: "With more than 85 percent of the Nation&rsquo;s 11 critical infrastructure owned and operated by the private sector, it is vital that the public and private sectors cooperate to protect this strategic national asset"

So, they define critical infrastructure to mean the 15\% owned by the public sector and the 85\% owned by the private sector.  Now for your #2... Computer networks connected to "critical infrastructure".  Well that about covers the entirity outside of private LANs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>From page 53 : " With more than 85 percent of the Nation    s 11 critical infrastructure owned and operated by the private sector , it is vital that the public and private sectors cooperate to protect this strategic national asset " So , they define critical infrastructure to mean the 15 \ % owned by the public sector and the 85 \ % owned by the private sector .
Now for your # 2... Computer networks connected to " critical infrastructure " .
Well that about covers the entirity outside of private LANs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From page 53: "With more than 85 percent of the Nation’s 11 critical infrastructure owned and operated by the private sector, it is vital that the public and private sectors cooperate to protect this strategic national asset"

So, they define critical infrastructure to mean the 15\% owned by the public sector and the 85\% owned by the private sector.
Now for your #2... Computer networks connected to "critical infrastructure".
Well that about covers the entirity outside of private LANs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670824</id>
	<title>How deep</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269964500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...and how low can you go ? What and how much more  will the security hype have Americans undergo silently ? How much does it f*cking take ??</htmltext>
<tokenext>...and how low can you go ?
What and how much more will the security hype have Americans undergo silently ?
How much does it f * cking take ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and how low can you go ?
What and how much more  will the security hype have Americans undergo silently ?
How much does it f*cking take ?
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671286</id>
	<title>Re:Where are the technical people on /.</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1269965940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It would work just like martial law would effect TV and Radio.</p><p>All ISPs would be told to shut down a service in the specified area. Military personnel would show up at an ISP not complying and force compliance.</p><p>Declaring martial law has never happened in the US. Doing so would have huge negative political ramifications, as it should.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would work just like martial law would effect TV and Radio.All ISPs would be told to shut down a service in the specified area .
Military personnel would show up at an ISP not complying and force compliance.Declaring martial law has never happened in the US .
Doing so would have huge negative political ramifications , as it should .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would work just like martial law would effect TV and Radio.All ISPs would be told to shut down a service in the specified area.
Military personnel would show up at an ISP not complying and force compliance.Declaring martial law has never happened in the US.
Doing so would have huge negative political ramifications, as it should.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31672684</id>
	<title>Re:Bye, bye freedom...the real James Madison quote</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269969900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps it is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged against provisions against danger, real or pretended from abroad.<br>
&nbsp; - Letter to Thomas Jefferson (1798-05-13); published in Letters and Other Writings of James Madison (1865), Vol. II, p. 141</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps it is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged against provisions against danger , real or pretended from abroad .
  - Letter to Thomas Jefferson ( 1798-05-13 ) ; published in Letters and Other Writings of James Madison ( 1865 ) , Vol .
II , p. 141</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps it is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged against provisions against danger, real or pretended from abroad.
  - Letter to Thomas Jefferson (1798-05-13); published in Letters and Other Writings of James Madison (1865), Vol.
II, p. 141</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671038</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671408</id>
	<title>Re:Obama certainly deserves criticism here, but..</title>
	<author>geekthesteve</author>
	<datestamp>1269966240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I find your post offensive.  You are belittling a woman who is active in the political arena and is espousing a point of view you disagree with.  Rather than addressing her point of view with any intelligent arguments you attempt to dismiss her point of view by calling her a name.

You have only shown your own ignorance and mental laziness with your post.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I find your post offensive .
You are belittling a woman who is active in the political arena and is espousing a point of view you disagree with .
Rather than addressing her point of view with any intelligent arguments you attempt to dismiss her point of view by calling her a name .
You have only shown your own ignorance and mental laziness with your post .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find your post offensive.
You are belittling a woman who is active in the political arena and is espousing a point of view you disagree with.
Rather than addressing her point of view with any intelligent arguments you attempt to dismiss her point of view by calling her a name.
You have only shown your own ignorance and mental laziness with your post.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31675110</id>
	<title>Re:Hopenchange</title>
	<author>hmar</author>
	<datestamp>1269978480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>At least with them we wouldn't have had any hope to begin with...</htmltext>
<tokenext>At least with them we would n't have had any hope to begin with.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least with them we wouldn't have had any hope to begin with...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671396</id>
	<title>Re:Where are the technical people on /.</title>
	<author>Rijnzael</author>
	<datestamp>1269966240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Remember all the shenanigans that have happened with censorship countries announcing invalid routes over BGP and accidentally disabling or blocking websites halfway across the globe?  Think that.
<br> <br>
<a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/82258\_pakistan\_hijacks\_youtube\_closer\_look/" title="circleid.com" rel="nofollow">Check this</a> [circleid.com] for an example.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember all the shenanigans that have happened with censorship countries announcing invalid routes over BGP and accidentally disabling or blocking websites halfway across the globe ?
Think that .
Check this [ circleid.com ] for an example .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember all the shenanigans that have happened with censorship countries announcing invalid routes over BGP and accidentally disabling or blocking websites halfway across the globe?
Think that.
Check this [circleid.com] for an example.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671166</id>
	<title>This is no different</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269965580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>then the power any president has had with everything else.</p><p>It's like martial law. Ever stop to notice we have never had martial law?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>then the power any president has had with everything else.It 's like martial law .
Ever stop to notice we have never had martial law ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>then the power any president has had with everything else.It's like martial law.
Ever stop to notice we have never had martial law?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31683012</id>
	<title>Re:Taxes, RICO, PATRIOT Act, FAIRNESS, Internet, e</title>
	<author>seekertom</author>
	<datestamp>1269971640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>it's either really funny or really sad that such dissertations as yours still aren't enough to open some folks' eyes as to what's going on here. as long as there are those who think these acts of govt AGAINST us are ok, those of us who don't think they are ok will never have the power to fix it. please keep up the chatter. i still have a small shred of hope (thru information like this) that we will find a way.... thanks fer lis'nin'   seekertom</htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's either really funny or really sad that such dissertations as yours still are n't enough to open some folks ' eyes as to what 's going on here .
as long as there are those who think these acts of govt AGAINST us are ok , those of us who do n't think they are ok will never have the power to fix it .
please keep up the chatter .
i still have a small shred of hope ( thru information like this ) that we will find a way.... thanks fer lis'nin ' seekertom</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's either really funny or really sad that such dissertations as yours still aren't enough to open some folks' eyes as to what's going on here.
as long as there are those who think these acts of govt AGAINST us are ok, those of us who don't think they are ok will never have the power to fix it.
please keep up the chatter.
i still have a small shred of hope (thru information like this) that we will find a way.... thanks fer lis'nin'   seekertom</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31673502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671312</id>
	<title>Re:Dangerous and disturbing this is</title>
	<author>lwsimon</author>
	<datestamp>1269966060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Those of us who have heard of the Hutaree before are scratching our heads.</p><p>Yeah, they're extreme, but they're also committed.  If they were as dangerous as they are made out to be now, don't you think one of them would have started shooting by now?</p><p>They don't know WTF is going on either.  I find that far scarier than a "criminal militia".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Those of us who have heard of the Hutaree before are scratching our heads.Yeah , they 're extreme , but they 're also committed .
If they were as dangerous as they are made out to be now , do n't you think one of them would have started shooting by now ? They do n't know WTF is going on either .
I find that far scarier than a " criminal militia " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those of us who have heard of the Hutaree before are scratching our heads.Yeah, they're extreme, but they're also committed.
If they were as dangerous as they are made out to be now, don't you think one of them would have started shooting by now?They don't know WTF is going on either.
I find that far scarier than a "criminal militia".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671076</id>
	<title>Dangerous and disturbing this is</title>
	<author>RogueWarrior65</author>
	<datestamp>1269965280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is akin to putting people on the no-fly list for no reason.  IMHO, this is a blatant abuse of power and violates the 1st amendment in a big way.  Can anyone remember when shutting down the opposition in the name of security was done last?  Oh, yeah, Hugo Chavez.  Oh yeah. the Chinese government.  Oh yeah, the Iranian government.  Oh yeah, the Burmese government (scuse me Miranmar).  If people being pissed about the Patriot Act contributed to a change of power, this will do the same in the other direction.  "Oh, but our beloved president Obama would never do that do me only to those evil right-wing militias (that nobody ever heard of until now)."  Yeah, keep thinking that.  Would you want a president with an opposing ideology to have this power?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is akin to putting people on the no-fly list for no reason .
IMHO , this is a blatant abuse of power and violates the 1st amendment in a big way .
Can anyone remember when shutting down the opposition in the name of security was done last ?
Oh , yeah , Hugo Chavez .
Oh yeah .
the Chinese government .
Oh yeah , the Iranian government .
Oh yeah , the Burmese government ( scuse me Miranmar ) .
If people being pissed about the Patriot Act contributed to a change of power , this will do the same in the other direction .
" Oh , but our beloved president Obama would never do that do me only to those evil right-wing militias ( that nobody ever heard of until now ) .
" Yeah , keep thinking that .
Would you want a president with an opposing ideology to have this power ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is akin to putting people on the no-fly list for no reason.
IMHO, this is a blatant abuse of power and violates the 1st amendment in a big way.
Can anyone remember when shutting down the opposition in the name of security was done last?
Oh, yeah, Hugo Chavez.
Oh yeah.
the Chinese government.
Oh yeah, the Iranian government.
Oh yeah, the Burmese government (scuse me Miranmar).
If people being pissed about the Patriot Act contributed to a change of power, this will do the same in the other direction.
"Oh, but our beloved president Obama would never do that do me only to those evil right-wing militias (that nobody ever heard of until now).
"  Yeah, keep thinking that.
Would you want a president with an opposing ideology to have this power?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31674066</id>
	<title>Re:It's ok people</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269974280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; To avoid Godwin<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Think of him as Mini-Hitler.</p><p>You lost.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; To avoid Godwin ... Think of him as Mini-Hitler.You lost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; To avoid Godwin ... Think of him as Mini-Hitler.You lost.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670958</id>
	<title>Need to have a fast method if needed</title>
	<author>captaindomon</author>
	<datestamp>1269964980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't have a problem with this, there should be a way that the system can be quickly shut down if necessary. Waiting for congressional approval would take months probably, even weeks if there was a really pressing emergency. I don't think this law is about approval (I'm sure there would be a huge investigation by congress if he ever used it), it's about timing - stuff on the internet happens quickly and needs to be responded to quickly.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't have a problem with this , there should be a way that the system can be quickly shut down if necessary .
Waiting for congressional approval would take months probably , even weeks if there was a really pressing emergency .
I do n't think this law is about approval ( I 'm sure there would be a huge investigation by congress if he ever used it ) , it 's about timing - stuff on the internet happens quickly and needs to be responded to quickly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't have a problem with this, there should be a way that the system can be quickly shut down if necessary.
Waiting for congressional approval would take months probably, even weeks if there was a really pressing emergency.
I don't think this law is about approval (I'm sure there would be a huge investigation by congress if he ever used it), it's about timing - stuff on the internet happens quickly and needs to be responded to quickly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671676</id>
	<title>Re:Need to have a fast method if needed</title>
	<author>jittles</author>
	<datestamp>1269966960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Do you really think that government could move faster than a skilled and knowledgeable network administrator who is protecting his infrastructure?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you really think that government could move faster than a skilled and knowledgeable network administrator who is protecting his infrastructure ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you really think that government could move faster than a skilled and knowledgeable network administrator who is protecting his infrastructure?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31673502</id>
	<title>Taxes, RICO, PATRIOT Act, FAIRNESS, Internet, etc.</title>
	<author>Jerry</author>
	<datestamp>1269972480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The 1913 US Tax law was a tax on only the top 1\% of the population, the "wealthy".  Now, the wealthy have tax dodges that allow them to pay less taxes than their maids, who often work at minimum wages.  The resulting enforcement agency, the IRS, has been repeatedly used over the years as a political weapon, even more so than the Census Act.  The use of the Census Act as a political weapon is rapidly gaining ground.</p><p>The RICO Act was created to fight organized crime, and a "promise" was made that it would "never" be used on ordinary citizens.  Now, it is used over 10,000 times a year against ordinary citizens as a way to steal "guilty" property and as a supplemental funding source when law enforcement budgets are frozen or cut.  The RICO Act provides that the law enforcement agencies can keep the property they stole even if it turns out that the "target" supplied by a jail house snitch seeking a "deal" was innocent.</p><p>The MOST UNPATRIOTIC law ever passed, the PATRIOT ACT, effectively destroys the Bill of Rights.  The accused cannot tell anyone, including their spouse, that they've been accused, or of what they have been accused. They cannot face their accuser, nor can they see the "evidence" against them. They are tried in special courts. In fact, the PATRIOT Act RE-ESTABLISHES the conditions that were created in America by King George, prior to the Declaration of Independence.   It's a slam-dunk convection when you cancel the Bill of Rights, especially when you add the infamous "perp walk" and the leaked "fact" news, all deliberately used to create an air of guilt for which there is often little or no real evidence.  Toss in the self-appointed TV pundits, who act as judge, jury and executioner, and the accused is forever tainted.  Fear of terrorist attacks have resulted in a law which cannot guarantee safety and has destroyed the Constitution.   Like the Tax law and the RICO act, it is only a matter of time before future politicians use it for political purposes.  So now, the US citizen has neither safety nor freedom and bribed Congressmen steadfastly refuse to identify or accept the power base of Jihadist threats in America, and persist in wasting American blood and treasure in Mid-East energy wars while Oil Companies continue to make record profits on oil and lobby to suppress alternate energy development in order to sustain their profit margins.</p><p>The FAIRNESS Doctrine was never about fairness.  It was created as a political weapon.  The political center and Right has always had a larger base in the US and, as Sen Franken found out, the Left cannot sustain a sufficiently large enough audience or advertiser base to support a national radio talk show preaching Socialist/Communist/Marxist values.  When businesses failed  to purchase sufficient ad time and devoted listeners failed to donate enough money, Air America failed.  Not to worry! The Left has been successful in getting its message out by hijacking public radio and TV and subverting tax payer funds to sponsor "independent" films and guests, which focus on Marxist themes.  The kinds of themes championed by ACORN or other Left Wing alphabet groups.  Combine the always Leftists Indie films with mindless, talentless "Create" themes, and constant public service announcements against "hate speech" (which is any speech against Leftist ideology), and you have the complete brain washing paradigm.  The stories about America's National Parks, etc.,  although inspirational, are mainly fillers, to maintain an air of neutrality.</p><p>Now we are going to be "protected" by selectively shutting down the only source of free public discourse remaining in this country, the Internet.  The Internet bypassed the magazine and  newspaper editors and their management of the "news". What was true in the USSR (there is no news in the Truth and no Truth in the news) had become true in America.   The Internet bypassed single points of focus of government control or of editorial agendas.     Now, the EXACT same method used in China by the Chinese Communist Party to control thei</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The 1913 US Tax law was a tax on only the top 1 \ % of the population , the " wealthy " .
Now , the wealthy have tax dodges that allow them to pay less taxes than their maids , who often work at minimum wages .
The resulting enforcement agency , the IRS , has been repeatedly used over the years as a political weapon , even more so than the Census Act .
The use of the Census Act as a political weapon is rapidly gaining ground.The RICO Act was created to fight organized crime , and a " promise " was made that it would " never " be used on ordinary citizens .
Now , it is used over 10,000 times a year against ordinary citizens as a way to steal " guilty " property and as a supplemental funding source when law enforcement budgets are frozen or cut .
The RICO Act provides that the law enforcement agencies can keep the property they stole even if it turns out that the " target " supplied by a jail house snitch seeking a " deal " was innocent.The MOST UNPATRIOTIC law ever passed , the PATRIOT ACT , effectively destroys the Bill of Rights .
The accused can not tell anyone , including their spouse , that they 've been accused , or of what they have been accused .
They can not face their accuser , nor can they see the " evidence " against them .
They are tried in special courts .
In fact , the PATRIOT Act RE-ESTABLISHES the conditions that were created in America by King George , prior to the Declaration of Independence .
It 's a slam-dunk convection when you cancel the Bill of Rights , especially when you add the infamous " perp walk " and the leaked " fact " news , all deliberately used to create an air of guilt for which there is often little or no real evidence .
Toss in the self-appointed TV pundits , who act as judge , jury and executioner , and the accused is forever tainted .
Fear of terrorist attacks have resulted in a law which can not guarantee safety and has destroyed the Constitution .
Like the Tax law and the RICO act , it is only a matter of time before future politicians use it for political purposes .
So now , the US citizen has neither safety nor freedom and bribed Congressmen steadfastly refuse to identify or accept the power base of Jihadist threats in America , and persist in wasting American blood and treasure in Mid-East energy wars while Oil Companies continue to make record profits on oil and lobby to suppress alternate energy development in order to sustain their profit margins.The FAIRNESS Doctrine was never about fairness .
It was created as a political weapon .
The political center and Right has always had a larger base in the US and , as Sen Franken found out , the Left can not sustain a sufficiently large enough audience or advertiser base to support a national radio talk show preaching Socialist/Communist/Marxist values .
When businesses failed to purchase sufficient ad time and devoted listeners failed to donate enough money , Air America failed .
Not to worry !
The Left has been successful in getting its message out by hijacking public radio and TV and subverting tax payer funds to sponsor " independent " films and guests , which focus on Marxist themes .
The kinds of themes championed by ACORN or other Left Wing alphabet groups .
Combine the always Leftists Indie films with mindless , talentless " Create " themes , and constant public service announcements against " hate speech " ( which is any speech against Leftist ideology ) , and you have the complete brain washing paradigm .
The stories about America 's National Parks , etc. , although inspirational , are mainly fillers , to maintain an air of neutrality.Now we are going to be " protected " by selectively shutting down the only source of free public discourse remaining in this country , the Internet .
The Internet bypassed the magazine and newspaper editors and their management of the " news " .
What was true in the USSR ( there is no news in the Truth and no Truth in the news ) had become true in America .
The Internet bypassed single points of focus of government control or of editorial agendas .
Now , the EXACT same method used in China by the Chinese Communist Party to control thei</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The 1913 US Tax law was a tax on only the top 1\% of the population, the "wealthy".
Now, the wealthy have tax dodges that allow them to pay less taxes than their maids, who often work at minimum wages.
The resulting enforcement agency, the IRS, has been repeatedly used over the years as a political weapon, even more so than the Census Act.
The use of the Census Act as a political weapon is rapidly gaining ground.The RICO Act was created to fight organized crime, and a "promise" was made that it would "never" be used on ordinary citizens.
Now, it is used over 10,000 times a year against ordinary citizens as a way to steal "guilty" property and as a supplemental funding source when law enforcement budgets are frozen or cut.
The RICO Act provides that the law enforcement agencies can keep the property they stole even if it turns out that the "target" supplied by a jail house snitch seeking a "deal" was innocent.The MOST UNPATRIOTIC law ever passed, the PATRIOT ACT, effectively destroys the Bill of Rights.
The accused cannot tell anyone, including their spouse, that they've been accused, or of what they have been accused.
They cannot face their accuser, nor can they see the "evidence" against them.
They are tried in special courts.
In fact, the PATRIOT Act RE-ESTABLISHES the conditions that were created in America by King George, prior to the Declaration of Independence.
It's a slam-dunk convection when you cancel the Bill of Rights, especially when you add the infamous "perp walk" and the leaked "fact" news, all deliberately used to create an air of guilt for which there is often little or no real evidence.
Toss in the self-appointed TV pundits, who act as judge, jury and executioner, and the accused is forever tainted.
Fear of terrorist attacks have resulted in a law which cannot guarantee safety and has destroyed the Constitution.
Like the Tax law and the RICO act, it is only a matter of time before future politicians use it for political purposes.
So now, the US citizen has neither safety nor freedom and bribed Congressmen steadfastly refuse to identify or accept the power base of Jihadist threats in America, and persist in wasting American blood and treasure in Mid-East energy wars while Oil Companies continue to make record profits on oil and lobby to suppress alternate energy development in order to sustain their profit margins.The FAIRNESS Doctrine was never about fairness.
It was created as a political weapon.
The political center and Right has always had a larger base in the US and, as Sen Franken found out, the Left cannot sustain a sufficiently large enough audience or advertiser base to support a national radio talk show preaching Socialist/Communist/Marxist values.
When businesses failed  to purchase sufficient ad time and devoted listeners failed to donate enough money, Air America failed.
Not to worry!
The Left has been successful in getting its message out by hijacking public radio and TV and subverting tax payer funds to sponsor "independent" films and guests, which focus on Marxist themes.
The kinds of themes championed by ACORN or other Left Wing alphabet groups.
Combine the always Leftists Indie films with mindless, talentless "Create" themes, and constant public service announcements against "hate speech" (which is any speech against Leftist ideology), and you have the complete brain washing paradigm.
The stories about America's National Parks, etc.,  although inspirational, are mainly fillers, to maintain an air of neutrality.Now we are going to be "protected" by selectively shutting down the only source of free public discourse remaining in this country, the Internet.
The Internet bypassed the magazine and  newspaper editors and their management of the "news".
What was true in the USSR (there is no news in the Truth and no Truth in the news) had become true in America.
The Internet bypassed single points of focus of government control or of editorial agendas.
Now, the EXACT same method used in China by the Chinese Communist Party to control thei</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671244</id>
	<title>Re:Bye, bye freedom...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269965760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is something you can do. It is called revolution. You - i.e. your ancestors - already did something similar, over 2 centuries ago. It resulted into the USA as we know it, today. Nothing prevents you from doing it again.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is something you can do .
It is called revolution .
You - i.e .
your ancestors - already did something similar , over 2 centuries ago .
It resulted into the USA as we know it , today .
Nothing prevents you from doing it again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is something you can do.
It is called revolution.
You - i.e.
your ancestors - already did something similar, over 2 centuries ago.
It resulted into the USA as we know it, today.
Nothing prevents you from doing it again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670760</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31674412</id>
	<title>Re:Not so terrible, hmmm...</title>
	<author>bradley13</author>
	<datestamp>1269975480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well said! There are two problems here.

</p><p>First, as you point out, the bill is very vague. As we know all too well, that means it will be interpreted to mean whatever the president wants it to mean, regardless of the original intent.

</p><p>Second, the bill won't do anything particularly useful. If they are really worried about cyber attacks, the answer is to connect critical installations to a hardened, private network. Any connection to the public internet could be restricted to non-critical systems, that could be shut down if necessary.

</p><p>In the end, this is a bill written by people who know little or nothing about technical realities. But it sounds good and is printed in a fancy font, so it will probably pass...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well said !
There are two problems here .
First , as you point out , the bill is very vague .
As we know all too well , that means it will be interpreted to mean whatever the president wants it to mean , regardless of the original intent .
Second , the bill wo n't do anything particularly useful .
If they are really worried about cyber attacks , the answer is to connect critical installations to a hardened , private network .
Any connection to the public internet could be restricted to non-critical systems , that could be shut down if necessary .
In the end , this is a bill written by people who know little or nothing about technical realities .
But it sounds good and is printed in a fancy font , so it will probably pass.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well said!
There are two problems here.
First, as you point out, the bill is very vague.
As we know all too well, that means it will be interpreted to mean whatever the president wants it to mean, regardless of the original intent.
Second, the bill won't do anything particularly useful.
If they are really worried about cyber attacks, the answer is to connect critical installations to a hardened, private network.
Any connection to the public internet could be restricted to non-critical systems, that could be shut down if necessary.
In the end, this is a bill written by people who know little or nothing about technical realities.
But it sounds good and is printed in a fancy font, so it will probably pass...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31676352</id>
	<title>Re:How does this work?</title>
	<author>AmberBlackCat</author>
	<datestamp>1269939780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As far as I know, there's no Great Firewall of China style ISP-level filter here in America. So how would they even enforce a blackout of a website?</p></div><p>Maybe this is the beginning of one. Maybe they even licensed the code from China.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As far as I know , there 's no Great Firewall of China style ISP-level filter here in America .
So how would they even enforce a blackout of a website ? Maybe this is the beginning of one .
Maybe they even licensed the code from China .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As far as I know, there's no Great Firewall of China style ISP-level filter here in America.
So how would they even enforce a blackout of a website?Maybe this is the beginning of one.
Maybe they even licensed the code from China.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31673344</id>
	<title>Re:Oh yeah?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269971880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>different color, same bullshit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>different color , same bullshit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>different color, same bullshit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31701256</id>
	<title>Hypocracy</title>
	<author>arekusu\_ou</author>
	<datestamp>1270144740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find it horrible at the general lack of outrage to this that we see responding to the Great Firewall of China.  There's some lukewarm outrage, but where's the demanding ISP's stop working with the government, and for all the people to pull from government support, and admonish any company working with the government on this?</p><p>I guess it's not a farcry from the current NSA activity.  Slowly apply control rather than an efficient total strict control and opening up freedom as you go along.</p><p>Makes me think of our database, my predecessor made set the security open and everyone had full rights, while they slowly disable what they could think about and then scramble when someone stumbled on something they shouldn't have.  I on the other hand, flipped it over, made the security closed, and only gave rights to those who needed it.  Which do you think is the proper way to manage a secured system?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it horrible at the general lack of outrage to this that we see responding to the Great Firewall of China .
There 's some lukewarm outrage , but where 's the demanding ISP 's stop working with the government , and for all the people to pull from government support , and admonish any company working with the government on this ? I guess it 's not a farcry from the current NSA activity .
Slowly apply control rather than an efficient total strict control and opening up freedom as you go along.Makes me think of our database , my predecessor made set the security open and everyone had full rights , while they slowly disable what they could think about and then scramble when someone stumbled on something they should n't have .
I on the other hand , flipped it over , made the security closed , and only gave rights to those who needed it .
Which do you think is the proper way to manage a secured system ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it horrible at the general lack of outrage to this that we see responding to the Great Firewall of China.
There's some lukewarm outrage, but where's the demanding ISP's stop working with the government, and for all the people to pull from government support, and admonish any company working with the government on this?I guess it's not a farcry from the current NSA activity.
Slowly apply control rather than an efficient total strict control and opening up freedom as you go along.Makes me think of our database, my predecessor made set the security open and everyone had full rights, while they slowly disable what they could think about and then scramble when someone stumbled on something they shouldn't have.
I on the other hand, flipped it over, made the security closed, and only gave rights to those who needed it.
Which do you think is the proper way to manage a secured system?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671038</id>
	<title>Re:Bye, bye freedom...</title>
	<author>smooth wombat</author>
	<datestamp>1269965220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy - James Madison</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If tyranny and oppression come to this land , it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy - James Madison</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy - James Madison</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670760</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671254</id>
	<title>Re:It's ok people</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269965820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But this administration *renewed* the Patriot act....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But this administration * renewed * the Patriot act... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But this administration *renewed* the Patriot act....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31672426</id>
	<title>Re:Where are the technical people on /.</title>
	<author>nonades</author>
	<datestamp>1269969120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>All you need to do is get the few backbone providers in the country to do the blocking and you're set.

If Level3 were to comply with a Presidential Directive, that would cut most (if not all) of Vermont off. Level3 is the only Backbone provider here.</htmltext>
<tokenext>All you need to do is get the few backbone providers in the country to do the blocking and you 're set .
If Level3 were to comply with a Presidential Directive , that would cut most ( if not all ) of Vermont off .
Level3 is the only Backbone provider here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All you need to do is get the few backbone providers in the country to do the blocking and you're set.
If Level3 were to comply with a Presidential Directive, that would cut most (if not all) of Vermont off.
Level3 is the only Backbone provider here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31682848</id>
	<title>Re:</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1269970200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><b>And the US gov was having a go at Australia about proposed Internet censorship? Oh, I see. Your's is just for terrorist threats... right...America - Land of the scared and home of the watched.</b></htmltext>
<tokenext>And the US gov was having a go at Australia about proposed Internet censorship ?
Oh , I see .
Your 's is just for terrorist threats... right...America - Land of the scared and home of the watched .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And the US gov was having a go at Australia about proposed Internet censorship?
Oh, I see.
Your's is just for terrorist threats... right...America - Land of the scared and home of the watched.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31673264</id>
	<title>Re:Bye, bye freedom...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269971640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy - James Madison</p></div><p>A better quote would be Franklin imho, and I'm paraphrasing here, "People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both." - Benjamin Franklin</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If tyranny and oppression come to this land , it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy - James MadisonA better quote would be Franklin imho , and I 'm paraphrasing here , " People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both .
" - Benjamin Franklin</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy - James MadisonA better quote would be Franklin imho, and I'm paraphrasing here, "People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.
" - Benjamin Franklin
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671038</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671184</id>
	<title>Change You</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269965580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qq8Uc5BFogE" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">can depend on</a> [youtube.com].</p><p>Yours In Asthakhan,<br>Kilgore T.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>can depend on [ youtube.com ] .Yours In Asthakhan,Kilgore T .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>can depend on [youtube.com].Yours In Asthakhan,Kilgore T.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31673250</id>
	<title>Re:Bye, bye freedom...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269971580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * This appears to be an inaccurate and out of context paraphrase of the "pretended from abroad" or "The means of defence agst. foreign danger," quotes above.</p><p>http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/James\_Madison</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land , it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy .
        * This appears to be an inaccurate and out of context paraphrase of the " pretended from abroad " or " The means of defence agst .
foreign danger , " quotes above.http : //en.wikiquote.org/wiki/James \ _Madison</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
        * This appears to be an inaccurate and out of context paraphrase of the "pretended from abroad" or "The means of defence agst.
foreign danger," quotes above.http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/James\_Madison</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671038</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31678892</id>
	<title>Re:Taxes, RICO, PATRIOT Act, FAIRNESS, Internet, e</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269949260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thank you Jerry. That was very well summed up.</p><p>Afraid yet people? You should be. No you don't need tin foil hats but if you think you free then you may want to think again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank you Jerry .
That was very well summed up.Afraid yet people ?
You should be .
No you do n't need tin foil hats but if you think you free then you may want to think again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank you Jerry.
That was very well summed up.Afraid yet people?
You should be.
No you don't need tin foil hats but if you think you free then you may want to think again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31673502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670962</id>
	<title>Don't blame me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269964980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I voted for Hillary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I voted for Hillary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I voted for Hillary.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670896</id>
	<title>Gee,</title>
	<author>scrout</author>
	<datestamp>1269964800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>See, we can out do CHINA on anything!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>See , we can out do CHINA on anything !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See, we can out do CHINA on anything!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31673276</id>
	<title>Re:Need to have a fast method if needed</title>
	<author>Island Admin</author>
	<datestamp>1269971640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>After 48 hours once the communication is shut down and the <a href="http://www.dailypaul.com/node/103374" title="dailypaul.com" rel="nofollow">military deployed</a> [dailypaul.com]<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...... the President will simply say "What congress?"</htmltext>
<tokenext>After 48 hours once the communication is shut down and the military deployed [ dailypaul.com ] ...... the President will simply say " What congress ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After 48 hours once the communication is shut down and the military deployed [dailypaul.com] ...... the President will simply say "What congress?
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31674260</id>
	<title>Congress taking months?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269974940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With a recession, and unemployment high, companies declared "too big to fail" being bailed out, and healthcare a major issue along with budget out of control, our congress stepped up quickly and sotopped the infestation of monkeys we were experiencing here in the USA.</p><p>Don't tell me they can't act quickly when something important happens.</p><p>Link to LA Times article: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/unleashed/2009/02/captive-prima-1.html</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With a recession , and unemployment high , companies declared " too big to fail " being bailed out , and healthcare a major issue along with budget out of control , our congress stepped up quickly and sotopped the infestation of monkeys we were experiencing here in the USA.Do n't tell me they ca n't act quickly when something important happens.Link to LA Times article : http : //latimesblogs.latimes.com/unleashed/2009/02/captive-prima-1.html</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With a recession, and unemployment high, companies declared "too big to fail" being bailed out, and healthcare a major issue along with budget out of control, our congress stepped up quickly and sotopped the infestation of monkeys we were experiencing here in the USA.Don't tell me they can't act quickly when something important happens.Link to LA Times article: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/unleashed/2009/02/captive-prima-1.html</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31673444</id>
	<title>I like it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269972300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a great idea, It'd be just like saying CandleJack, but talking about something anti-US, and then</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a great idea , It 'd be just like saying CandleJack , but talking about something anti-US , and then</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a great idea, It'd be just like saying CandleJack, but talking about something anti-US, and then</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31675036</id>
	<title>Re:Uh huh, terrororists</title>
	<author>ITJC68</author>
	<datestamp>1269978000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Socialism is on the rise in the US. This is just another story of government over reaching in to the lives of the population. First health care now privacy. Next they will tell you what to eat, where to work, when you can go outside. Big brother here we come. At least for the next couple of years until the people wake up and vote these idiots out of office that come up with these stupid laws. *sigh*</htmltext>
<tokenext>Socialism is on the rise in the US .
This is just another story of government over reaching in to the lives of the population .
First health care now privacy .
Next they will tell you what to eat , where to work , when you can go outside .
Big brother here we come .
At least for the next couple of years until the people wake up and vote these idiots out of office that come up with these stupid laws .
* sigh *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Socialism is on the rise in the US.
This is just another story of government over reaching in to the lives of the population.
First health care now privacy.
Next they will tell you what to eat, where to work, when you can go outside.
Big brother here we come.
At least for the next couple of years until the people wake up and vote these idiots out of office that come up with these stupid laws.
*sigh*</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670650</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671260</id>
	<title>Re:Hopenchange</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1269965880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pretty good. It's just hope for change now.</p><p>Snideness aside. You give the Prez too much "power credit". Yes, he has power, but only if he does what is backed by the rest of the political clout. Think of it as groupthink, a group of bullies that have a head honcho that leads them. He could easily incite them to steal your pocket money and jacket, but you don't think his buddies would follow him if he suddenly suggested they start doing community work, do you?</p><p>Politics isn't much different.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pretty good .
It 's just hope for change now.Snideness aside .
You give the Prez too much " power credit " .
Yes , he has power , but only if he does what is backed by the rest of the political clout .
Think of it as groupthink , a group of bullies that have a head honcho that leads them .
He could easily incite them to steal your pocket money and jacket , but you do n't think his buddies would follow him if he suddenly suggested they start doing community work , do you ? Politics is n't much different .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pretty good.
It's just hope for change now.Snideness aside.
You give the Prez too much "power credit".
Yes, he has power, but only if he does what is backed by the rest of the political clout.
Think of it as groupthink, a group of bullies that have a head honcho that leads them.
He could easily incite them to steal your pocket money and jacket, but you don't think his buddies would follow him if he suddenly suggested they start doing community work, do you?Politics isn't much different.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31675538</id>
	<title>Absolute power</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269980100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." --Lord Acton, 1887<br>What Democrats put in for national safety, Republicans will use against Democrats (and the nation).  This is like a ginormous censorship switch.  Initially its for 'national security'.  Later its for 'national integrity', then 'political integrity', and finally 'pet whim of the day'.  Censorship is wrong, in any form.  There are laws to tackle kiddie porn.  This isn't designed to stop kiddie porn.  This is designed to shut down political opponents.  Hugo Chavez could have dreamed this up.  The joy is that the net was designed with redundancy in mind, and attempts at shutting it down have all failed (they can't stop it in Iran, China has a hard time, Australia will fail, and this too will fail.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Power tends to corrupt , and absolute power corrupts absolutely .
Great men are almost always bad men .
" --Lord Acton , 1887What Democrats put in for national safety , Republicans will use against Democrats ( and the nation ) .
This is like a ginormous censorship switch .
Initially its for 'national security' .
Later its for 'national integrity ' , then 'political integrity ' , and finally 'pet whim of the day' .
Censorship is wrong , in any form .
There are laws to tackle kiddie porn .
This is n't designed to stop kiddie porn .
This is designed to shut down political opponents .
Hugo Chavez could have dreamed this up .
The joy is that the net was designed with redundancy in mind , and attempts at shutting it down have all failed ( they ca n't stop it in Iran , China has a hard time , Australia will fail , and this too will fail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Great men are almost always bad men.
" --Lord Acton, 1887What Democrats put in for national safety, Republicans will use against Democrats (and the nation).
This is like a ginormous censorship switch.
Initially its for 'national security'.
Later its for 'national integrity', then 'political integrity', and finally 'pet whim of the day'.
Censorship is wrong, in any form.
There are laws to tackle kiddie porn.
This isn't designed to stop kiddie porn.
This is designed to shut down political opponents.
Hugo Chavez could have dreamed this up.
The joy is that the net was designed with redundancy in mind, and attempts at shutting it down have all failed (they can't stop it in Iran, China has a hard time, Australia will fail, and this too will fail.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31674014</id>
	<title>Re:Not so terrible</title>
	<author>digitaldrunkenmonk</author>
	<datestamp>1269974160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From Section 18:</p><p>"The President--</p><p>(2) may declare a cybersecurity emergency and order the limitation or shutdown of Internet traffic to and from any compromised Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network;"</p><p>and from Section 23:</p><p>"(3) FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND UNITED STATES CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND NETWORKS- The term `Federal Government and United States critical infrastructure information systems and networks' includes--</p><p>(A) Federal Government information systems and networks; and</p><p>(B) State, local, and nongovernmental information systems and networks in the United States designated by the President as critical infrastructure information systems and networks."</p><p>I take those as saying that internet back bones are considered critical infrastructure information systems, and, as such, are under the scope of this act. That's bad.</p><p>Worse, though, is that the President can designate what is and isn't "critical". Leaves far too much room for abuse.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From Section 18 : " The President-- ( 2 ) may declare a cybersecurity emergency and order the limitation or shutdown of Internet traffic to and from any compromised Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network ; " and from Section 23 : " ( 3 ) FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND UNITED STATES CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND NETWORKS- The term ` Federal Government and United States critical infrastructure information systems and networks ' includes-- ( A ) Federal Government information systems and networks ; and ( B ) State , local , and nongovernmental information systems and networks in the United States designated by the President as critical infrastructure information systems and networks .
" I take those as saying that internet back bones are considered critical infrastructure information systems , and , as such , are under the scope of this act .
That 's bad.Worse , though , is that the President can designate what is and is n't " critical " .
Leaves far too much room for abuse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From Section 18:"The President--(2) may declare a cybersecurity emergency and order the limitation or shutdown of Internet traffic to and from any compromised Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network;"and from Section 23:"(3) FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND UNITED STATES CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND NETWORKS- The term `Federal Government and United States critical infrastructure information systems and networks' includes--(A) Federal Government information systems and networks; and(B) State, local, and nongovernmental information systems and networks in the United States designated by the President as critical infrastructure information systems and networks.
"I take those as saying that internet back bones are considered critical infrastructure information systems, and, as such, are under the scope of this act.
That's bad.Worse, though, is that the President can designate what is and isn't "critical".
Leaves far too much room for abuse.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670982</id>
	<title>Obama certainly deserves criticism here, but..</title>
	<author>axl917</author>
	<datestamp>1269965040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How's that hope and change workin' out for ya?</p></div><p>is parroting Caribou Barbie really the most effective way of doing it?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How 's that hope and change workin ' out for ya ? is parroting Caribou Barbie really the most effective way of doing it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How's that hope and change workin' out for ya?is parroting Caribou Barbie really the most effective way of doing it?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670650</id>
	<title>Uh huh, terrororists</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1269964020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why do I have a funny feeling that The Pirate Bay will suddenly be labeled a terrorist organization?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do I have a funny feeling that The Pirate Bay will suddenly be labeled a terrorist organization ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do I have a funny feeling that The Pirate Bay will suddenly be labeled a terrorist organization?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31672922</id>
	<title>What irony</title>
	<author>okpai</author>
	<datestamp>1269970620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What Irony.

The internet was build to be a robust system in case of emergency....</htmltext>
<tokenext>What Irony .
The internet was build to be a robust system in case of emergency... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What Irony.
The internet was build to be a robust system in case of emergency....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31675714</id>
	<title>Re:It's ok people</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269980820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You said "Hitler"! In order to avoid Godwin, you actually have to avoid the specific reference, you goose-stepping Nazi!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You said " Hitler " !
In order to avoid Godwin , you actually have to avoid the specific reference , you goose-stepping Nazi !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You said "Hitler"!
In order to avoid Godwin, you actually have to avoid the specific reference, you goose-stepping Nazi!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671304</id>
	<title>Change you can believe in</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269966000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Change you can beli--  404 ERROR...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Change you can beli-- 404 ERROR.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Change you can beli--  404 ERROR...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31672618</id>
	<title>Re:Where are the technical people on /.</title>
	<author>mounthood</author>
	<datestamp>1269969720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>   Exactly how would a kill switch for the intrawebs work?   Specifically, how would the president hit one button and "shut down" all telecom infrastructure in the country (including wireless).</p></div><p>uh.. tell the telecom's to block the IP traffic on the backbones, remove the DNS, then go find the ISP host? They NSA will just put some  gear in a back closet at the phone companies, and the companies will work hard to integrate it with their network.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>What about the various mesh networks that sprung up?</p></div><p>I don't think this'll matter much if all the backbone connections are blocking the traffic. Remember that the big connections are owned by multinationals who aren't going to fight a lawful order, no matter how morally repugnant. Google recently offered big bandwidth to ISP's, but they'll comply with the law like all other companies: Google won't be pulling out of the US.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly how would a kill switch for the intrawebs work ?
Specifically , how would the president hit one button and " shut down " all telecom infrastructure in the country ( including wireless ) .uh.. tell the telecom 's to block the IP traffic on the backbones , remove the DNS , then go find the ISP host ?
They NSA will just put some gear in a back closet at the phone companies , and the companies will work hard to integrate it with their network.What about the various mesh networks that sprung up ? I do n't think this 'll matter much if all the backbone connections are blocking the traffic .
Remember that the big connections are owned by multinationals who are n't going to fight a lawful order , no matter how morally repugnant .
Google recently offered big bandwidth to ISP 's , but they 'll comply with the law like all other companies : Google wo n't be pulling out of the US .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>   Exactly how would a kill switch for the intrawebs work?
Specifically, how would the president hit one button and "shut down" all telecom infrastructure in the country (including wireless).uh.. tell the telecom's to block the IP traffic on the backbones, remove the DNS, then go find the ISP host?
They NSA will just put some  gear in a back closet at the phone companies, and the companies will work hard to integrate it with their network.What about the various mesh networks that sprung up?I don't think this'll matter much if all the backbone connections are blocking the traffic.
Remember that the big connections are owned by multinationals who aren't going to fight a lawful order, no matter how morally repugnant.
Google recently offered big bandwidth to ISP's, but they'll comply with the law like all other companies: Google won't be pulling out of the US.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671736</id>
	<title>Re:Better than the alternative?</title>
	<author>Joce640k</author>
	<datestamp>1269967080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think thy're only talking about killing individual web sites.</p><p>(Obviously they never heard of the Streisand effect but that's another story - I can't wait for the first politician to use this to try to remove pictures of himself in a public washroom. Oh, how the world will laugh<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think thy 're only talking about killing individual web sites .
( Obviously they never heard of the Streisand effect but that 's another story - I ca n't wait for the first politician to use this to try to remove pictures of himself in a public washroom .
Oh , how the world will laugh ... ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think thy're only talking about killing individual web sites.
(Obviously they never heard of the Streisand effect but that's another story - I can't wait for the first politician to use this to try to remove pictures of himself in a public washroom.
Oh, how the world will laugh ...).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31673540</id>
	<title>Re:Oh yeah?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269972600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's the JEWS.</p><p>The JEWS who run YOUR government, without your consent. The JEWS who bailed out their JEWISH friends in the banks, to the tune of trillions of dollars of YOUR money.</p><p>The JEWS who invented 'hate crimes' so that they can get YOU put in prison for telling the truth about JEWS.</p><p>The JEWS who use YOUR money and YOUR children to fight THEIR wars in the Middle East.</p><p>Had enough yet?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's the JEWS.The JEWS who run YOUR government , without your consent .
The JEWS who bailed out their JEWISH friends in the banks , to the tune of trillions of dollars of YOUR money.The JEWS who invented 'hate crimes ' so that they can get YOU put in prison for telling the truth about JEWS.The JEWS who use YOUR money and YOUR children to fight THEIR wars in the Middle East.Had enough yet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's the JEWS.The JEWS who run YOUR government, without your consent.
The JEWS who bailed out their JEWISH friends in the banks, to the tune of trillions of dollars of YOUR money.The JEWS who invented 'hate crimes' so that they can get YOU put in prison for telling the truth about JEWS.The JEWS who use YOUR money and YOUR children to fight THEIR wars in the Middle East.Had enough yet?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31672178</id>
	<title>Re:Need to have a fast method if needed</title>
	<author>boarder8925</author>
	<datestamp>1269968280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Right, just like the PATRIOT Acts I &amp; II were only to fight terrorists, this new power will only be in case of an "emergency."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Right , just like the PATRIOT Acts I &amp; II were only to fight terrorists , this new power will only be in case of an " emergency .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right, just like the PATRIOT Acts I &amp; II were only to fight terrorists, this new power will only be in case of an "emergency.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31676900</id>
	<title>Much More Than What It Appears To Be</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269941460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I urge everyone in the IT community to download and read S.773 - The Cybersecurity Act of 2009. This bill contains a number of troubling provisions beyond the most obvious one, which is Presidential ability to control the Internet by preventing its use when he deems it necessary to do so. It would require the President to establish a Cybersecurity Advisory Panel without requiring any approval of the members of such panel by Congress. It also requires the Secretary of Commerce to assist the panel with the creation of Regional Cybersecurity Centers that must be affiliated with a non-profit organization or consortium, funded by the panel. Per my reading of the bill, all of this is to be done by people who not been vetted or approved by Congress in any way. It places all of that power in the hands of the President and certainly creates an opportunity to politicize the entire process.

Within one year, the Secretary of Commerce must develop a national licensing, certification and recertification program for cybersecurity professionals. Beginning three years after the bill is passed, "it shall be unlawful for any individual to engage in business in the United States, or to be employed in the United States, as a provider of cybersecurity services to any Federal agency or an information system or network designated by the President, or the President's designee, as a critical infrastructure information system or network, who is not licensed and certified under the program." Ask yourselves, please, who gets to define what is or isn't a critical infrastructure information system or network. That's correct. It's the President (or his designee).

But wait<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... there's more. Within one year after the bill is passed, the President (or his designee) gets to tell Congress if he wants to require cybersecurity to be a factor in all bond ratings (presumably only for private-sector companies and not federal bonds), Here's where it really gets good. "The term "cyber" means - (A) any process, program, or protocol relating to the use of the Internet or an intranet, automatic data processing or transmission, or telecommunication via the Internet or an intranet; and (B) any matter relating to, or involving the use of, computers or computer networks." Let's see if they left any possible use of computers out of that definition. Nope, they even seem to have VOIP covered. The President can control every computer in the country under that definition, irrespective of whether or not it is part of critical security infrastructure. The point here is that this bill is seemingly titled to make people think that it is a well-intended way to protect our country. When you dig deeper into the bill it clearly spells out command and control of potentially every computer in the country by<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... the President. Forget about the person who is in office now. This is a dangerous consolidation of power in the hands of whomever is in the office of President. Read the bill and decide for yourself if this is the path the United States should continue going down - consolidating more and more power in the hands of one man (or woman). Then make your feelings know to your U.S. senators ASAP.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I urge everyone in the IT community to download and read S.773 - The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 .
This bill contains a number of troubling provisions beyond the most obvious one , which is Presidential ability to control the Internet by preventing its use when he deems it necessary to do so .
It would require the President to establish a Cybersecurity Advisory Panel without requiring any approval of the members of such panel by Congress .
It also requires the Secretary of Commerce to assist the panel with the creation of Regional Cybersecurity Centers that must be affiliated with a non-profit organization or consortium , funded by the panel .
Per my reading of the bill , all of this is to be done by people who not been vetted or approved by Congress in any way .
It places all of that power in the hands of the President and certainly creates an opportunity to politicize the entire process .
Within one year , the Secretary of Commerce must develop a national licensing , certification and recertification program for cybersecurity professionals .
Beginning three years after the bill is passed , " it shall be unlawful for any individual to engage in business in the United States , or to be employed in the United States , as a provider of cybersecurity services to any Federal agency or an information system or network designated by the President , or the President 's designee , as a critical infrastructure information system or network , who is not licensed and certified under the program .
" Ask yourselves , please , who gets to define what is or is n't a critical infrastructure information system or network .
That 's correct .
It 's the President ( or his designee ) .
But wait ... there 's more .
Within one year after the bill is passed , the President ( or his designee ) gets to tell Congress if he wants to require cybersecurity to be a factor in all bond ratings ( presumably only for private-sector companies and not federal bonds ) , Here 's where it really gets good .
" The term " cyber " means - ( A ) any process , program , or protocol relating to the use of the Internet or an intranet , automatic data processing or transmission , or telecommunication via the Internet or an intranet ; and ( B ) any matter relating to , or involving the use of , computers or computer networks .
" Let 's see if they left any possible use of computers out of that definition .
Nope , they even seem to have VOIP covered .
The President can control every computer in the country under that definition , irrespective of whether or not it is part of critical security infrastructure .
The point here is that this bill is seemingly titled to make people think that it is a well-intended way to protect our country .
When you dig deeper into the bill it clearly spells out command and control of potentially every computer in the country by ... the President .
Forget about the person who is in office now .
This is a dangerous consolidation of power in the hands of whomever is in the office of President .
Read the bill and decide for yourself if this is the path the United States should continue going down - consolidating more and more power in the hands of one man ( or woman ) .
Then make your feelings know to your U.S. senators ASAP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I urge everyone in the IT community to download and read S.773 - The Cybersecurity Act of 2009.
This bill contains a number of troubling provisions beyond the most obvious one, which is Presidential ability to control the Internet by preventing its use when he deems it necessary to do so.
It would require the President to establish a Cybersecurity Advisory Panel without requiring any approval of the members of such panel by Congress.
It also requires the Secretary of Commerce to assist the panel with the creation of Regional Cybersecurity Centers that must be affiliated with a non-profit organization or consortium, funded by the panel.
Per my reading of the bill, all of this is to be done by people who not been vetted or approved by Congress in any way.
It places all of that power in the hands of the President and certainly creates an opportunity to politicize the entire process.
Within one year, the Secretary of Commerce must develop a national licensing, certification and recertification program for cybersecurity professionals.
Beginning three years after the bill is passed, "it shall be unlawful for any individual to engage in business in the United States, or to be employed in the United States, as a provider of cybersecurity services to any Federal agency or an information system or network designated by the President, or the President's designee, as a critical infrastructure information system or network, who is not licensed and certified under the program.
" Ask yourselves, please, who gets to define what is or isn't a critical infrastructure information system or network.
That's correct.
It's the President (or his designee).
But wait ... there's more.
Within one year after the bill is passed, the President (or his designee) gets to tell Congress if he wants to require cybersecurity to be a factor in all bond ratings (presumably only for private-sector companies and not federal bonds), Here's where it really gets good.
"The term "cyber" means - (A) any process, program, or protocol relating to the use of the Internet or an intranet, automatic data processing or transmission, or telecommunication via the Internet or an intranet; and (B) any matter relating to, or involving the use of, computers or computer networks.
" Let's see if they left any possible use of computers out of that definition.
Nope, they even seem to have VOIP covered.
The President can control every computer in the country under that definition, irrespective of whether or not it is part of critical security infrastructure.
The point here is that this bill is seemingly titled to make people think that it is a well-intended way to protect our country.
When you dig deeper into the bill it clearly spells out command and control of potentially every computer in the country by ... the President.
Forget about the person who is in office now.
This is a dangerous consolidation of power in the hands of whomever is in the office of President.
Read the bill and decide for yourself if this is the path the United States should continue going down - consolidating more and more power in the hands of one man (or woman).
Then make your feelings know to your U.S. senators ASAP.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31675190</id>
	<title>What about medical facilities?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269978780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With the push to get all things medical converted to electronic, how do they expect everyone to receive good treatment when the internet might be arbitrarily shutdown? There would need to be an application process to allow hospitals and other medical facilities to stay online. The company I work for would be dead in the water without internet and the patients we treat would be in serious danger without proper diagnoses; which are carried out via internet links. How is this any different from refusing treatment due to lack of insurance and causing someone to, subsequently, die? I guess we always need one way to ensure the government can indirectly kill it's populous off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With the push to get all things medical converted to electronic , how do they expect everyone to receive good treatment when the internet might be arbitrarily shutdown ?
There would need to be an application process to allow hospitals and other medical facilities to stay online .
The company I work for would be dead in the water without internet and the patients we treat would be in serious danger without proper diagnoses ; which are carried out via internet links .
How is this any different from refusing treatment due to lack of insurance and causing someone to , subsequently , die ?
I guess we always need one way to ensure the government can indirectly kill it 's populous off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With the push to get all things medical converted to electronic, how do they expect everyone to receive good treatment when the internet might be arbitrarily shutdown?
There would need to be an application process to allow hospitals and other medical facilities to stay online.
The company I work for would be dead in the water without internet and the patients we treat would be in serious danger without proper diagnoses; which are carried out via internet links.
How is this any different from refusing treatment due to lack of insurance and causing someone to, subsequently, die?
I guess we always need one way to ensure the government can indirectly kill it's populous off.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671910</id>
	<title>Congress?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269967500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>LOL!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>LOL !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LOL!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31672804</id>
	<title>Re:Need to have a fast method if needed</title>
	<author>Jawn98685</author>
	<datestamp>1269970260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You should have a problem with this. Big time. A genuine DDOS attack will be motivation enough for the carriers and ISP's involved to act on their own. That's the beauty of the mythical "free market". No government involvement is required. <br>
On the other hand, letting a single branch of the government pull the plug on "a web site", with no checks and balances has "abuse me" written all over it. No. Hell no.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You should have a problem with this .
Big time .
A genuine DDOS attack will be motivation enough for the carriers and ISP 's involved to act on their own .
That 's the beauty of the mythical " free market " .
No government involvement is required .
On the other hand , letting a single branch of the government pull the plug on " a web site " , with no checks and balances has " abuse me " written all over it .
No. Hell no .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You should have a problem with this.
Big time.
A genuine DDOS attack will be motivation enough for the carriers and ISP's involved to act on their own.
That's the beauty of the mythical "free market".
No government involvement is required.
On the other hand, letting a single branch of the government pull the plug on "a web site", with no checks and balances has "abuse me" written all over it.
No. Hell no.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31672722</id>
	<title>Re:Where are the technical people on /.</title>
	<author>JJBSr</author>
	<datestamp>1269970020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>:::<br>Declaring martial law has never happened in the US. Doing so would have huge negative political ramifications, as it should.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:::</p><p>Ah, no.</p><p>As long as $PRESIDENT can immediately point at $FRINGEGROUP as a scapegoat, there will be few public or political consequences.</p><p>Yes, this is sad.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>: : : Declaring martial law has never happened in the US .
Doing so would have huge negative political ramifications , as it should .
: : : Ah , no.As long as $ PRESIDENT can immediately point at $ FRINGEGROUP as a scapegoat , there will be few public or political consequences.Yes , this is sad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>:::Declaring martial law has never happened in the US.
Doing so would have huge negative political ramifications, as it should.
:::Ah, no.As long as $PRESIDENT can immediately point at $FRINGEGROUP as a scapegoat, there will be few public or political consequences.Yes, this is sad.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671286</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31677194</id>
	<title>Re:Oh yeah?</title>
	<author>dov\_0</author>
	<datestamp>1269942240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And the US gov was having a go at Australia about proposed Internet censorship? Oh, I see. Your's is just for terrorist threats... right...</p><p>America - Land of the scared and home of the watched.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And the US gov was having a go at Australia about proposed Internet censorship ?
Oh , I see .
Your 's is just for terrorist threats... right...America - Land of the scared and home of the watched .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And the US gov was having a go at Australia about proposed Internet censorship?
Oh, I see.
Your's is just for terrorist threats... right...America - Land of the scared and home of the watched.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670954</id>
	<title>"critical infrastructure information systems"</title>
	<author>Sloppy</author>
	<datestamp>1269964980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's that?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31673882</id>
	<title>Re:It's ok people</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269973740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not as bad? These assholes are worse.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not as bad ?
These assholes are worse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not as bad?
These assholes are worse.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31672230</id>
	<title>Re:Better than the alternative?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269968400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And create chaos for everyone who pays their bills online, like me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And create chaos for everyone who pays their bills online , like me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And create chaos for everyone who pays their bills online, like me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31673490</id>
	<title>Irony</title>
	<author>legio\_noctis</author>
	<datestamp>1269972420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/03/30/0249252/US-Australia-Tensions-Rise-Over-Net-Filter?from=rss" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">A property this post has in spades</a> [slashdot.org].</htmltext>
<tokenext>A property this post has in spades [ slashdot.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A property this post has in spades [slashdot.org].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671718</id>
	<title>Re:Obama certainly deserves criticism here, but..</title>
	<author>ArcherB</author>
	<datestamp>1269967080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>How's that hope and change workin' out for ya?</p></div><p>is parroting Caribou Barbie really the most effective way of doing it?</p></div><p>That is the exact opposite of the "Appeal to Authority" fallacy and it is a logical fallacy all the same.</p><p>Does the originator of the quote make it any less true?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How 's that hope and change workin ' out for ya ? is parroting Caribou Barbie really the most effective way of doing it ? That is the exact opposite of the " Appeal to Authority " fallacy and it is a logical fallacy all the same.Does the originator of the quote make it any less true ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How's that hope and change workin' out for ya?is parroting Caribou Barbie really the most effective way of doing it?That is the exact opposite of the "Appeal to Authority" fallacy and it is a logical fallacy all the same.Does the originator of the quote make it any less true?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670656</id>
	<title>It's ok people</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269964020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not as bad as the Patriot act, so therefore it's ok for this to pass. At least they're not as bad as the last administration, right?</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not as bad as the Patriot act , so therefore it 's ok for this to pass .
At least they 're not as bad as the last administration , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not as bad as the Patriot act, so therefore it's ok for this to pass.
At least they're not as bad as the last administration, right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671010</id>
	<title>your part in society</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269965100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Guys, you keep voting these *hitheads into office on nothing more than advertising. Now, maybe, if this collective group of geeks and hackers could start deconstructing all their lives and lies, some change that we could live with would occur.</p><p>oh, yeah. Vote once in a while.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Guys , you keep voting these * hitheads into office on nothing more than advertising .
Now , maybe , if this collective group of geeks and hackers could start deconstructing all their lives and lies , some change that we could live with would occur.oh , yeah .
Vote once in a while .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Guys, you keep voting these *hitheads into office on nothing more than advertising.
Now, maybe, if this collective group of geeks and hackers could start deconstructing all their lives and lies, some change that we could live with would occur.oh, yeah.
Vote once in a while.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31673138</id>
	<title>Re:Obama certainly deserves criticism here, but..</title>
	<author>scrout</author>
	<datestamp>1269971220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>How about responding honestly?
You voted for this guy, the "savior", for transparency, blah, blah, blah.
And now he acts worse than Bush, who you called a chimp for 8 years, and you are OK with it?
WTF dude?
You cant call sh*t on your guy at all?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about responding honestly ?
You voted for this guy , the " savior " , for transparency , blah , blah , blah .
And now he acts worse than Bush , who you called a chimp for 8 years , and you are OK with it ?
WTF dude ?
You cant call sh * t on your guy at all ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about responding honestly?
You voted for this guy, the "savior", for transparency, blah, blah, blah.
And now he acts worse than Bush, who you called a chimp for 8 years, and you are OK with it?
WTF dude?
You cant call sh*t on your guy at all?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31672240</id>
	<title>websites are terrorist activities?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269968460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>hahah<br>HAHAH<br>haha<br>hahah<br>USA is showing again how STUPID no stupid means it know better<br>DUMB ASS RETARDED more like it LOL ROFL<br>HAHAHA<br>im going to point my remote dns for hte united hackers association at all kinds a nice sites and GET YOU FUCKING BANNED<br>hahahahah<br>ahhahahahah<br>ahahahhaha<br>ahhaha</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>hahahHAHAHhahahahahUSA is showing again how STUPID no stupid means it know betterDUMB ASS RETARDED more like it LOL ROFLHAHAHAim going to point my remote dns for hte united hackers association at all kinds a nice sites and GET YOU FUCKING BANNEDhahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahaahhaha</tokentext>
<sentencetext>hahahHAHAHhahahahahUSA is showing again how STUPID no stupid means it know betterDUMB ASS RETARDED more like it LOL ROFLHAHAHAim going to point my remote dns for hte united hackers association at all kinds a nice sites and GET YOU FUCKING BANNEDhahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahaahhaha</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31675616</id>
	<title>Re:Not so terrible</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269980400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One executive order can change that.  Look at what is going on with the healthcare bill.  They pass it but don't like whats in it.  So BO issues executive order and overrides the text of the bill.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One executive order can change that .
Look at what is going on with the healthcare bill .
They pass it but do n't like whats in it .
So BO issues executive order and overrides the text of the bill .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One executive order can change that.
Look at what is going on with the healthcare bill.
They pass it but don't like whats in it.
So BO issues executive order and overrides the text of the bill.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31674592</id>
	<title>Re:Need to have a fast method if needed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269976200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're a fucking nigger and I hope you die in a fire you obama cocksucking piece of shit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're a fucking nigger and I hope you die in a fire you obama cocksucking piece of shit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're a fucking nigger and I hope you die in a fire you obama cocksucking piece of shit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671194</id>
	<title>Re:Report to Congress</title>
	<author>daremonai</author>
	<datestamp>1269965640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If Congress objects, all they have to do is send the President an email about it.
<p>
Oh, wait.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Congress objects , all they have to do is send the President an email about it .
Oh , wait .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Congress objects, all they have to do is send the President an email about it.
Oh, wait.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31683584</id>
	<title>Re:Need to have a fast method if needed</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1269977040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I don't have a problem with this, there should be a way that the system can be quickly shut down if necessary. Waiting for congressional approval would take months probably, even weeks if there was a really pressing emergency.</i></p><p>The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FISA\_court" title="wikipedia.org">United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court</a> [wikipedia.org], FISA, can issue a warrant within hours.  Heck the law even allows the Attorney General or his designee to notify the court up to 72 hours after the fact.</p><p>No, we don't need anything like this power given to government or anyone.  We don't need another <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J.\_Edgar\_Hoover" title="wikipedia.org">J Edgar Hoover</a> [wikipedia.org], his extensive secret files, or <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO" title="wikipedia.org">COINTELPRO</a> [wikipedia.org].</p><p>Neither businesses, criminals, nor terrorists are the greatest threat to liberty, government is the greatest threat to liberty.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't have a problem with this , there should be a way that the system can be quickly shut down if necessary .
Waiting for congressional approval would take months probably , even weeks if there was a really pressing emergency.The United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court [ wikipedia.org ] , FISA , can issue a warrant within hours .
Heck the law even allows the Attorney General or his designee to notify the court up to 72 hours after the fact.No , we do n't need anything like this power given to government or anyone .
We do n't need another J Edgar Hoover [ wikipedia.org ] , his extensive secret files , or COINTELPRO [ wikipedia.org ] .Neither businesses , criminals , nor terrorists are the greatest threat to liberty , government is the greatest threat to liberty .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't have a problem with this, there should be a way that the system can be quickly shut down if necessary.
Waiting for congressional approval would take months probably, even weeks if there was a really pressing emergency.The United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court [wikipedia.org], FISA, can issue a warrant within hours.
Heck the law even allows the Attorney General or his designee to notify the court up to 72 hours after the fact.No, we don't need anything like this power given to government or anyone.
We don't need another J Edgar Hoover [wikipedia.org], his extensive secret files, or COINTELPRO [wikipedia.org].Neither businesses, criminals, nor terrorists are the greatest threat to liberty, government is the greatest threat to liberty.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671204</id>
	<title>Re:Better than the alternative?</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1269965640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hmm... A quickly spreading botnet that is then used to attack China, exclusively executed by US hosted computers, that could prompt China into assuming an internet based attack.</p><p>Yes, unlikely and hardly executable. You asked for an example, not one that's remotely possible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmm... A quickly spreading botnet that is then used to attack China , exclusively executed by US hosted computers , that could prompt China into assuming an internet based attack.Yes , unlikely and hardly executable .
You asked for an example , not one that 's remotely possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmm... A quickly spreading botnet that is then used to attack China, exclusively executed by US hosted computers, that could prompt China into assuming an internet based attack.Yes, unlikely and hardly executable.
You asked for an example, not one that's remotely possible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31672990</id>
	<title>Re:Uh huh, terrororists</title>
	<author>FiloEleven</author>
	<datestamp>1269970920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It might be awesome that if China was to attack the USA (just an extremely unlikely situation ofcourse), the US president could shut down all communication?...It might also be awesome that he can order it any time he wants without having to go through time consuming practices...</p></div><p>What a stunning defense of the idea.  These powers should be granted to POTUS because "it might be awesome."</p><p>I fail to see why turning off Internet if China invaded would be at all helpful.  If anything, in recent years we've seen that the Internet is instrumental in getting out important information about what's going on during critical situations--tweets from Iran and Haiti come to mind.  And the "time consuming practices" just means "congressional approval," which isn't all that time-consuming and is a check against presidential overreaching.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It might be awesome that if China was to attack the USA ( just an extremely unlikely situation ofcourse ) , the US president could shut down all communication ? ...It might also be awesome that he can order it any time he wants without having to go through time consuming practices...What a stunning defense of the idea .
These powers should be granted to POTUS because " it might be awesome .
" I fail to see why turning off Internet if China invaded would be at all helpful .
If anything , in recent years we 've seen that the Internet is instrumental in getting out important information about what 's going on during critical situations--tweets from Iran and Haiti come to mind .
And the " time consuming practices " just means " congressional approval , " which is n't all that time-consuming and is a check against presidential overreaching .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It might be awesome that if China was to attack the USA (just an extremely unlikely situation ofcourse), the US president could shut down all communication?...It might also be awesome that he can order it any time he wants without having to go through time consuming practices...What a stunning defense of the idea.
These powers should be granted to POTUS because "it might be awesome.
"I fail to see why turning off Internet if China invaded would be at all helpful.
If anything, in recent years we've seen that the Internet is instrumental in getting out important information about what's going on during critical situations--tweets from Iran and Haiti come to mind.
And the "time consuming practices" just means "congressional approval," which isn't all that time-consuming and is a check against presidential overreaching.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31672274</id>
	<title>Re:Where are the technical people on /.</title>
	<author>psnyder</author>
	<datestamp>1269968580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Exactly how would a kill switch for the intrawebs work?</p></div><p>This bill is not about a kill switch.<br> <br>

From the summary:</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...giving the president unprecedented power to issue a nation-wide blackout <b>or restriction on websites without congressional approval</b>.</p></div><p>Giving a strong legal power (such as power to shut off the internet in an emergency) makes it much easier to control individual websites.<br> <br> <br>

A few years ago, during the big debates on the legality of wire-tapping and torture, many of the counter arguments ran along the lines that the president was within his legal rights because of similar and more massive powers he had during "emergencies" or "war time".  And those arguments worked.<br> <br>

No one cares about the practicality of a kill switch, least of all the politicians intelligent enough to understand the bill.  A kill switch is not the main goal.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly how would a kill switch for the intrawebs work ? This bill is not about a kill switch .
From the summary : ...giving the president unprecedented power to issue a nation-wide blackout or restriction on websites without congressional approval.Giving a strong legal power ( such as power to shut off the internet in an emergency ) makes it much easier to control individual websites .
A few years ago , during the big debates on the legality of wire-tapping and torture , many of the counter arguments ran along the lines that the president was within his legal rights because of similar and more massive powers he had during " emergencies " or " war time " .
And those arguments worked .
No one cares about the practicality of a kill switch , least of all the politicians intelligent enough to understand the bill .
A kill switch is not the main goal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly how would a kill switch for the intrawebs work?This bill is not about a kill switch.
From the summary: ...giving the president unprecedented power to issue a nation-wide blackout or restriction on websites without congressional approval.Giving a strong legal power (such as power to shut off the internet in an emergency) makes it much easier to control individual websites.
A few years ago, during the big debates on the legality of wire-tapping and torture, many of the counter arguments ran along the lines that the president was within his legal rights because of similar and more massive powers he had during "emergencies" or "war time".
And those arguments worked.
No one cares about the practicality of a kill switch, least of all the politicians intelligent enough to understand the bill.
A kill switch is not the main goal.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31674808</id>
	<title>Re:Obama certainly deserves criticism here, but..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269976980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Slashdot tends to be a little higher on the intellectual totem than most online forums.  So I understand the libertarian and conservative posters, but seeing Tea Partiers --with their tenuous grip on reality-- gives me a bad case of cognitive dissonance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Slashdot tends to be a little higher on the intellectual totem than most online forums .
So I understand the libertarian and conservative posters , but seeing Tea Partiers --with their tenuous grip on reality-- gives me a bad case of cognitive dissonance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slashdot tends to be a little higher on the intellectual totem than most online forums.
So I understand the libertarian and conservative posters, but seeing Tea Partiers --with their tenuous grip on reality-- gives me a bad case of cognitive dissonance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671398</id>
	<title>Re:Hopenchange</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269966240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How's that hope and change workin' out for ya?</p></div><p>It is working out a hell of a lot better than it would have if McCain and Palin were in charge. Do you really honestly think that they would have done better?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How 's that hope and change workin ' out for ya ? It is working out a hell of a lot better than it would have if McCain and Palin were in charge .
Do you really honestly think that they would have done better ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How's that hope and change workin' out for ya?It is working out a hell of a lot better than it would have if McCain and Palin were in charge.
Do you really honestly think that they would have done better?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31673462</id>
	<title>SHUT.  DOWN. EVERYTHING.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269972360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mr President?<br>&gt;Yes?<br>An internet user in New Orleans posted some scathing commentary on the current elected officials!<br>&gt;SHUT<br>&gt;DOWN<br>&gt;EVERYTHING</p><p><a href="http://i34.tinypic.com/2cesq4k.jpg" title="tinypic.com" rel="nofollow">http://i34.tinypic.com/2cesq4k.jpg</a> [tinypic.com]<br>Pandemic, wee</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mr President ? &gt; Yes ? An internet user in New Orleans posted some scathing commentary on the current elected officials ! &gt; SHUT &gt; DOWN &gt; EVERYTHINGhttp : //i34.tinypic.com/2cesq4k.jpg [ tinypic.com ] Pandemic , wee</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mr President?&gt;Yes?An internet user in New Orleans posted some scathing commentary on the current elected officials!&gt;SHUT&gt;DOWN&gt;EVERYTHINGhttp://i34.tinypic.com/2cesq4k.jpg [tinypic.com]Pandemic, wee</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31673840</id>
	<title>Re:It's ok people</title>
	<author>Dalambertian</author>
	<datestamp>1269973560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>To avoid Godwin, I'll pull a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollfuss" title="wikipedia.org">Dollfu&#223;</a> [wikipedia.org]. He was the dictator of Austria before it was absorbed by the German Reich. Think of him as Mini-Hitler.</p></div><p>I think you're forgetting the first rule of Godwin's Law.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>To avoid Godwin , I 'll pull a Dollfu   [ wikipedia.org ] .
He was the dictator of Austria before it was absorbed by the German Reich .
Think of him as Mini-Hitler.I think you 're forgetting the first rule of Godwin 's Law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To avoid Godwin, I'll pull a Dollfuß [wikipedia.org].
He was the dictator of Austria before it was absorbed by the German Reich.
Think of him as Mini-Hitler.I think you're forgetting the first rule of Godwin's Law.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671462</id>
	<title>Not so terrible</title>
	<author>KeithIrwin</author>
	<datestamp>1269966360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've read the bill.  It honestly isn't that bad.  First off, the "kill switch" doesn't apply to arbitrary web sites or anything like that.  It specifically targets 1) government computer networks and 2) computer networks connected to "critical infrastructure".  By "critical infrastructure", they mean things like the power grid, water and sewer systems, natural gas systems, stuff like that.  Some people who have read this bill have made the assumption that "infrastructure networks" is synonymous with "network infrastructure", i.e. internet backbones, but it's pretty obvious from the context that this is not what the bill is meant to cover.  There's nothing in the bill which allows the president to turn off your internet or disconnect you unless you are a utility company.</p><p>Now, that said, they really could have more precisely defined "critical infrastructure networks" in order to make that clearer.  There is still a little weasel-room in the bill where it is possible that someone could try to justify ridiculous actions using it.  They could have eliminated this with a more specific definition of what comprises "critical infrastructure".  So I wouldn't say that I support it 100\% in its current form, but honestly, I don't think that the bill is all that terrible.</p><p>The bigger problem to me is that I don't see any reason to believe that the measures in this bill will do anything significant to address the problem which they are purporting to address.  Although I'm not convinced that a "cyber attack" is a real threat, if it is, by the time the president declares a state of "cyber emergency", it will probably already be too late.  If there really is a serious on-line threat then the way to fight that is not to give more power to people at the top to respond, it is to give people at the bottom more authority to make decisions and respond quickly to a developing security situation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've read the bill .
It honestly is n't that bad .
First off , the " kill switch " does n't apply to arbitrary web sites or anything like that .
It specifically targets 1 ) government computer networks and 2 ) computer networks connected to " critical infrastructure " .
By " critical infrastructure " , they mean things like the power grid , water and sewer systems , natural gas systems , stuff like that .
Some people who have read this bill have made the assumption that " infrastructure networks " is synonymous with " network infrastructure " , i.e .
internet backbones , but it 's pretty obvious from the context that this is not what the bill is meant to cover .
There 's nothing in the bill which allows the president to turn off your internet or disconnect you unless you are a utility company.Now , that said , they really could have more precisely defined " critical infrastructure networks " in order to make that clearer .
There is still a little weasel-room in the bill where it is possible that someone could try to justify ridiculous actions using it .
They could have eliminated this with a more specific definition of what comprises " critical infrastructure " .
So I would n't say that I support it 100 \ % in its current form , but honestly , I do n't think that the bill is all that terrible.The bigger problem to me is that I do n't see any reason to believe that the measures in this bill will do anything significant to address the problem which they are purporting to address .
Although I 'm not convinced that a " cyber attack " is a real threat , if it is , by the time the president declares a state of " cyber emergency " , it will probably already be too late .
If there really is a serious on-line threat then the way to fight that is not to give more power to people at the top to respond , it is to give people at the bottom more authority to make decisions and respond quickly to a developing security situation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've read the bill.
It honestly isn't that bad.
First off, the "kill switch" doesn't apply to arbitrary web sites or anything like that.
It specifically targets 1) government computer networks and 2) computer networks connected to "critical infrastructure".
By "critical infrastructure", they mean things like the power grid, water and sewer systems, natural gas systems, stuff like that.
Some people who have read this bill have made the assumption that "infrastructure networks" is synonymous with "network infrastructure", i.e.
internet backbones, but it's pretty obvious from the context that this is not what the bill is meant to cover.
There's nothing in the bill which allows the president to turn off your internet or disconnect you unless you are a utility company.Now, that said, they really could have more precisely defined "critical infrastructure networks" in order to make that clearer.
There is still a little weasel-room in the bill where it is possible that someone could try to justify ridiculous actions using it.
They could have eliminated this with a more specific definition of what comprises "critical infrastructure".
So I wouldn't say that I support it 100\% in its current form, but honestly, I don't think that the bill is all that terrible.The bigger problem to me is that I don't see any reason to believe that the measures in this bill will do anything significant to address the problem which they are purporting to address.
Although I'm not convinced that a "cyber attack" is a real threat, if it is, by the time the president declares a state of "cyber emergency", it will probably already be too late.
If there really is a serious on-line threat then the way to fight that is not to give more power to people at the top to respond, it is to give people at the bottom more authority to make decisions and respond quickly to a developing security situation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31681322</id>
	<title>Start ripping your favorite FLVs now!</title>
	<author>Ozlanthos</author>
	<datestamp>1269960480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can foresee Obama declaring all electoral candidates facing off against democrats as being "terrorists", thus necessitating the immediate take-down of any site that supports them.
<br>
<br>
-Oz</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can foresee Obama declaring all electoral candidates facing off against democrats as being " terrorists " , thus necessitating the immediate take-down of any site that supports them .
-Oz</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can foresee Obama declaring all electoral candidates facing off against democrats as being "terrorists", thus necessitating the immediate take-down of any site that supports them.
-Oz</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31672188</id>
	<title>Re:Hopenchange</title>
	<author>vikingpower</author>
	<datestamp>1269968280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem is not there, not with the Prez. It is with A) Congress and Senate seeming to consider this  as normal legislative practice B) the American people silently undergoing this.  Both A) and B) are major problems in a so-called democracy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is not there , not with the Prez .
It is with A ) Congress and Senate seeming to consider this as normal legislative practice B ) the American people silently undergoing this .
Both A ) and B ) are major problems in a so-called democracy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is not there, not with the Prez.
It is with A) Congress and Senate seeming to consider this  as normal legislative practice B) the American people silently undergoing this.
Both A) and B) are major problems in a so-called democracy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31676502</id>
	<title>How bad can this really be? It is the Government.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269940200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How bad can this really be? It is the same Executive Branch that wants to make ACTA just an exec order and avoid the pesky Senate (which has the responsibility for treaty negotiations) after all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How bad can this really be ?
It is the same Executive Branch that wants to make ACTA just an exec order and avoid the pesky Senate ( which has the responsibility for treaty negotiations ) after all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How bad can this really be?
It is the same Executive Branch that wants to make ACTA just an exec order and avoid the pesky Senate (which has the responsibility for treaty negotiations) after all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31673518</id>
	<title>order 66 has been programmed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269972480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>implementing is trivial...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>implementing is trivial.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>implementing is trivial...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671006</id>
	<title>Re:Better than the alternative?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269965100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It depends on your definition of "harm" and "good". An revolt with widespread popular support by a significant minority or even majority of citizens could require the internet to be shut down to prevent the people from organizing to rally against an oppressive regime. It worked out pretty well for Iran.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It depends on your definition of " harm " and " good " .
An revolt with widespread popular support by a significant minority or even majority of citizens could require the internet to be shut down to prevent the people from organizing to rally against an oppressive regime .
It worked out pretty well for Iran .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It depends on your definition of "harm" and "good".
An revolt with widespread popular support by a significant minority or even majority of citizens could require the internet to be shut down to prevent the people from organizing to rally against an oppressive regime.
It worked out pretty well for Iran.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671382</id>
	<title>Subject to court oversight</title>
	<author>davidwr</author>
	<datestamp>1269966180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>and gives the president this 'kill switch' without oversight or explanation.</p> </div><p>... except by the courts, years after the fact.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>and gives the president this 'kill switch ' without oversight or explanation .
... except by the courts , years after the fact .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and gives the president this 'kill switch' without oversight or explanation.
... except by the courts, years after the fact.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671486</id>
	<title>Re:Bye, bye freedom...</title>
	<author>ducomputergeek</author>
	<datestamp>1269966480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can start by rallying friends and family to vote for anyone but an incumbent.  Get out and support their primary challenger.  If that doesn't work, vote for other other guy.  Send enough people packing and the rest will get the message.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can start by rallying friends and family to vote for anyone but an incumbent .
Get out and support their primary challenger .
If that does n't work , vote for other other guy .
Send enough people packing and the rest will get the message .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can start by rallying friends and family to vote for anyone but an incumbent.
Get out and support their primary challenger.
If that doesn't work, vote for other other guy.
Send enough people packing and the rest will get the message.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670760</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670706</id>
	<title>Report to Congress</title>
	<author>Akido37</author>
	<datestamp>1269964140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Like most emergency powers, it requires the President to report to Congress within 48 hours.
<br> <br>
It doesn't seem, though, to give Congress power to stop the emergency action if it feels that it's not really an emergency.
<br> <br>
We'll see what the House does with it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Like most emergency powers , it requires the President to report to Congress within 48 hours .
It does n't seem , though , to give Congress power to stop the emergency action if it feels that it 's not really an emergency .
We 'll see what the House does with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like most emergency powers, it requires the President to report to Congress within 48 hours.
It doesn't seem, though, to give Congress power to stop the emergency action if it feels that it's not really an emergency.
We'll see what the House does with it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671472</id>
	<title>Re:It's ok people</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269966420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Once such power is granted, it will not go away. And it invevitably will eventually fall into the wrong hands.</i></p><p>I would argue that in many cases, misuse of power isn't the evil -- power itself is the evil. The fact that power will fall into the "wrong hands" and is a moot point, because there are no right hands.</p><p>To paraphrase Lord Acton, no class is fit to govern. This is just a formal way of saying that power itself (the special "right" to employ physical force as one's means) is evil.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Once such power is granted , it will not go away .
And it invevitably will eventually fall into the wrong hands.I would argue that in many cases , misuse of power is n't the evil -- power itself is the evil .
The fact that power will fall into the " wrong hands " and is a moot point , because there are no right hands.To paraphrase Lord Acton , no class is fit to govern .
This is just a formal way of saying that power itself ( the special " right " to employ physical force as one 's means ) is evil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once such power is granted, it will not go away.
And it invevitably will eventually fall into the wrong hands.I would argue that in many cases, misuse of power isn't the evil -- power itself is the evil.
The fact that power will fall into the "wrong hands" and is a moot point, because there are no right hands.To paraphrase Lord Acton, no class is fit to govern.
This is just a formal way of saying that power itself (the special "right" to employ physical force as one's means) is evil.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671246</id>
	<title>Re:Better than the alternative?</title>
	<author>TrentTheThief</author>
	<datestamp>1269965820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Can anyone think of a single example where throwing the kill switch would be better than not throwing the kill switch?  </p></div><p>I believe they're looking to shutdown specific sites. The best thing to do is start setting up darknet/freenet nodes all over the place. Once they begin nailing websites they don't like, they won't stop.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can anyone think of a single example where throwing the kill switch would be better than not throwing the kill switch ?
I believe they 're looking to shutdown specific sites .
The best thing to do is start setting up darknet/freenet nodes all over the place .
Once they begin nailing websites they do n't like , they wo n't stop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can anyone think of a single example where throwing the kill switch would be better than not throwing the kill switch?
I believe they're looking to shutdown specific sites.
The best thing to do is start setting up darknet/freenet nodes all over the place.
Once they begin nailing websites they don't like, they won't stop.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31672102</id>
	<title>Re:Where are the technical people on /.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269968100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a pipe dream.  It just proves what I've said for years, that politicians have NO TECHNICAL ABILITY WHATSOEVER.  They don't know what exists, or how people use it.  They really believe that control of everything is still in the hands of giant corporations the president can smack around.</p><p>The most they could try to do is get large telcos to shut down the big inter-city backbones. This would cut off most normal communications, including phone, internet, and cable TV.  They can ask satellite providers to temporarily cut off up and down links. They can ask ISPs to temporarily lock all their user accounts.</p><p>What then?</p><p>The groups the government would be likely to try something like this against are the LEAST LIKELY to be affected by it.  They'll anticipate it, and work around it.  It's easy to set up a darknet, run cable between houses or buildings, set up wireless access points and chain them together, etc. You can even buy cell-phone repeaters for a few thousand bucks and run your own private network.  Hell, you can get a pair of walkie talkies with a three mile range for twenty bucks in any department store. And if you really want to get squirrelly, you can use flashlights and morse code to communicate across MILES at night, with nobody the wiser.</p><p>The only thing this "kill switch" would accomplish would be killing the economy by shutting down all commerce.  Credit cards work over networks, remember. And who uses cash these days?</p><p>I wouldn't worry about it.  Congress voting to allow the president to bypass Congress?  Never happen.</p><p>Those in power never give up power.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a pipe dream .
It just proves what I 've said for years , that politicians have NO TECHNICAL ABILITY WHATSOEVER .
They do n't know what exists , or how people use it .
They really believe that control of everything is still in the hands of giant corporations the president can smack around.The most they could try to do is get large telcos to shut down the big inter-city backbones .
This would cut off most normal communications , including phone , internet , and cable TV .
They can ask satellite providers to temporarily cut off up and down links .
They can ask ISPs to temporarily lock all their user accounts.What then ? The groups the government would be likely to try something like this against are the LEAST LIKELY to be affected by it .
They 'll anticipate it , and work around it .
It 's easy to set up a darknet , run cable between houses or buildings , set up wireless access points and chain them together , etc .
You can even buy cell-phone repeaters for a few thousand bucks and run your own private network .
Hell , you can get a pair of walkie talkies with a three mile range for twenty bucks in any department store .
And if you really want to get squirrelly , you can use flashlights and morse code to communicate across MILES at night , with nobody the wiser.The only thing this " kill switch " would accomplish would be killing the economy by shutting down all commerce .
Credit cards work over networks , remember .
And who uses cash these days ? I would n't worry about it .
Congress voting to allow the president to bypass Congress ?
Never happen.Those in power never give up power .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a pipe dream.
It just proves what I've said for years, that politicians have NO TECHNICAL ABILITY WHATSOEVER.
They don't know what exists, or how people use it.
They really believe that control of everything is still in the hands of giant corporations the president can smack around.The most they could try to do is get large telcos to shut down the big inter-city backbones.
This would cut off most normal communications, including phone, internet, and cable TV.
They can ask satellite providers to temporarily cut off up and down links.
They can ask ISPs to temporarily lock all their user accounts.What then?The groups the government would be likely to try something like this against are the LEAST LIKELY to be affected by it.
They'll anticipate it, and work around it.
It's easy to set up a darknet, run cable between houses or buildings, set up wireless access points and chain them together, etc.
You can even buy cell-phone repeaters for a few thousand bucks and run your own private network.
Hell, you can get a pair of walkie talkies with a three mile range for twenty bucks in any department store.
And if you really want to get squirrelly, you can use flashlights and morse code to communicate across MILES at night, with nobody the wiser.The only thing this "kill switch" would accomplish would be killing the economy by shutting down all commerce.
Credit cards work over networks, remember.
And who uses cash these days?I wouldn't worry about it.
Congress voting to allow the president to bypass Congress?
Never happen.Those in power never give up power.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31680812</id>
	<title>Re:Where are the technical people on /.</title>
	<author>AHuxley</author>
	<datestamp>1269957960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Really depends on what the US gov wants to do.<br>
The US is connected by a series of pipes to the outside world.<br>
The pipes where mapped and shown to pass via a set of geographic locations with very little real "networking" and more like choke points.<br>
Why would the private sector lay any more optical then they needed esp dark 'just in case' and why would the gov let the private sector know about its own networks.<br>
In theory you could de link the US from the outside world for a short time for a critical mass of the population.<br>
If FOX, the mainstream media and traditional media kept in step,  reality about an event could be shaped, slowed or altered.<br>
For 12 h, the US gov has breathing room and a cities short term communications black out can be spun as simple run away panic congestion. <br>
Anything that happened in that city would be contained and the message out unified around the mainstream media.<br>
A new pearl harbour, an accident or simple infrastructure crumble can be presented as needed without too many live locals for the first 12 h.<br>Remember if its not on film, its just a persons word against a pundits.<br>
12-24h later the world has moved on.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Really depends on what the US gov wants to do .
The US is connected by a series of pipes to the outside world .
The pipes where mapped and shown to pass via a set of geographic locations with very little real " networking " and more like choke points .
Why would the private sector lay any more optical then they needed esp dark 'just in case ' and why would the gov let the private sector know about its own networks .
In theory you could de link the US from the outside world for a short time for a critical mass of the population .
If FOX , the mainstream media and traditional media kept in step , reality about an event could be shaped , slowed or altered .
For 12 h , the US gov has breathing room and a cities short term communications black out can be spun as simple run away panic congestion .
Anything that happened in that city would be contained and the message out unified around the mainstream media .
A new pearl harbour , an accident or simple infrastructure crumble can be presented as needed without too many live locals for the first 12 h.Remember if its not on film , its just a persons word against a pundits .
12-24h later the world has moved on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really depends on what the US gov wants to do.
The US is connected by a series of pipes to the outside world.
The pipes where mapped and shown to pass via a set of geographic locations with very little real "networking" and more like choke points.
Why would the private sector lay any more optical then they needed esp dark 'just in case' and why would the gov let the private sector know about its own networks.
In theory you could de link the US from the outside world for a short time for a critical mass of the population.
If FOX, the mainstream media and traditional media kept in step,  reality about an event could be shaped, slowed or altered.
For 12 h, the US gov has breathing room and a cities short term communications black out can be spun as simple run away panic congestion.
Anything that happened in that city would be contained and the message out unified around the mainstream media.
A new pearl harbour, an accident or simple infrastructure crumble can be presented as needed without too many live locals for the first 12 h.Remember if its not on film, its just a persons word against a pundits.
12-24h later the world has moved on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31674720</id>
	<title>Re:Uh huh, terrororists</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1269976680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're putting an awful lot of trust in one man not to abuse his power. Even if you think Obama will handle it responsibly (and I don't have nearly as much faith in him as you), don't you think there is at least the possibility that one of his successors may not be so moderate?</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're putting an awful lot of trust in one man not to abuse his power .
Even if you think Obama will handle it responsibly ( and I do n't have nearly as much faith in him as you ) , do n't you think there is at least the possibility that one of his successors may not be so moderate ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're putting an awful lot of trust in one man not to abuse his power.
Even if you think Obama will handle it responsibly (and I don't have nearly as much faith in him as you), don't you think there is at least the possibility that one of his successors may not be so moderate?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671016</id>
	<title>Where are the technical people on /.</title>
	<author>tacokill</author>
	<datestamp>1269965160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Lots of comments but not one that is technically based...
<br>
<br>
Ok, I'll ask.   Exactly how would a kill switch for the intrawebs work?   Specifically, how would the president hit one button and "shut down" all telecom infrastructure in the country (including wireless).  What about the various mesh networks that sprung up?
<br>
<br>
I am trying to envision how this would work on any technical level and I just can't get there.  Yes, you could pretty easily cripple our telecom system here and there but to shut the whole thing down and make it unusable is quite a different scenario.
<br>
<br>
Not to mention the hacking opportunity this presents.  Yes, I am sure there will be many many layers of security....but still.....if the president can do it, then someone else can also do it.
<br>
<br>
<br>
This actually raises (many) more questions than it answers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lots of comments but not one that is technically based.. . Ok , I 'll ask .
Exactly how would a kill switch for the intrawebs work ?
Specifically , how would the president hit one button and " shut down " all telecom infrastructure in the country ( including wireless ) .
What about the various mesh networks that sprung up ?
I am trying to envision how this would work on any technical level and I just ca n't get there .
Yes , you could pretty easily cripple our telecom system here and there but to shut the whole thing down and make it unusable is quite a different scenario .
Not to mention the hacking opportunity this presents .
Yes , I am sure there will be many many layers of security....but still.....if the president can do it , then someone else can also do it .
This actually raises ( many ) more questions than it answers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lots of comments but not one that is technically based...


Ok, I'll ask.
Exactly how would a kill switch for the intrawebs work?
Specifically, how would the president hit one button and "shut down" all telecom infrastructure in the country (including wireless).
What about the various mesh networks that sprung up?
I am trying to envision how this would work on any technical level and I just can't get there.
Yes, you could pretty easily cripple our telecom system here and there but to shut the whole thing down and make it unusable is quite a different scenario.
Not to mention the hacking opportunity this presents.
Yes, I am sure there will be many many layers of security....but still.....if the president can do it, then someone else can also do it.
This actually raises (many) more questions than it answers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670624</id>
	<title>Oh yeah?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269963960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, you can't contr[Connection dropped by USA Presidential request].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , you ca n't contr [ Connection dropped by USA Presidential request ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, you can't contr[Connection dropped by USA Presidential request].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31682348</id>
	<title>Re:It's ok people</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1269966420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I hate to break it to you, but the government already has far greater powers than this law provides. In certain situations, I've heard that they're even allowed to kill people.</i></p><p> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby\_Ridge" title="wikipedia.org">They</a> [wikipedia.org] are allowed to kill people.  They can even roast <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco\_Siege" title="wikipedia.org">76</a> [wikipedia.org] men, women, and children without consequences.  And people wonder about the rise of <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/03/29/hutaree.militia.plans/index.html?iref=allsearch" title="cnn.com">militias</a> [cnn.com] and the attacks on government.</p><p><i>Whenever a government does not intervene and regulate, power vacuums are quickly filled by mustachioed land barons</i></p><p>Oh, you mean like when the government gave land away to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robber\_Barons#United\_States" title="wikipedia.org">robber barons</a> [wikipedia.org] during the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilded\_Age" title="wikipedia.org">Gilded Age</a> [wikipedia.org]?  Cornelius Vanderbilt, John D. Rockefeller, Andrew W. Mellon, Andrew Carnegie, Henry Flagler, and J.P. Morgan didn't all get wealthy purely by hard work, they were handed land others owned but was taken away by the government when it used the power of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent\_domain" title="wikipedia.org">Eminent domain</a> [wikipedia.org].  Kind of like how <a href="http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/10/17/145458.shtml" title="newsmax.com">they just steal land</a> [newsmax.com].  Or <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo\_v.\_City\_of\_New\_London" title="wikipedia.org">Kelo v. City of New London</a> [wikipedia.org], when the city forced a bunch of citizens off their land so a large pharmaceutical business could build on the land.</p><p><i>I hope you never have to endure governments as powerless as you desire them to be.</i></p><p>I hope you never have to deal with a government as powerful as you wish them to be.  Any government powerful enough to give you what you want is powerful enough to take it way too.  Now if you really do want powerful government then there's Iran and North Korea you can move to.  Or Zimbabwe.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hate to break it to you , but the government already has far greater powers than this law provides .
In certain situations , I 've heard that they 're even allowed to kill people .
They [ wikipedia.org ] are allowed to kill people .
They can even roast 76 [ wikipedia.org ] men , women , and children without consequences .
And people wonder about the rise of militias [ cnn.com ] and the attacks on government.Whenever a government does not intervene and regulate , power vacuums are quickly filled by mustachioed land baronsOh , you mean like when the government gave land away to robber barons [ wikipedia.org ] during the Gilded Age [ wikipedia.org ] ?
Cornelius Vanderbilt , John D. Rockefeller , Andrew W. Mellon , Andrew Carnegie , Henry Flagler , and J.P. Morgan did n't all get wealthy purely by hard work , they were handed land others owned but was taken away by the government when it used the power of Eminent domain [ wikipedia.org ] .
Kind of like how they just steal land [ newsmax.com ] .
Or Kelo v. City of New London [ wikipedia.org ] , when the city forced a bunch of citizens off their land so a large pharmaceutical business could build on the land.I hope you never have to endure governments as powerless as you desire them to be.I hope you never have to deal with a government as powerful as you wish them to be .
Any government powerful enough to give you what you want is powerful enough to take it way too .
Now if you really do want powerful government then there 's Iran and North Korea you can move to .
Or Zimbabwe .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hate to break it to you, but the government already has far greater powers than this law provides.
In certain situations, I've heard that they're even allowed to kill people.
They [wikipedia.org] are allowed to kill people.
They can even roast 76 [wikipedia.org] men, women, and children without consequences.
And people wonder about the rise of militias [cnn.com] and the attacks on government.Whenever a government does not intervene and regulate, power vacuums are quickly filled by mustachioed land baronsOh, you mean like when the government gave land away to robber barons [wikipedia.org] during the Gilded Age [wikipedia.org]?
Cornelius Vanderbilt, John D. Rockefeller, Andrew W. Mellon, Andrew Carnegie, Henry Flagler, and J.P. Morgan didn't all get wealthy purely by hard work, they were handed land others owned but was taken away by the government when it used the power of Eminent domain [wikipedia.org].
Kind of like how they just steal land [newsmax.com].
Or Kelo v. City of New London [wikipedia.org], when the city forced a bunch of citizens off their land so a large pharmaceutical business could build on the land.I hope you never have to endure governments as powerless as you desire them to be.I hope you never have to deal with a government as powerful as you wish them to be.
Any government powerful enough to give you what you want is powerful enough to take it way too.
Now if you really do want powerful government then there's Iran and North Korea you can move to.
Or Zimbabwe.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31672780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31673014</id>
	<title>Re:Report to Congress</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269970980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They can impeach the president for treason or a number of other offences against the people of course<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. yeah sure!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They can impeach the president for treason or a number of other offences against the people of course .. yeah sure !
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They can impeach the president for treason or a number of other offences against the people of course .. yeah sure!
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31697774</id>
	<title>Re:Report to Congress</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270062240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It doesn't seem, though, to give Congress power to stop the emergency action if it feels that it's not really an emergency.</p> </div><p>In theory, Congress could stop the emergency action by repealing the law granting the power, and it might also be able to do so by impeaching the President.  Realistically, that isn't going to happen.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It does n't seem , though , to give Congress power to stop the emergency action if it feels that it 's not really an emergency .
In theory , Congress could stop the emergency action by repealing the law granting the power , and it might also be able to do so by impeaching the President .
Realistically , that is n't going to happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It doesn't seem, though, to give Congress power to stop the emergency action if it feels that it's not really an emergency.
In theory, Congress could stop the emergency action by repealing the law granting the power, and it might also be able to do so by impeaching the President.
Realistically, that isn't going to happen.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671070</id>
	<title>Re:Better than the alternative?</title>
	<author>Em Emalb</author>
	<datestamp>1269965280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only thing I could think of...say a large city like New York or LA has a terrorist attack.  People overwhelm the network(s) and in order to allow emergency personnel to have dependable access, they black out all of the network except for what the emergency people need to use.</p><p>Something like that.  It's retarded, over all, and about the only thing I could conceive of where this *might* make sense.  Maybe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only thing I could think of...say a large city like New York or LA has a terrorist attack .
People overwhelm the network ( s ) and in order to allow emergency personnel to have dependable access , they black out all of the network except for what the emergency people need to use.Something like that .
It 's retarded , over all , and about the only thing I could conceive of where this * might * make sense .
Maybe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only thing I could think of...say a large city like New York or LA has a terrorist attack.
People overwhelm the network(s) and in order to allow emergency personnel to have dependable access, they black out all of the network except for what the emergency people need to use.Something like that.
It's retarded, over all, and about the only thing I could conceive of where this *might* make sense.
Maybe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671504</id>
	<title>Re:Dangerous and disturbing this is</title>
	<author>Nadaka</author>
	<datestamp>1269966540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, a lot of us "radical liberals" are steaming mad at Obama. I didn't drink the kool-aid, I knew he was no different than Bush, I knew he was a corporate-feudalist puppet who would support fascist police state policies from the start.</p><p>On the other hand, I've known about the apocalyptic christian death cults for the better part of 20 years now. The group in Michigan is only the tip of the iceberg.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , a lot of us " radical liberals " are steaming mad at Obama .
I did n't drink the kool-aid , I knew he was no different than Bush , I knew he was a corporate-feudalist puppet who would support fascist police state policies from the start.On the other hand , I 've known about the apocalyptic christian death cults for the better part of 20 years now .
The group in Michigan is only the tip of the iceberg .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, a lot of us "radical liberals" are steaming mad at Obama.
I didn't drink the kool-aid, I knew he was no different than Bush, I knew he was a corporate-feudalist puppet who would support fascist police state policies from the start.On the other hand, I've known about the apocalyptic christian death cults for the better part of 20 years now.
The group in Michigan is only the tip of the iceberg.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671706</id>
	<title>Re:How does this work?</title>
	<author>Tolkien</author>
	<datestamp>1269967080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you look at it differently you might notice that while the US doesn't explicitly restrict access, they do MONITOR it. This could be considered as bad as or worse than restriction, because if you're restricted, you have much more difficulty committing any act that is deemed objectionable by the government. When you're monitored, they know where you've been, what you've done and can use it against you if or whenever they choose. Have you been looking at content deemed illegal by the government? They might not make an issue of it right away, but commit murder and 'oh, look at what we have here...', suddenly you're ten times the threat you were before (as opposed to let's say.. an arbitrary and minimal '2x' threat prior to the murder).</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you look at it differently you might notice that while the US does n't explicitly restrict access , they do MONITOR it .
This could be considered as bad as or worse than restriction , because if you 're restricted , you have much more difficulty committing any act that is deemed objectionable by the government .
When you 're monitored , they know where you 've been , what you 've done and can use it against you if or whenever they choose .
Have you been looking at content deemed illegal by the government ?
They might not make an issue of it right away , but commit murder and 'oh , look at what we have here... ' , suddenly you 're ten times the threat you were before ( as opposed to let 's say.. an arbitrary and minimal '2x ' threat prior to the murder ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you look at it differently you might notice that while the US doesn't explicitly restrict access, they do MONITOR it.
This could be considered as bad as or worse than restriction, because if you're restricted, you have much more difficulty committing any act that is deemed objectionable by the government.
When you're monitored, they know where you've been, what you've done and can use it against you if or whenever they choose.
Have you been looking at content deemed illegal by the government?
They might not make an issue of it right away, but commit murder and 'oh, look at what we have here...', suddenly you're ten times the threat you were before (as opposed to let's say.. an arbitrary and minimal '2x' threat prior to the murder).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31703712</id>
	<title>Re:Need to have a fast method if needed</title>
	<author>SadieJane</author>
	<datestamp>1270126800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Congress can always restrict por shutdown government websites.

Totally unethical to thwart the communication between the people.  The real fact is that only truthful information available is on internet, and well as propaganda and lies.

but mainstream media is completely corporate and government filtered and controlled.  No real news or information there.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Congress can always restrict por shutdown government websites .
Totally unethical to thwart the communication between the people .
The real fact is that only truthful information available is on internet , and well as propaganda and lies .
but mainstream media is completely corporate and government filtered and controlled .
No real news or information there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Congress can always restrict por shutdown government websites.
Totally unethical to thwart the communication between the people.
The real fact is that only truthful information available is on internet, and well as propaganda and lies.
but mainstream media is completely corporate and government filtered and controlled.
No real news or information there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671524</id>
	<title>Re:This is no different</title>
	<author>geekthesteve</author>
	<datestamp>1269966540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, but many believe that President Nixon contemplated declaring marshal law during the Watergate crisis but did not enact it because "we the people" would rally against it.  If you don't have a way to organize large groups of people this concern goes away and I offer as evidence the effective suppression of the demonstrations in Iran after the Internet communications were blocked.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , but many believe that President Nixon contemplated declaring marshal law during the Watergate crisis but did not enact it because " we the people " would rally against it .
If you do n't have a way to organize large groups of people this concern goes away and I offer as evidence the effective suppression of the demonstrations in Iran after the Internet communications were blocked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, but many believe that President Nixon contemplated declaring marshal law during the Watergate crisis but did not enact it because "we the people" would rally against it.
If you don't have a way to organize large groups of people this concern goes away and I offer as evidence the effective suppression of the demonstrations in Iran after the Internet communications were blocked.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31678416</id>
	<title>Re:How does this work?</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1269947040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
No problem then, ISPs can accept the 0/0, but discard any other route from them, then. Also, apply a where-the-sun-doesnt-shine or ignore-this-crap  community to the route, and as-prepend the hell out of it before exporting the route to anyone else  (internal or external).
</p><p>
In a real routing table, every prefix is going to be longer than 0/0, so every real route would overrule 0/0, anyways.   DFZ routers don't use default routing, in some cases they may even be using equipment that is incapable of accepting 0/0 or prefixes outside the range from<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/8 to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/24 due to their software not expecting or allowing it.
</p><p>
Also, the "from my dead cold hands" rule applies.
This is the internet routing system we are talking about.
</p><p>
The US government doesn't have any jurisdiction of which of my neighbors I send X IP address' packets to,  and doesn't have jurisdiction of which of their neighbors they send packets to.
</p><p>
Or even who I connect with, particularly if they are in the same room.
</p><p>
The ISPs also have legal, binding contracts, that the US gov't cannot interfere with. Since the contracts are legal and already in place, and the legislature cannot pass laws negating or nullifying any legal contract, they cannot require peers to turn you off or you to turn off peers, or handle their traffic in a way other than they have specified, either.
</p><p>
Any more than they have jurisdiction of how grocery stores arrange their items.
</p><p>
Just in the same manner they can't demand toilet paper always be placed at the north end of Aisle #15,  and that grocery stores always be built with capacity for exactly 30 aisles 20 feet long, running north to south, by the builder  (even though they were contracted to build stores to accomodate 60 aisles 40 feet long),
</p><p>
The government has no jurisdiction over an IP packet, which is a private message between two people transmitted through private connections, protected from government intervention by the 1st amendment to the US constitution.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No problem then , ISPs can accept the 0/0 , but discard any other route from them , then .
Also , apply a where-the-sun-doesnt-shine or ignore-this-crap community to the route , and as-prepend the hell out of it before exporting the route to anyone else ( internal or external ) .
In a real routing table , every prefix is going to be longer than 0/0 , so every real route would overrule 0/0 , anyways .
DFZ routers do n't use default routing , in some cases they may even be using equipment that is incapable of accepting 0/0 or prefixes outside the range from /8 to /24 due to their software not expecting or allowing it .
Also , the " from my dead cold hands " rule applies .
This is the internet routing system we are talking about .
The US government does n't have any jurisdiction of which of my neighbors I send X IP address ' packets to , and does n't have jurisdiction of which of their neighbors they send packets to .
Or even who I connect with , particularly if they are in the same room .
The ISPs also have legal , binding contracts , that the US gov't can not interfere with .
Since the contracts are legal and already in place , and the legislature can not pass laws negating or nullifying any legal contract , they can not require peers to turn you off or you to turn off peers , or handle their traffic in a way other than they have specified , either .
Any more than they have jurisdiction of how grocery stores arrange their items .
Just in the same manner they ca n't demand toilet paper always be placed at the north end of Aisle # 15 , and that grocery stores always be built with capacity for exactly 30 aisles 20 feet long , running north to south , by the builder ( even though they were contracted to build stores to accomodate 60 aisles 40 feet long ) , The government has no jurisdiction over an IP packet , which is a private message between two people transmitted through private connections , protected from government intervention by the 1st amendment to the US constitution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
No problem then, ISPs can accept the 0/0, but discard any other route from them, then.
Also, apply a where-the-sun-doesnt-shine or ignore-this-crap  community to the route, and as-prepend the hell out of it before exporting the route to anyone else  (internal or external).
In a real routing table, every prefix is going to be longer than 0/0, so every real route would overrule 0/0, anyways.
DFZ routers don't use default routing, in some cases they may even be using equipment that is incapable of accepting 0/0 or prefixes outside the range from /8 to /24 due to their software not expecting or allowing it.
Also, the "from my dead cold hands" rule applies.
This is the internet routing system we are talking about.
The US government doesn't have any jurisdiction of which of my neighbors I send X IP address' packets to,  and doesn't have jurisdiction of which of their neighbors they send packets to.
Or even who I connect with, particularly if they are in the same room.
The ISPs also have legal, binding contracts, that the US gov't cannot interfere with.
Since the contracts are legal and already in place, and the legislature cannot pass laws negating or nullifying any legal contract, they cannot require peers to turn you off or you to turn off peers, or handle their traffic in a way other than they have specified, either.
Any more than they have jurisdiction of how grocery stores arrange their items.
Just in the same manner they can't demand toilet paper always be placed at the north end of Aisle #15,  and that grocery stores always be built with capacity for exactly 30 aisles 20 feet long, running north to south, by the builder  (even though they were contracted to build stores to accomodate 60 aisles 40 feet long),

The government has no jurisdiction over an IP packet, which is a private message between two people transmitted through private connections, protected from government intervention by the 1st amendment to the US constitution.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31673432</id>
	<title>Re:"critical infrastructure information systems"</title>
	<author>Sloppy</author>
	<datestamp>1269972240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>BTW, the answer is</p><blockquote><div><p>The President [shall designate] any information system the infiltration, incapacitation, or disruption of which would have a debilitating impact on national security, including national economic security and national public health or safety, as a critical infrastructure information system under this Act.</p></div></blockquote><p>So if you're thinking about wikileaks, TPB, etc, then I guess the president would first have to take a position that those services need to be protected; that we're terribly harmed without them.  I don't see that happening.</p><p>Off the top of my head, I think the best way to abuse this power would be to say that routing and name services are critical (and arguably, they are), and then during an emergency, routing and naming would have to be limited to a whitelist, or something like that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>BTW , the answer isThe President [ shall designate ] any information system the infiltration , incapacitation , or disruption of which would have a debilitating impact on national security , including national economic security and national public health or safety , as a critical infrastructure information system under this Act.So if you 're thinking about wikileaks , TPB , etc , then I guess the president would first have to take a position that those services need to be protected ; that we 're terribly harmed without them .
I do n't see that happening.Off the top of my head , I think the best way to abuse this power would be to say that routing and name services are critical ( and arguably , they are ) , and then during an emergency , routing and naming would have to be limited to a whitelist , or something like that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BTW, the answer isThe President [shall designate] any information system the infiltration, incapacitation, or disruption of which would have a debilitating impact on national security, including national economic security and national public health or safety, as a critical infrastructure information system under this Act.So if you're thinking about wikileaks, TPB, etc, then I guess the president would first have to take a position that those services need to be protected; that we're terribly harmed without them.
I don't see that happening.Off the top of my head, I think the best way to abuse this power would be to say that routing and name services are critical (and arguably, they are), and then during an emergency, routing and naming would have to be limited to a whitelist, or something like that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31672768</id>
	<title>Re:Bye, bye freedom...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269970140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Soap, ballot, jury, ammo.  The four boxes to be used in defending liberty, to be used in that order.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Soap , ballot , jury , ammo .
The four boxes to be used in defending liberty , to be used in that order .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Soap, ballot, jury, ammo.
The four boxes to be used in defending liberty, to be used in that order.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671244</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670802</id>
	<title>Re:Uh huh, terrororists</title>
	<author>HungryHobo</author>
	<datestamp>1269964440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This does explain the sudden rise in the number of times that bullshit term "cyberwar" has been turning up in headlines.</p><p>Oh and those designed-to-fail excercises where they put a few doddering old politicians in a room and had them defend against a fictional cyberattack which they of course couldn't handle.</p><p>They've got to pretend there's a real war/threat to get people to hand over power.</p><p>Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This does explain the sudden rise in the number of times that bullshit term " cyberwar " has been turning up in headlines.Oh and those designed-to-fail excercises where they put a few doddering old politicians in a room and had them defend against a fictional cyberattack which they of course could n't handle.They 've got to pretend there 's a real war/threat to get people to hand over power.Meet the new boss , same as the old boss .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This does explain the sudden rise in the number of times that bullshit term "cyberwar" has been turning up in headlines.Oh and those designed-to-fail excercises where they put a few doddering old politicians in a room and had them defend against a fictional cyberattack which they of course couldn't handle.They've got to pretend there's a real war/threat to get people to hand over power.Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670650</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31672368</id>
	<title>Re:Where are the technical people on /.</title>
	<author>shambalagoon</author>
	<datestamp>1269968880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This kill switch would be the HOLY GRAIL to hackers. For foreign countries waging cyber attacks, all attention would turn to gaining access to this system, because triggering it would be the very first step in any kind of attack. But this is also a shiny prize for any would-be script kiddie out there as well. Imagine the reputation you'd get for <i>shutting down the internet</i>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This kill switch would be the HOLY GRAIL to hackers .
For foreign countries waging cyber attacks , all attention would turn to gaining access to this system , because triggering it would be the very first step in any kind of attack .
But this is also a shiny prize for any would-be script kiddie out there as well .
Imagine the reputation you 'd get for shutting down the internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This kill switch would be the HOLY GRAIL to hackers.
For foreign countries waging cyber attacks, all attention would turn to gaining access to this system, because triggering it would be the very first step in any kind of attack.
But this is also a shiny prize for any would-be script kiddie out there as well.
Imagine the reputation you'd get for shutting down the internet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31678004</id>
	<title>Re:Not so terrible</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269945360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>... but it's pretty obvious...</p></div><p>It really doesn't matter what we believe might to be obvious when it comes to law. What matters is the meaning of the the words in the legislation, at the time or in the courts (after the event that allows someone with standing to contest an alleged abuse of power).</p><p>Also, you may have noticed that the scripts regarding the use of power enshrined in this bill are to be worked out between the owners and operators of the networks in question in cooperation with the gub'ment.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>(c) Rule of Construction. -- This section does not authorize, and shall not be construed to authorize, an expansion of Presidential authorities.</p> </div><p>If you'll recall, during the Bush administration Congress voted to absolve the major telecommunications companies of any allegations of wrongdoing after they agreed to provided unrestricted access to electronic communications and pen records to the federal government (and before the issue was heard in any court). This notwithstanding the various agencies' failure to hold to the requirements of the FISA laws, which were constructed to protect the citizenry from abuses of such power to intrude without oversight. FIAS was Congress' response to illegal wire-taps that went on for decades after WWII with the full complicity of AT&amp;T. Since the Bush administration's raison d' etre was to usurp power within the framework of the theory of the Unary Executive, and his related actions were never contested, there is only the illusion of protection afforded by the so-called Rule of Construction written into this bill.<i>(BTW - The mere mention of 1st Amendment rights here at the illustrious Slashdot and regarding web-based "publication" is always enough to make me chuckle. It's as if the concept of assimilation, here amongst this subculture, is only valid when it's used in connection with the Borg.)</i></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... but it 's pretty obvious...It really does n't matter what we believe might to be obvious when it comes to law .
What matters is the meaning of the the words in the legislation , at the time or in the courts ( after the event that allows someone with standing to contest an alleged abuse of power ) .Also , you may have noticed that the scripts regarding the use of power enshrined in this bill are to be worked out between the owners and operators of the networks in question in cooperation with the gub'ment .
( c ) Rule of Construction .
-- This section does not authorize , and shall not be construed to authorize , an expansion of Presidential authorities .
If you 'll recall , during the Bush administration Congress voted to absolve the major telecommunications companies of any allegations of wrongdoing after they agreed to provided unrestricted access to electronic communications and pen records to the federal government ( and before the issue was heard in any court ) .
This notwithstanding the various agencies ' failure to hold to the requirements of the FISA laws , which were constructed to protect the citizenry from abuses of such power to intrude without oversight .
FIAS was Congress ' response to illegal wire-taps that went on for decades after WWII with the full complicity of AT&amp;T .
Since the Bush administration 's raison d ' etre was to usurp power within the framework of the theory of the Unary Executive , and his related actions were never contested , there is only the illusion of protection afforded by the so-called Rule of Construction written into this bill .
( BTW - The mere mention of 1st Amendment rights here at the illustrious Slashdot and regarding web-based " publication " is always enough to make me chuckle .
It 's as if the concept of assimilation , here amongst this subculture , is only valid when it 's used in connection with the Borg .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... but it's pretty obvious...It really doesn't matter what we believe might to be obvious when it comes to law.
What matters is the meaning of the the words in the legislation, at the time or in the courts (after the event that allows someone with standing to contest an alleged abuse of power).Also, you may have noticed that the scripts regarding the use of power enshrined in this bill are to be worked out between the owners and operators of the networks in question in cooperation with the gub'ment.
(c) Rule of Construction.
-- This section does not authorize, and shall not be construed to authorize, an expansion of Presidential authorities.
If you'll recall, during the Bush administration Congress voted to absolve the major telecommunications companies of any allegations of wrongdoing after they agreed to provided unrestricted access to electronic communications and pen records to the federal government (and before the issue was heard in any court).
This notwithstanding the various agencies' failure to hold to the requirements of the FISA laws, which were constructed to protect the citizenry from abuses of such power to intrude without oversight.
FIAS was Congress' response to illegal wire-taps that went on for decades after WWII with the full complicity of AT&amp;T.
Since the Bush administration's raison d' etre was to usurp power within the framework of the theory of the Unary Executive, and his related actions were never contested, there is only the illusion of protection afforded by the so-called Rule of Construction written into this bill.
(BTW - The mere mention of 1st Amendment rights here at the illustrious Slashdot and regarding web-based "publication" is always enough to make me chuckle.
It's as if the concept of assimilation, here amongst this subculture, is only valid when it's used in connection with the Borg.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31678504</id>
	<title>Re:Bye, bye freedom...</title>
	<author>psithurism</author>
	<datestamp>1269947400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You can start by rallying friends and family to vote for anyone but an incumbent. Send enough people packing and the rest will get the message.</p></div><p>Did it two elections ago, did it last election, did it in local utility cooperative elections, next guys were the same as the last and forgot their promises of change. Nothing except who was favored by their nepotism changed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can start by rallying friends and family to vote for anyone but an incumbent .
Send enough people packing and the rest will get the message.Did it two elections ago , did it last election , did it in local utility cooperative elections , next guys were the same as the last and forgot their promises of change .
Nothing except who was favored by their nepotism changed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can start by rallying friends and family to vote for anyone but an incumbent.
Send enough people packing and the rest will get the message.Did it two elections ago, did it last election, did it in local utility cooperative elections, next guys were the same as the last and forgot their promises of change.
Nothing except who was favored by their nepotism changed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31674670</id>
	<title>Re:It's ok people</title>
	<author>slick7</author>
	<datestamp>1269976500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In Soviet Russia, the government controls the commerce.</p></div><p> There is no government in Russia, it is an oligarchy of criminals...oh wait... you're right the government controls the commerce.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In Soviet Russia , the government controls the commerce .
There is no government in Russia , it is an oligarchy of criminals...oh wait... you 're right the government controls the commerce .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Soviet Russia, the government controls the commerce.
There is no government in Russia, it is an oligarchy of criminals...oh wait... you're right the government controls the commerce.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671724</id>
	<title>Build your own web</title>
	<author>Simonetta</author>
	<datestamp>1269967080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think that this bill points out the need for all of us to know a little bit about the electronics involved with digital communication.  We basically need to know enough to connect our computers together into small nets that can be independently linked to the world internet.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Our political masters in Washington have the idea that internet is a giant centrally-controlled utility that can be completely shutdown when some political leader orders it done.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; It is quite possible that it is true for the web in its present form.  All our computer links actually are based on centralized fiber lines.  Whether the politicians/generals/CEOs could order the internet shutdown and the technological community would actually comply is a conspiratorial question.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; I think that if the order came down from DC to 'turn off' the internet, it would be delayed and partially ignored.  There is no centralized 'internet switch' to turn off.  A mandated shut-down would at best be only partial because (the politicians forget) the internet was designed to be not be able to be shut-down by force or dictatorial order.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; It would still be a good idea to have a basic understanding of electronics, short-wave ham radio communication, and fundamental internet protocols in order to patch together a link back to web if your local ISP shut off for any reason.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that this bill points out the need for all of us to know a little bit about the electronics involved with digital communication .
We basically need to know enough to connect our computers together into small nets that can be independently linked to the world internet .
    Our political masters in Washington have the idea that internet is a giant centrally-controlled utility that can be completely shutdown when some political leader orders it done .
    It is quite possible that it is true for the web in its present form .
All our computer links actually are based on centralized fiber lines .
Whether the politicians/generals/CEOs could order the internet shutdown and the technological community would actually comply is a conspiratorial question .
    I think that if the order came down from DC to 'turn off ' the internet , it would be delayed and partially ignored .
There is no centralized 'internet switch ' to turn off .
A mandated shut-down would at best be only partial because ( the politicians forget ) the internet was designed to be not be able to be shut-down by force or dictatorial order .
    It would still be a good idea to have a basic understanding of electronics , short-wave ham radio communication , and fundamental internet protocols in order to patch together a link back to web if your local ISP shut off for any reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that this bill points out the need for all of us to know a little bit about the electronics involved with digital communication.
We basically need to know enough to connect our computers together into small nets that can be independently linked to the world internet.
    Our political masters in Washington have the idea that internet is a giant centrally-controlled utility that can be completely shutdown when some political leader orders it done.
    It is quite possible that it is true for the web in its present form.
All our computer links actually are based on centralized fiber lines.
Whether the politicians/generals/CEOs could order the internet shutdown and the technological community would actually comply is a conspiratorial question.
    I think that if the order came down from DC to 'turn off' the internet, it would be delayed and partially ignored.
There is no centralized 'internet switch' to turn off.
A mandated shut-down would at best be only partial because (the politicians forget) the internet was designed to be not be able to be shut-down by force or dictatorial order.
    It would still be a good idea to have a basic understanding of electronics, short-wave ham radio communication, and fundamental internet protocols in order to patch together a link back to web if your local ISP shut off for any reason.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31692730</id>
	<title>Re:Report to Congress</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270027260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Like most emergency powers, it requires the President to report to Congress within 48 hours.</p></div><p>Notification which, in true governmental manner, will be done via e-mail.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Like most emergency powers , it requires the President to report to Congress within 48 hours.Notification which , in true governmental manner , will be done via e-mail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like most emergency powers, it requires the President to report to Congress within 48 hours.Notification which, in true governmental manner, will be done via e-mail.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31678174</id>
	<title>Re:Better than the alternative?</title>
	<author>psithurism</author>
	<datestamp>1269946140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Can anyone think of a single example where throwing the kill switch would be better than not throwing the kill switch?</p></div><p>Yes, say your at war with the US and you take down most of their communication lines, but just one pesky system that is designed to be linked about strongly enough to survive a nuclear war, but good news, all you need is for an agent to get infiltrate the "kill switch" chain of command, and bam your done!</p><p>Or were you talking about how this would be beneficial to the US? Well that, I'll think about.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can anyone think of a single example where throwing the kill switch would be better than not throwing the kill switch ? Yes , say your at war with the US and you take down most of their communication lines , but just one pesky system that is designed to be linked about strongly enough to survive a nuclear war , but good news , all you need is for an agent to get infiltrate the " kill switch " chain of command , and bam your done ! Or were you talking about how this would be beneficial to the US ?
Well that , I 'll think about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can anyone think of a single example where throwing the kill switch would be better than not throwing the kill switch?Yes, say your at war with the US and you take down most of their communication lines, but just one pesky system that is designed to be linked about strongly enough to survive a nuclear war, but good news, all you need is for an agent to get infiltrate the "kill switch" chain of command, and bam your done!Or were you talking about how this would be beneficial to the US?
Well that, I'll think about.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31676896</id>
	<title>Re:</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1269941400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><b>As long as the law clearly indicates that the powers are authorized for use against attacks (rather than against political speech or against copyright infringement) I don't see any issue with this thing.</b></htmltext>
<tokenext>As long as the law clearly indicates that the powers are authorized for use against attacks ( rather than against political speech or against copyright infringement ) I do n't see any issue with this thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As long as the law clearly indicates that the powers are authorized for use against attacks (rather than against political speech or against copyright infringement) I don't see any issue with this thing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31672202</id>
	<title>Re:Where are the technical people on /.</title>
	<author>gclef</author>
	<datestamp>1269968340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It wouldn't shut down the interwebs, it would shut down the interwebs connectivity for "critical infrastructure."  So, each ISP that houses anything tagged as "critical" would  have to have some process where they could isolate it from the rest of the 'net.  That part, on its own, is easy ("You want me to drop BGP sessions X, Y, and Z?  Okay.").  The real challenge comes if they ask, instead, for the systems to be isolated from the net but still able to reach *each* *other*.  That's not explicitly called for in the bill, and I think it leaves the potential for hilarity in the event of an actual emergency.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would n't shut down the interwebs , it would shut down the interwebs connectivity for " critical infrastructure .
" So , each ISP that houses anything tagged as " critical " would have to have some process where they could isolate it from the rest of the 'net .
That part , on its own , is easy ( " You want me to drop BGP sessions X , Y , and Z ?
Okay. " ) . The real challenge comes if they ask , instead , for the systems to be isolated from the net but still able to reach * each * * other * .
That 's not explicitly called for in the bill , and I think it leaves the potential for hilarity in the event of an actual emergency .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It wouldn't shut down the interwebs, it would shut down the interwebs connectivity for "critical infrastructure.
"  So, each ISP that houses anything tagged as "critical" would  have to have some process where they could isolate it from the rest of the 'net.
That part, on its own, is easy ("You want me to drop BGP sessions X, Y, and Z?
Okay.").  The real challenge comes if they ask, instead, for the systems to be isolated from the net but still able to reach *each* *other*.
That's not explicitly called for in the bill, and I think it leaves the potential for hilarity in the event of an actual emergency.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670754</id>
	<title>Better than the alternative?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269964260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can anyone think of a single example where throwing the kill switch would be better than not throwing the kill switch?  You're talking about shutting down or heavily impacting &gt; 90\% of the economy, making communication difficult or impossible for a large number of people, and permanently damaging the trust that people have in a connected society.  The damage would be severe and significant and I just can't imagine a situation where it would do more harm than good.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can anyone think of a single example where throwing the kill switch would be better than not throwing the kill switch ?
You 're talking about shutting down or heavily impacting &gt; 90 \ % of the economy , making communication difficult or impossible for a large number of people , and permanently damaging the trust that people have in a connected society .
The damage would be severe and significant and I just ca n't imagine a situation where it would do more harm than good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can anyone think of a single example where throwing the kill switch would be better than not throwing the kill switch?
You're talking about shutting down or heavily impacting &gt; 90\% of the economy, making communication difficult or impossible for a large number of people, and permanently damaging the trust that people have in a connected society.
The damage would be severe and significant and I just can't imagine a situation where it would do more harm than good.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31682478</id>
	<title>Re:A Kill Switch?</title>
	<author>blackraven14250</author>
	<datestamp>1269967140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, it's giving the president the power to yank the plug from the linksys router, intending to not plug it back in after 10 seconds.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , it 's giving the president the power to yank the plug from the linksys router , intending to not plug it back in after 10 seconds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, it's giving the president the power to yank the plug from the linksys router, intending to not plug it back in after 10 seconds.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31686504</id>
	<title>how long...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270045440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>before they blacklist all the GOP websites...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>before they blacklist all the GOP websites.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>before they blacklist all the GOP websites...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31676438</id>
	<title>communism anyone?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269940080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Welcome to the USSA Komrade.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Welcome to the USSA Komrade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Welcome to the USSA Komrade.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31675386</id>
	<title>Re:An expansion of existing presidential authoriti</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269979620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where have you been? Giving money to political candidates is speech. Actually publishing something written in a natural language is... is... ?</p><p>Welcome to Bizarro America!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where have you been ?
Giving money to political candidates is speech .
Actually publishing something written in a natural language is... is... ? Welcome to Bizarro America !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where have you been?
Giving money to political candidates is speech.
Actually publishing something written in a natural language is... is... ?Welcome to Bizarro America!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670886</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671836</id>
	<title>Re:How does this work?</title>
	<author>vlm</author>
	<datestamp>1269967320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Simply make two rules:</p><p>Define "Everyone" below as any ISP in the USA.</p><p>1) Everyone has to BGP peer with Big Brother AS number 666, one way or another</p><p>2) Everyone has to accept (not filter) a 0/0 route from Big Brother AS 666 (most people filter anything bigger than a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/8)</p><p>Seems like it would be simple enough...</p><p>According to my favorite AIM buddy "BGP Bot" AS 666 is not currently assigned, probably pending this law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Simply make two rules : Define " Everyone " below as any ISP in the USA.1 ) Everyone has to BGP peer with Big Brother AS number 666 , one way or another2 ) Everyone has to accept ( not filter ) a 0/0 route from Big Brother AS 666 ( most people filter anything bigger than a /8 ) Seems like it would be simple enough...According to my favorite AIM buddy " BGP Bot " AS 666 is not currently assigned , probably pending this law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Simply make two rules:Define "Everyone" below as any ISP in the USA.1) Everyone has to BGP peer with Big Brother AS number 666, one way or another2) Everyone has to accept (not filter) a 0/0 route from Big Brother AS 666 (most people filter anything bigger than a /8)Seems like it would be simple enough...According to my favorite AIM buddy "BGP Bot" AS 666 is not currently assigned, probably pending this law.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31672874</id>
	<title>Re:Report to Congress</title>
	<author>kpainter</author>
	<datestamp>1269970500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Like most emergency powers, it requires the President to report to Congress within 48 hours.</p> </div><p>Yeah.  Via e-mail.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Like most emergency powers , it requires the President to report to Congress within 48 hours .
Yeah. Via e-mail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like most emergency powers, it requires the President to report to Congress within 48 hours.
Yeah.  Via e-mail.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31672780</id>
	<title>Re:It's ok people</title>
	<author>pushing-robot</author>
	<datestamp>1269970200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hate to break it to you, but the government already has far greater powers than this law provides.  In certain situations, I've heard that they're even allowed to <i>kill people</i>.</p><p>Just because governments are starting to extend into the online world some of the powers they already possess in the real one does not mean they are suddenly becoming totalitarian states.  Greater control and legislation of the Internet is probably not even a <i>bad thing</i>.  For as much as anarchy is romanticized in westerns and wuxia as a time when men were free, in reality the only people who truly benefited were the powerful.  Whenever a government does not intervene and regulate, power vacuums are quickly filled by mustachioed land barons, cruel warlords, or large corporations, none of which have any concern for "laws" or "unalienable rights".</p><p>Slashdotters, I love you, but I hope you never have to endure governments as powerless as you desire them to be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hate to break it to you , but the government already has far greater powers than this law provides .
In certain situations , I 've heard that they 're even allowed to kill people.Just because governments are starting to extend into the online world some of the powers they already possess in the real one does not mean they are suddenly becoming totalitarian states .
Greater control and legislation of the Internet is probably not even a bad thing .
For as much as anarchy is romanticized in westerns and wuxia as a time when men were free , in reality the only people who truly benefited were the powerful .
Whenever a government does not intervene and regulate , power vacuums are quickly filled by mustachioed land barons , cruel warlords , or large corporations , none of which have any concern for " laws " or " unalienable rights " .Slashdotters , I love you , but I hope you never have to endure governments as powerless as you desire them to be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hate to break it to you, but the government already has far greater powers than this law provides.
In certain situations, I've heard that they're even allowed to kill people.Just because governments are starting to extend into the online world some of the powers they already possess in the real one does not mean they are suddenly becoming totalitarian states.
Greater control and legislation of the Internet is probably not even a bad thing.
For as much as anarchy is romanticized in westerns and wuxia as a time when men were free, in reality the only people who truly benefited were the powerful.
Whenever a government does not intervene and regulate, power vacuums are quickly filled by mustachioed land barons, cruel warlords, or large corporations, none of which have any concern for "laws" or "unalienable rights".Slashdotters, I love you, but I hope you never have to endure governments as powerless as you desire them to be.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31674088</id>
	<title>Just Pull The Plug</title>
	<author>RavenousBlack</author>
	<datestamp>1269974340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>After competing in several Cybersecurity competitions, this seems to be an analog to the idea that the best way to keep someone from owning your system is to just unplug the system from the outside world until you can confidently defend the attack.</htmltext>
<tokenext>After competing in several Cybersecurity competitions , this seems to be an analog to the idea that the best way to keep someone from owning your system is to just unplug the system from the outside world until you can confidently defend the attack .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After competing in several Cybersecurity competitions, this seems to be an analog to the idea that the best way to keep someone from owning your system is to just unplug the system from the outside world until you can confidently defend the attack.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671844</id>
	<title>Re:Better than the alternative?</title>
	<author>IDtheTarget</author>
	<datestamp>1269967380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It depends on your definition of "harm" and "good". An revolt with widespread popular support by a significant minority or even majority of citizens could require the internet to be shut down to prevent the people from organizing to rally against an oppressive regime. It worked out pretty well for Iran.</p></div><p>There's one problem with that thought process....When something of that magnitude happens, we in the National Guard are called out.  And, being private citizens most of the time, we use the Internet quite a bit for communications.  Shutting down the Internet would also hamper our ability to muster to repel the threat...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It depends on your definition of " harm " and " good " .
An revolt with widespread popular support by a significant minority or even majority of citizens could require the internet to be shut down to prevent the people from organizing to rally against an oppressive regime .
It worked out pretty well for Iran.There 's one problem with that thought process....When something of that magnitude happens , we in the National Guard are called out .
And , being private citizens most of the time , we use the Internet quite a bit for communications .
Shutting down the Internet would also hamper our ability to muster to repel the threat.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It depends on your definition of "harm" and "good".
An revolt with widespread popular support by a significant minority or even majority of citizens could require the internet to be shut down to prevent the people from organizing to rally against an oppressive regime.
It worked out pretty well for Iran.There's one problem with that thought process....When something of that magnitude happens, we in the National Guard are called out.
And, being private citizens most of the time, we use the Internet quite a bit for communications.
Shutting down the Internet would also hamper our ability to muster to repel the threat...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31673332</id>
	<title>easy...</title>
	<author>bjk002</author>
	<datestamp>1269971820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic\_pulse" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic\_pulse</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>And I believe he already has a button...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic \ _pulse [ wikipedia.org ] And I believe he already has a button.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic\_pulse [wikipedia.org]And I believe he already has a button...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31673492</id>
	<title>Re:Not so terrible</title>
	<author>jamesyouwish</author>
	<datestamp>1269972420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I hope most of our infrastructure has a kill switch.  I know that I can in a matter of minutes or even seconds pull the plug isolating my organization.  Back in the days of rampant viruses I did this many times and it was quite a savior in the spreading of infections.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope most of our infrastructure has a kill switch .
I know that I can in a matter of minutes or even seconds pull the plug isolating my organization .
Back in the days of rampant viruses I did this many times and it was quite a savior in the spreading of infections .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope most of our infrastructure has a kill switch.
I know that I can in a matter of minutes or even seconds pull the plug isolating my organization.
Back in the days of rampant viruses I did this many times and it was quite a savior in the spreading of infections.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31674500</id>
	<title>I've often thought of revolution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269975840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm convinced that all governments become corrupt and evil to the point that revolution, ugly and unpredictable as it is, seems to many the only solution.</p><p>Therefore, let's presume all governed societies degrade to the point of anarchic revolution. How to avoid this?</p><p>Push for legislation defining <i>terms of revolution</i> that are less orderly and unpalatable. Or, rather, how to avoid such revolution, by removing the greatest source of pain: the oppressor. State resistance will mean an inevitable path to revolution anyway.</p><p>Now, no ruthless government governs alone. In fact, many are unstable, and often overthrown from within via a coup. So, leverage this inherent internals instability.</p><p>Consider a "government" of one governing a hundred. Say those hundred oppose the governor and <b>the law</b> provides for his execution under such circumstances. Now, as there is only a government of one, the governed will have to take matters into their own hands, but surely a hundred can overpower one.</p><p>Scale this up according to the following rule: for every increase in an order of magnitude of those governed, a half reduction of those desiring execution is sufficient to make it legal. Add the following twist: if the government does not execute it's own, so dictated by the will of a sufficient fraction of the population, within a reasonable length of time, <b>any</b> member (employee, elected sub-official, judge, police, military, etc.) becomes fair game for execution.</p><p>So, for 1000, you need the vote of 500, for 10,000, you need the vote of 2,500. For 100,000, you need the vote of 12,500. For a million, you need the vote of 62,500. And so on.</p><p>These numbers are arbitrary, but one can scale them to the point where the "right to revolt" is established at the point where a revolution already appears to have a chance of success. But, the target is clearly the government. And, if the government does not police itself to the satisfaction of the people, the target is <b>all</b> of the government.</p><p>The government must clearly fear the governed, at all times. Many jobs carry risks to life and limb: firefighters, police, etc. Why should government not?</p><p>If the government balks at establishing terms permitting its forceful overthrow, it will eventually be overthrown anyway, and likely sooner.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm convinced that all governments become corrupt and evil to the point that revolution , ugly and unpredictable as it is , seems to many the only solution.Therefore , let 's presume all governed societies degrade to the point of anarchic revolution .
How to avoid this ? Push for legislation defining terms of revolution that are less orderly and unpalatable .
Or , rather , how to avoid such revolution , by removing the greatest source of pain : the oppressor .
State resistance will mean an inevitable path to revolution anyway.Now , no ruthless government governs alone .
In fact , many are unstable , and often overthrown from within via a coup .
So , leverage this inherent internals instability.Consider a " government " of one governing a hundred .
Say those hundred oppose the governor and the law provides for his execution under such circumstances .
Now , as there is only a government of one , the governed will have to take matters into their own hands , but surely a hundred can overpower one.Scale this up according to the following rule : for every increase in an order of magnitude of those governed , a half reduction of those desiring execution is sufficient to make it legal .
Add the following twist : if the government does not execute it 's own , so dictated by the will of a sufficient fraction of the population , within a reasonable length of time , any member ( employee , elected sub-official , judge , police , military , etc .
) becomes fair game for execution.So , for 1000 , you need the vote of 500 , for 10,000 , you need the vote of 2,500 .
For 100,000 , you need the vote of 12,500 .
For a million , you need the vote of 62,500 .
And so on.These numbers are arbitrary , but one can scale them to the point where the " right to revolt " is established at the point where a revolution already appears to have a chance of success .
But , the target is clearly the government .
And , if the government does not police itself to the satisfaction of the people , the target is all of the government.The government must clearly fear the governed , at all times .
Many jobs carry risks to life and limb : firefighters , police , etc .
Why should government not ? If the government balks at establishing terms permitting its forceful overthrow , it will eventually be overthrown anyway , and likely sooner .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm convinced that all governments become corrupt and evil to the point that revolution, ugly and unpredictable as it is, seems to many the only solution.Therefore, let's presume all governed societies degrade to the point of anarchic revolution.
How to avoid this?Push for legislation defining terms of revolution that are less orderly and unpalatable.
Or, rather, how to avoid such revolution, by removing the greatest source of pain: the oppressor.
State resistance will mean an inevitable path to revolution anyway.Now, no ruthless government governs alone.
In fact, many are unstable, and often overthrown from within via a coup.
So, leverage this inherent internals instability.Consider a "government" of one governing a hundred.
Say those hundred oppose the governor and the law provides for his execution under such circumstances.
Now, as there is only a government of one, the governed will have to take matters into their own hands, but surely a hundred can overpower one.Scale this up according to the following rule: for every increase in an order of magnitude of those governed, a half reduction of those desiring execution is sufficient to make it legal.
Add the following twist: if the government does not execute it's own, so dictated by the will of a sufficient fraction of the population, within a reasonable length of time, any member (employee, elected sub-official, judge, police, military, etc.
) becomes fair game for execution.So, for 1000, you need the vote of 500, for 10,000, you need the vote of 2,500.
For 100,000, you need the vote of 12,500.
For a million, you need the vote of 62,500.
And so on.These numbers are arbitrary, but one can scale them to the point where the "right to revolt" is established at the point where a revolution already appears to have a chance of success.
But, the target is clearly the government.
And, if the government does not police itself to the satisfaction of the people, the target is all of the government.The government must clearly fear the governed, at all times.
Many jobs carry risks to life and limb: firefighters, police, etc.
Why should government not?If the government balks at establishing terms permitting its forceful overthrow, it will eventually be overthrown anyway, and likely sooner.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31672020</id>
	<title>Maine...</title>
	<author>Chees0rz</author>
	<datestamp>1269967800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Having been born and raised in Maine, I am very disappointed Olympia Snow (I think I voted for her...) helped draft this.  Good thing I moved to California!!!!  Wait, what?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Having been born and raised in Maine , I am very disappointed Olympia Snow ( I think I voted for her... ) helped draft this .
Good thing I moved to California ! ! ! !
Wait , what ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having been born and raised in Maine, I am very disappointed Olympia Snow (I think I voted for her...) helped draft this.
Good thing I moved to California!!!!
Wait, what?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671012</id>
	<title>Re:How does this work?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269965100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I know you're joking, but seriously, how would something like this even work?</p><p>As far as I know, there's no Great Firewall of China style ISP-level filter here in America. So how would they even enforce a blackout of a website?</p></div><p>1.  Go to the ghetto.
<br>
2.  Hire a bunch of gangsta niggers.
<br>
3.  Tell them that landline is being used to Keep Darkie Down.  Tell them they are authorized to perform a driveby on said landline.
<br>
4.  Pay said gangsta niggers.  Don't omit this step.
<br> <br>
Of course it doesn't have to be niggers.  Government thugs and other state-sponsored things they want you to be afraid of come in all colors.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know you 're joking , but seriously , how would something like this even work ? As far as I know , there 's no Great Firewall of China style ISP-level filter here in America .
So how would they even enforce a blackout of a website ? 1 .
Go to the ghetto .
2. Hire a bunch of gangsta niggers .
3. Tell them that landline is being used to Keep Darkie Down .
Tell them they are authorized to perform a driveby on said landline .
4. Pay said gangsta niggers .
Do n't omit this step .
Of course it does n't have to be niggers .
Government thugs and other state-sponsored things they want you to be afraid of come in all colors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know you're joking, but seriously, how would something like this even work?As far as I know, there's no Great Firewall of China style ISP-level filter here in America.
So how would they even enforce a blackout of a website?1.
Go to the ghetto.
2.  Hire a bunch of gangsta niggers.
3.  Tell them that landline is being used to Keep Darkie Down.
Tell them they are authorized to perform a driveby on said landline.
4.  Pay said gangsta niggers.
Don't omit this step.
Of course it doesn't have to be niggers.
Government thugs and other state-sponsored things they want you to be afraid of come in all colors.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31681366</id>
	<title>If this is about stopping botnets, malware, etc.?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269960660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Per my subject-line above. &amp; this quote from the article here on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.:</p><div class="quote"><p><b>"The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 passed a Senate panel, giving the president unprecedented power to issue a nation-wide blackout or restriction on websites without congressional approval"</b> - by Akido37 (1473009) on Tuesday March 30, @10:49AM (#31670706)</p></div><p>?</p><p>Well, <b>then from the SOUND of it @ least, I am ALL FOR IT personally!</b></p><p>Why??</p><p>Well, <b>because online attacks DO go on, &amp; they DO exist, &amp; they DO INTERFERE WITH PEOPLE'S LIVES IN SERIOUS WAYS IS WHY!</b></p><p>(AND, in many ways, because a LOT goes over "the public internet" people, a lot more than say, slashdot webpages, whether you know it or not)...</p><p>E.G.-&gt; Such as databases' drivers &amp; libs using ports on the net, like:</p><p>----</p><p>A.) SQLServer = default ports usually used -&gt; 1433/1434/4022/2382/2382/443 (SSL)/135 (RPC) &amp; on both UDP &amp; TCP/IP</p><p>B.) Oracle = default ports usually used -&gt; 66/1521/1525/1526/1527/1529/1571/1575/1630/1748/1754/1808/1809/1830/2481/2482/2483/2484/3872/3891/3938</p><p>C.) IBM DB/2 = default ports usually used -&gt; 523/532/6789/50000/60000 (probably more here, this is the one I am LEAST familiar with, sorry I could not be more "complete" here)</p><p>D.) MySQL = default ports usually used -&gt;  3306 (probably more here too, I am JUST "getting into" this one lately (hey, it's FREE man!!!)</p><p>----</p><p>(Those tools, as I am sure MOST of you know, are for businesses where YOU yourself do business, <b>which means YOUR MONIES</b> or other life-crucial information, for instance - which again, is a LOT more than &amp; of most likely far greater import than merely the web's HTML data alone you use, while you browse websites, in other words...)</p><p>And, then there are things like POWER PLANTS (which, like it or not, DO conduct things over the public internet), &amp; even life-monitoring devices + security systems.</p><p><b>SHOULD THE GOV'T. TAKE ACTIVE MEASURES vs. ATTACKS ON THESE THINGS NOTED ABOVE? Hey guys...?? ABSOLUTELY!</b></p><p>(Especially IF they're being "cyber-attacked", OR, just to prepare for such an event, JUST IN CASE!)</p><p>APK</p><p>P.S.=&gt; See- The past 12 yrs. now or so, I've taken a more than "somewhat" active interest in things 'security-related' online... &amp;, know what sort of "spooks me" (&amp; yes, even shocks me, because of the cultures/nations I see it coming from mainly)?</p><p><b>CHINA...</b></p><p>Yes - It really "blows my mind" that a culture w/ more than 5,000++ yrs. of recorded history behind it is showing up, &amp; MORE THAN ANY OTHER NATION BY FAR, in the lists I use to populate my HOSTS file here, &amp; here are the sources (all known &amp; reputable) I typically utilize, so you can check this yourselves (or, perhaps, even USE THEM yourselves for hosts file population to block out known bogus sites &amp;/or servers):</p><p>-----</p><p><a href="http://ddanchev.blogspot.com/" title="blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">http://ddanchev.blogspot.com/</a> [blogspot.com]<br><a href="http://www.malwareurl.com/listing-urls.php?page=1&amp;urls=off&amp;rp=" title="malwareurl.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.malwareurl.com/listing-urls.php?page=1&amp;urls=off&amp;rp=</a> [malwareurl.com]<br><a href="http://www.malware.com.br/lists.shtml" title="malware.com.br" rel="nofollow">http://www.malware.com.br/lists.shtml</a> [malware.com.br]<br><a href="http://securitylabs.websense.com/content/alerts.aspx" title="websense.com" rel="nofollow">http://securitylabs.websense.com/content/alerts.aspx</a> [websense.com]<br><a href="http://blog.fireeye.com/" title="fireeye.com" rel="nofollow">http://blog.fireeye.com/</a> [fireeye.com]<br><a href="http://mtc.sri.com/" title="sri.com" rel="nofollow">http://mtc.sri.com/</a> [sri.com]<br><a href="http://www.scansafe.com/threat\_center/threat\_alerts" title="scansafe.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.scansafe.com/threat\_center/threat\_alerts</a> [scansafe.com]<br><a href="http://news.netcraft.com/" title="netcraft.com" rel="nofollow">http://news.netcraft.com/</a> [netcraft.com]<br><a href="http://www.shadowserver.org/" title="shadowserver.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.shadowserver.org/</a> [shadowserver.org]<br><a href="https://zeustracker.abuse.ch/monitor.php?filter=online" title="abuse.ch" rel="nofollow">https://zeustracker.abuse.ch/monitor.php?filter=online</a> [abuse.ch]<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts\_file" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts\_file</a> [wikipedia.org]<br><a href="http://www.mvps.org/" title="mvps.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.mvps.org/</a> [mvps.org]<br><a href="http://someonewhocares.org/" title="someonewhocares.org" rel="nofollow">http://someonewhocares.org/</a> [someonewhocares.org]<br><a href="http://hostsfile.mine.nu/hosts0" title="hostsfile.mine.nu" rel="nofollow">http://hostsfile.mine.nu/hosts0</a> [hostsfile.mine.nu]<br><a href="http://hosts-file.net/?s=Download" title="hosts-file.net" rel="nofollow">http://hosts-file.net/?s=Download</a> [hosts-file.net]<br><a href="http://www.stopbadware.org/" title="stopbadware.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.stopbadware.org/</a> [stopbadware.org] (GOOGLE KILLED THIS ONE THOUGH, too bad, was a GOOD one too - they told me "not enough viewership justified keeping it going" etc.)</p><p>-----</p><p>(I use ALL of those, vs. malware bearing websites &amp; known BAD sites + nameservers etc. et al that they list, for my custom HOSTS file here... &amp;, it works, on a VERY SIMPLE PRINCIPLE: You cannot get burned if you do NOT go into 'hell's kitchen'" so-to-speak!)</p><p><b>CHINA is popping up w/ the MOST KNOWN BAD SERVERS, BY THE TRUCKLOADS NO LESS, than any other nation since 2007 or thereabouts... I kid you not - Take a look @ those sites, &amp; see how many end in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.cn for instance... they'll illustrate JUST WHAT I MEAN in fact!</b></p><p>I.E.-&gt; They've FAR surpassed Russia/SU/Soviet Union/USSR servers + sites even, who used to be "that bad boy on the block" for YEARS, &amp; as of the past 1-2  yrs. now even, China originated sites show up the MOST... bigtime!</p><p>(I really don't understand them, because I always felt they were a WISE &amp; civilized culture actually + Lord knows they're doing well financially lately (bigtime, &amp; sure - they've got internal problems, like every nation does, but money &amp; jobs probably are NOT part of those as of late))</p><p>I actually felt they were basically "above &amp; beyond" such b.s. &amp; too proud of themselves to do stuff like that, but... I see what I see (then again though, there IS "Sun Tzu" &amp; his teachings, right?))</p><p>HOWEVER = <b>IF China's now trying to mount or prepare somekind of "cyber offensive", eventually, then yea - I think our gov't. SHOULD be able to "pull the plug" on accessing they, OR, they accessing us/we here in the USA... just to be safe</b>(r) <b>about it is all!</b></p><p>The only part that bothers me about such levels of control, however, is that sometimes? It does get "abused" by those in power, but Mr. Obama? Guys, I have a LOT of faith in this man - he's "hitting" who NEEDS TO GET HIT (in this nation, the HUGE ripoff artists like Health Insurers Companies &amp; Banks as of late @ least per the news tonite) &amp; Mr. Obama IS out to help the majority, who are "the little people", not the HUGELY wealthy (the 10\% that control 90\% of the USA's wealth in other words)... more power to him, I say, &amp; I don't feel that man is a power hungry goof, or stupid, by any means either! apk</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Per my subject-line above .
&amp; this quote from the article here on / .
: " The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 passed a Senate panel , giving the president unprecedented power to issue a nation-wide blackout or restriction on websites without congressional approval " - by Akido37 ( 1473009 ) on Tuesday March 30 , @ 10 : 49AM ( # 31670706 ) ? Well , then from the SOUND of it @ least , I am ALL FOR IT personally ! Why ?
? Well , because online attacks DO go on , &amp; they DO exist , &amp; they DO INTERFERE WITH PEOPLE 'S LIVES IN SERIOUS WAYS IS WHY !
( AND , in many ways , because a LOT goes over " the public internet " people , a lot more than say , slashdot webpages , whether you know it or not ) ...E.G.- &gt; Such as databases ' drivers &amp; libs using ports on the net , like : ----A .
) SQLServer = default ports usually used - &gt; 1433/1434/4022/2382/2382/443 ( SSL ) /135 ( RPC ) &amp; on both UDP &amp; TCP/IPB .
) Oracle = default ports usually used - &gt; 66/1521/1525/1526/1527/1529/1571/1575/1630/1748/1754/1808/1809/1830/2481/2482/2483/2484/3872/3891/3938C .
) IBM DB/2 = default ports usually used - &gt; 523/532/6789/50000/60000 ( probably more here , this is the one I am LEAST familiar with , sorry I could not be more " complete " here ) D. ) MySQL = default ports usually used - &gt; 3306 ( probably more here too , I am JUST " getting into " this one lately ( hey , it 's FREE man ! ! !
) ---- ( Those tools , as I am sure MOST of you know , are for businesses where YOU yourself do business , which means YOUR MONIES or other life-crucial information , for instance - which again , is a LOT more than &amp; of most likely far greater import than merely the web 's HTML data alone you use , while you browse websites , in other words... ) And , then there are things like POWER PLANTS ( which , like it or not , DO conduct things over the public internet ) , &amp; even life-monitoring devices + security systems.SHOULD THE GOV'T .
TAKE ACTIVE MEASURES vs. ATTACKS ON THESE THINGS NOTED ABOVE ?
Hey guys... ? ?
ABSOLUTELY ! ( Especially IF they 're being " cyber-attacked " , OR , just to prepare for such an event , JUST IN CASE !
) APKP.S. = &gt; See- The past 12 yrs .
now or so , I 've taken a more than " somewhat " active interest in things 'security-related ' online... &amp; , know what sort of " spooks me " ( &amp; yes , even shocks me , because of the cultures/nations I see it coming from mainly ) ? CHINA...Yes - It really " blows my mind " that a culture w/ more than 5,000 + + yrs .
of recorded history behind it is showing up , &amp; MORE THAN ANY OTHER NATION BY FAR , in the lists I use to populate my HOSTS file here , &amp; here are the sources ( all known &amp; reputable ) I typically utilize , so you can check this yourselves ( or , perhaps , even USE THEM yourselves for hosts file population to block out known bogus sites &amp;/or servers ) : -----http : //ddanchev.blogspot.com/ [ blogspot.com ] http : //www.malwareurl.com/listing-urls.php ? page = 1&amp;urls = off&amp;rp = [ malwareurl.com ] http : //www.malware.com.br/lists.shtml [ malware.com.br ] http : //securitylabs.websense.com/content/alerts.aspx [ websense.com ] http : //blog.fireeye.com/ [ fireeye.com ] http : //mtc.sri.com/ [ sri.com ] http : //www.scansafe.com/threat \ _center/threat \ _alerts [ scansafe.com ] http : //news.netcraft.com/ [ netcraft.com ] http : //www.shadowserver.org/ [ shadowserver.org ] https : //zeustracker.abuse.ch/monitor.php ? filter = online [ abuse.ch ] http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts \ _file [ wikipedia.org ] http : //www.mvps.org/ [ mvps.org ] http : //someonewhocares.org/ [ someonewhocares.org ] http : //hostsfile.mine.nu/hosts0 [ hostsfile.mine.nu ] http : //hosts-file.net/ ? s = Download [ hosts-file.net ] http : //www.stopbadware.org/ [ stopbadware.org ] ( GOOGLE KILLED THIS ONE THOUGH , too bad , was a GOOD one too - they told me " not enough viewership justified keeping it going " etc .
) ----- ( I use ALL of those , vs. malware bearing websites &amp; known BAD sites + nameservers etc .
et al that they list , for my custom HOSTS file here... &amp; , it works , on a VERY SIMPLE PRINCIPLE : You can not get burned if you do NOT go into 'hell 's kitchen ' " so-to-speak !
) CHINA is popping up w/ the MOST KNOWN BAD SERVERS , BY THE TRUCKLOADS NO LESS , than any other nation since 2007 or thereabouts... I kid you not - Take a look @ those sites , &amp; see how many end in .cn for instance... they 'll illustrate JUST WHAT I MEAN in fact ! I.E.- &gt; They 've FAR surpassed Russia/SU/Soviet Union/USSR servers + sites even , who used to be " that bad boy on the block " for YEARS , &amp; as of the past 1-2 yrs .
now even , China originated sites show up the MOST.. .
bigtime ! ( I really do n't understand them , because I always felt they were a WISE &amp; civilized culture actually + Lord knows they 're doing well financially lately ( bigtime , &amp; sure - they 've got internal problems , like every nation does , but money &amp; jobs probably are NOT part of those as of late ) ) I actually felt they were basically " above &amp; beyond " such b.s .
&amp; too proud of themselves to do stuff like that , but... I see what I see ( then again though , there IS " Sun Tzu " &amp; his teachings , right ?
) ) HOWEVER = IF China 's now trying to mount or prepare somekind of " cyber offensive " , eventually , then yea - I think our gov't .
SHOULD be able to " pull the plug " on accessing they , OR , they accessing us/we here in the USA... just to be safe ( r ) about it is all ! The only part that bothers me about such levels of control , however , is that sometimes ?
It does get " abused " by those in power , but Mr. Obama ? Guys , I have a LOT of faith in this man - he 's " hitting " who NEEDS TO GET HIT ( in this nation , the HUGE ripoff artists like Health Insurers Companies &amp; Banks as of late @ least per the news tonite ) &amp; Mr. Obama IS out to help the majority , who are " the little people " , not the HUGELY wealthy ( the 10 \ % that control 90 \ % of the USA 's wealth in other words ) ... more power to him , I say , &amp; I do n't feel that man is a power hungry goof , or stupid , by any means either !
apk</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Per my subject-line above.
&amp; this quote from the article here on /.
:"The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 passed a Senate panel, giving the president unprecedented power to issue a nation-wide blackout or restriction on websites without congressional approval" - by Akido37 (1473009) on Tuesday March 30, @10:49AM (#31670706)?Well, then from the SOUND of it @ least, I am ALL FOR IT personally!Why?
?Well, because online attacks DO go on, &amp; they DO exist, &amp; they DO INTERFERE WITH PEOPLE'S LIVES IN SERIOUS WAYS IS WHY!
(AND, in many ways, because a LOT goes over "the public internet" people, a lot more than say, slashdot webpages, whether you know it or not)...E.G.-&gt; Such as databases' drivers &amp; libs using ports on the net, like:----A.
) SQLServer = default ports usually used -&gt; 1433/1434/4022/2382/2382/443 (SSL)/135 (RPC) &amp; on both UDP &amp; TCP/IPB.
) Oracle = default ports usually used -&gt; 66/1521/1525/1526/1527/1529/1571/1575/1630/1748/1754/1808/1809/1830/2481/2482/2483/2484/3872/3891/3938C.
) IBM DB/2 = default ports usually used -&gt; 523/532/6789/50000/60000 (probably more here, this is the one I am LEAST familiar with, sorry I could not be more "complete" here)D.) MySQL = default ports usually used -&gt;  3306 (probably more here too, I am JUST "getting into" this one lately (hey, it's FREE man!!!
)----(Those tools, as I am sure MOST of you know, are for businesses where YOU yourself do business, which means YOUR MONIES or other life-crucial information, for instance - which again, is a LOT more than &amp; of most likely far greater import than merely the web's HTML data alone you use, while you browse websites, in other words...)And, then there are things like POWER PLANTS (which, like it or not, DO conduct things over the public internet), &amp; even life-monitoring devices + security systems.SHOULD THE GOV'T.
TAKE ACTIVE MEASURES vs. ATTACKS ON THESE THINGS NOTED ABOVE?
Hey guys...??
ABSOLUTELY!(Especially IF they're being "cyber-attacked", OR, just to prepare for such an event, JUST IN CASE!
)APKP.S.=&gt; See- The past 12 yrs.
now or so, I've taken a more than "somewhat" active interest in things 'security-related' online... &amp;, know what sort of "spooks me" (&amp; yes, even shocks me, because of the cultures/nations I see it coming from mainly)?CHINA...Yes - It really "blows my mind" that a culture w/ more than 5,000++ yrs.
of recorded history behind it is showing up, &amp; MORE THAN ANY OTHER NATION BY FAR, in the lists I use to populate my HOSTS file here, &amp; here are the sources (all known &amp; reputable) I typically utilize, so you can check this yourselves (or, perhaps, even USE THEM yourselves for hosts file population to block out known bogus sites &amp;/or servers):-----http://ddanchev.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]http://www.malwareurl.com/listing-urls.php?page=1&amp;urls=off&amp;rp= [malwareurl.com]http://www.malware.com.br/lists.shtml [malware.com.br]http://securitylabs.websense.com/content/alerts.aspx [websense.com]http://blog.fireeye.com/ [fireeye.com]http://mtc.sri.com/ [sri.com]http://www.scansafe.com/threat\_center/threat\_alerts [scansafe.com]http://news.netcraft.com/ [netcraft.com]http://www.shadowserver.org/ [shadowserver.org]https://zeustracker.abuse.ch/monitor.php?filter=online [abuse.ch]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts\_file [wikipedia.org]http://www.mvps.org/ [mvps.org]http://someonewhocares.org/ [someonewhocares.org]http://hostsfile.mine.nu/hosts0 [hostsfile.mine.nu]http://hosts-file.net/?s=Download [hosts-file.net]http://www.stopbadware.org/ [stopbadware.org] (GOOGLE KILLED THIS ONE THOUGH, too bad, was a GOOD one too - they told me "not enough viewership justified keeping it going" etc.
)-----(I use ALL of those, vs. malware bearing websites &amp; known BAD sites + nameservers etc.
et al that they list, for my custom HOSTS file here... &amp;, it works, on a VERY SIMPLE PRINCIPLE: You cannot get burned if you do NOT go into 'hell's kitchen'" so-to-speak!
)CHINA is popping up w/ the MOST KNOWN BAD SERVERS, BY THE TRUCKLOADS NO LESS, than any other nation since 2007 or thereabouts... I kid you not - Take a look @ those sites, &amp; see how many end in .cn for instance... they'll illustrate JUST WHAT I MEAN in fact!I.E.-&gt; They've FAR surpassed Russia/SU/Soviet Union/USSR servers + sites even, who used to be "that bad boy on the block" for YEARS, &amp; as of the past 1-2  yrs.
now even, China originated sites show up the MOST...
bigtime!(I really don't understand them, because I always felt they were a WISE &amp; civilized culture actually + Lord knows they're doing well financially lately (bigtime, &amp; sure - they've got internal problems, like every nation does, but money &amp; jobs probably are NOT part of those as of late))I actually felt they were basically "above &amp; beyond" such b.s.
&amp; too proud of themselves to do stuff like that, but... I see what I see (then again though, there IS "Sun Tzu" &amp; his teachings, right?
))HOWEVER = IF China's now trying to mount or prepare somekind of "cyber offensive", eventually, then yea - I think our gov't.
SHOULD be able to "pull the plug" on accessing they, OR, they accessing us/we here in the USA... just to be safe(r) about it is all!The only part that bothers me about such levels of control, however, is that sometimes?
It does get "abused" by those in power, but Mr. Obama? Guys, I have a LOT of faith in this man - he's "hitting" who NEEDS TO GET HIT (in this nation, the HUGE ripoff artists like Health Insurers Companies &amp; Banks as of late @ least per the news tonite) &amp; Mr. Obama IS out to help the majority, who are "the little people", not the HUGELY wealthy (the 10\% that control 90\% of the USA's wealth in other words)... more power to him, I say, &amp; I don't feel that man is a power hungry goof, or stupid, by any means either!
apk
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31681352</id>
	<title>Re:Don't blame me</title>
	<author>Ozlanthos</author>
	<datestamp>1269960600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I voted for Ron Paul, Every day I see something else he was right about. If only Americans weren't so damn stupid!
<br>
<br>
-Oz</htmltext>
<tokenext>I voted for Ron Paul , Every day I see something else he was right about .
If only Americans were n't so damn stupid !
-Oz</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I voted for Ron Paul, Every day I see something else he was right about.
If only Americans weren't so damn stupid!
-Oz</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671864</id>
	<title>Re:How does this work?</title>
	<author>nospam007</author>
	<datestamp>1269967440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All those series of tubes are connected to a big donkey wheel in the cellar of the White House where you can shut it off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All those series of tubes are connected to a big donkey wheel in the cellar of the White House where you can shut it off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All those series of tubes are connected to a big donkey wheel in the cellar of the White House where you can shut it off.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670668</id>
	<title>A Kill Switch?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269964080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is this <i>Kill Switch</i> just for the internet or the all the people who use the internet?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this Kill Switch just for the internet or the all the people who use the internet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this Kill Switch just for the internet or the all the people who use the internet?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31683300</id>
	<title>Re:Bye, bye freedom...</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1269974100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Sure there is; we re-establish the Republic. Put the emphasis back onto the States and away from the Federal Government.</i></p><p>No, the emphasis should be on the individual and personal responsibility.</p><p><i>First step? Repeal the 17th Amendment; turn the Senators back into wards of the State Legislatures.</i></p><p>No, first step repeal <a href="http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am12" title="usconstitution.net">Amendment 12</a> [usconstitution.net] - Choosing the President, Vice-President.  Second step, ratify the 29th amendment which shall state:<br>
Congress shall be limited to one regular session every other year for not more than 120 days.  The President shall be able to call for a special session that will focus on one specific topic if needed.</p><p>Additionally the 30th amendment shall be ratified stating each bill proposed by congress shall be about one topic only, that it not be more than X pages (somewhere less than the 1000s of pages now, say not more than 10 or 20), and that the average adult can understand it.  None of this burying government run student loans in health insurance bills.</p><p>The 31th amendment shall require a sunset provision for every new law, congress and the president would have to vote, approve, and sign new laws every 4 years say.  If a law is not renewed then it is removes from the law-books.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure there is ; we re-establish the Republic .
Put the emphasis back onto the States and away from the Federal Government.No , the emphasis should be on the individual and personal responsibility.First step ?
Repeal the 17th Amendment ; turn the Senators back into wards of the State Legislatures.No , first step repeal Amendment 12 [ usconstitution.net ] - Choosing the President , Vice-President .
Second step , ratify the 29th amendment which shall state : Congress shall be limited to one regular session every other year for not more than 120 days .
The President shall be able to call for a special session that will focus on one specific topic if needed.Additionally the 30th amendment shall be ratified stating each bill proposed by congress shall be about one topic only , that it not be more than X pages ( somewhere less than the 1000s of pages now , say not more than 10 or 20 ) , and that the average adult can understand it .
None of this burying government run student loans in health insurance bills.The 31th amendment shall require a sunset provision for every new law , congress and the president would have to vote , approve , and sign new laws every 4 years say .
If a law is not renewed then it is removes from the law-books .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure there is; we re-establish the Republic.
Put the emphasis back onto the States and away from the Federal Government.No, the emphasis should be on the individual and personal responsibility.First step?
Repeal the 17th Amendment; turn the Senators back into wards of the State Legislatures.No, first step repeal Amendment 12 [usconstitution.net] - Choosing the President, Vice-President.
Second step, ratify the 29th amendment which shall state:
Congress shall be limited to one regular session every other year for not more than 120 days.
The President shall be able to call for a special session that will focus on one specific topic if needed.Additionally the 30th amendment shall be ratified stating each bill proposed by congress shall be about one topic only, that it not be more than X pages (somewhere less than the 1000s of pages now, say not more than 10 or 20), and that the average adult can understand it.
None of this burying government run student loans in health insurance bills.The 31th amendment shall require a sunset provision for every new law, congress and the president would have to vote, approve, and sign new laws every 4 years say.
If a law is not renewed then it is removes from the law-books.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671988</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31682526</id>
	<title>Re:Better than the alternative?</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1269967440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The only thing I could think of...say a large city like New York or LA has a terrorist attack. People overwhelm the network(s) and in order to allow emergency personnel to have dependable access, they black out all of the network except for what the emergency people need to use.</i></p><p>Except having open communications when the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I35w\_bridge\_collapse" title="wikipedia.org">I35W bridge collapsed</a> [wikipedia.org] helped.  <a href="http://www.minneapolischamber.org/business\_responds.php" title="minneapolischamber.org">Businesses</a> [minneapolischamber.org] were able to keep communications open.  Ham radio has helped in a number of cases as well.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only thing I could think of...say a large city like New York or LA has a terrorist attack .
People overwhelm the network ( s ) and in order to allow emergency personnel to have dependable access , they black out all of the network except for what the emergency people need to use.Except having open communications when the I35W bridge collapsed [ wikipedia.org ] helped .
Businesses [ minneapolischamber.org ] were able to keep communications open .
Ham radio has helped in a number of cases as well .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only thing I could think of...say a large city like New York or LA has a terrorist attack.
People overwhelm the network(s) and in order to allow emergency personnel to have dependable access, they black out all of the network except for what the emergency people need to use.Except having open communications when the I35W bridge collapsed [wikipedia.org] helped.
Businesses [minneapolischamber.org] were able to keep communications open.
Ham radio has helped in a number of cases as well.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31676530</id>
	<title>DeCSS and You</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269940320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Didn't learn from last time did you? Information doesn't work like that. Hint: http://decss.zoy.org/</p><p>So what ARE you (ahem, anyone supporting this) trying to accomplish?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't learn from last time did you ?
Information does n't work like that .
Hint : http : //decss.zoy.org/So what ARE you ( ahem , anyone supporting this ) trying to accomplish ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't learn from last time did you?
Information doesn't work like that.
Hint: http://decss.zoy.org/So what ARE you (ahem, anyone supporting this) trying to accomplish?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670894</id>
	<title>Hopenchange</title>
	<author>Silverhammer</author>
	<datestamp>1269964800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>How's that hope and change workin' out for ya?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How 's that hope and change workin ' out for ya ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How's that hope and change workin' out for ya?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671818</id>
	<title>Re:Where are the technical people on /.</title>
	<author>digitaldrunkenmonk</author>
	<datestamp>1269967260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Easy; EMP.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Easy ; EMP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Easy; EMP.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671590</id>
	<title>Re:"critical infrastructure information systems"</title>
	<author>KeithIrwin</author>
	<datestamp>1269966720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's kind of the key point.  It could be more clearly defined in the bill, but it's clear from context that they're talking about private networks used to run infrastructure like the power grid, the water system, etc.  In order to use it to disconnect someplace like WikiLeaks, they would first have to declare WikiLeaks to be critical infrastructure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's kind of the key point .
It could be more clearly defined in the bill , but it 's clear from context that they 're talking about private networks used to run infrastructure like the power grid , the water system , etc .
In order to use it to disconnect someplace like WikiLeaks , they would first have to declare WikiLeaks to be critical infrastructure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's kind of the key point.
It could be more clearly defined in the bill, but it's clear from context that they're talking about private networks used to run infrastructure like the power grid, the water system, etc.
In order to use it to disconnect someplace like WikiLeaks, they would first have to declare WikiLeaks to be critical infrastructure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31674684</id>
	<title>News</title>
	<author>BigBlueOx</author>
	<datestamp>1269976500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In what is being described as "a good idea whose time has come" (by me), this bill will require all American citizens to buy Internet Insurance from me. Failure to buy this insurance from me will simply cause the IRS to penalize you $750 on your taxes and give the money to me. In a press release, a spokesperson for me said "Internet security and freedom from terroristic thoughts is a basic human right that will be protected by the implementation of this bill. Anyone who opposes this bill is a right-wing kookwad who should be first ridiculed on The Daily Show and then killed."<br>
<br>
Keep in mind, though, that this bill, in its present form, is just the beginning. Other basic human rights will be covered in later additions to this plan that will require all American citizens to buy more things from me. I will build a Great Society where the trains run on time whether you like it or not.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In what is being described as " a good idea whose time has come " ( by me ) , this bill will require all American citizens to buy Internet Insurance from me .
Failure to buy this insurance from me will simply cause the IRS to penalize you $ 750 on your taxes and give the money to me .
In a press release , a spokesperson for me said " Internet security and freedom from terroristic thoughts is a basic human right that will be protected by the implementation of this bill .
Anyone who opposes this bill is a right-wing kookwad who should be first ridiculed on The Daily Show and then killed .
" Keep in mind , though , that this bill , in its present form , is just the beginning .
Other basic human rights will be covered in later additions to this plan that will require all American citizens to buy more things from me .
I will build a Great Society where the trains run on time whether you like it or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In what is being described as "a good idea whose time has come" (by me), this bill will require all American citizens to buy Internet Insurance from me.
Failure to buy this insurance from me will simply cause the IRS to penalize you $750 on your taxes and give the money to me.
In a press release, a spokesperson for me said "Internet security and freedom from terroristic thoughts is a basic human right that will be protected by the implementation of this bill.
Anyone who opposes this bill is a right-wing kookwad who should be first ridiculed on The Daily Show and then killed.
"

Keep in mind, though, that this bill, in its present form, is just the beginning.
Other basic human rights will be covered in later additions to this plan that will require all American citizens to buy more things from me.
I will build a Great Society where the trains run on time whether you like it or not.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671988</id>
	<title>Re:Bye, bye freedom...</title>
	<author>Androclese</author>
	<datestamp>1269967800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sure there is; we re-establish the Republic.  Put the emphasis back onto the States and away from the Federal Government.   What is happening today is exactly why the Constitution was laid out the way it was. (not that it stopped it).<br> <br>  First step?  Repeal the 17th Amendment; turn the Senators back into wards of the State Legislatures.  When they have to actually represent the States they have come from and not their own self-interests (who *really* pays attention to what they did 5 years ago at election time), then some of the dumber legislation items might die on the vine.<br> <br>
Ain't saying its perfect, but we gotta start someplace.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure there is ; we re-establish the Republic .
Put the emphasis back onto the States and away from the Federal Government .
What is happening today is exactly why the Constitution was laid out the way it was .
( not that it stopped it ) .
First step ?
Repeal the 17th Amendment ; turn the Senators back into wards of the State Legislatures .
When they have to actually represent the States they have come from and not their own self-interests ( who * really * pays attention to what they did 5 years ago at election time ) , then some of the dumber legislation items might die on the vine .
Ai n't saying its perfect , but we got ta start someplace .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure there is; we re-establish the Republic.
Put the emphasis back onto the States and away from the Federal Government.
What is happening today is exactly why the Constitution was laid out the way it was.
(not that it stopped it).
First step?
Repeal the 17th Amendment; turn the Senators back into wards of the State Legislatures.
When they have to actually represent the States they have come from and not their own self-interests (who *really* pays attention to what they did 5 years ago at election time), then some of the dumber legislation items might die on the vine.
Ain't saying its perfect, but we gotta start someplace.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670760</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31673078</id>
	<title>Removed</title>
	<author>BStocknd</author>
	<datestamp>1269971100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I read that the 'kill switch' was removed from the bill a few weeks ago... Even <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/03/18/obama-no-longer-internet-president/" title="foxnews.com" rel="nofollow">Fox</a> [foxnews.com] says it was.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I read that the 'kill switch ' was removed from the bill a few weeks ago... Even Fox [ foxnews.com ] says it was .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read that the 'kill switch' was removed from the bill a few weeks ago... Even Fox [foxnews.com] says it was.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31682984</id>
	<title>Re:Bye, bye freedom...</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1269971460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Our freedom in the US is quickly diminishing under the guise of "Terrorism". It makes me sick watching it happen and knowing there is nothing we can do about it.</i></p><p>Yes and no.  Can I go to the airport, pay cash for a ticket, and hop on a plane to go anywhere I feel like whenever I do feel like it without showing ID?  No but 30 years ago I couldn't either.  Now we have any number of ways to communicate with others we didn't have before.  I recall one place I lived the phone service we had was a party line, I could pick up the phone to call someone and hearing the next door neighbor on the phone I knew I'd have to wait for them to finish before I could make my call.  Today I don't need a land-line phone, actually the only phone I have is my cell-phone.  I can take it with me and it's cheaper than the land-line phone service I used to have.  Now if only I was able to use it for wireless broadband access too.  I can't, though my sister has wireless broadband.  I haven't found it yet but <a href="http://reason.com/" title="reason.com">Reason magazine</a> [reason.com] had an article on this in a print issue, whether we're freer or less free today.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Our freedom in the US is quickly diminishing under the guise of " Terrorism " .
It makes me sick watching it happen and knowing there is nothing we can do about it.Yes and no .
Can I go to the airport , pay cash for a ticket , and hop on a plane to go anywhere I feel like whenever I do feel like it without showing ID ?
No but 30 years ago I could n't either .
Now we have any number of ways to communicate with others we did n't have before .
I recall one place I lived the phone service we had was a party line , I could pick up the phone to call someone and hearing the next door neighbor on the phone I knew I 'd have to wait for them to finish before I could make my call .
Today I do n't need a land-line phone , actually the only phone I have is my cell-phone .
I can take it with me and it 's cheaper than the land-line phone service I used to have .
Now if only I was able to use it for wireless broadband access too .
I ca n't , though my sister has wireless broadband .
I have n't found it yet but Reason magazine [ reason.com ] had an article on this in a print issue , whether we 're freer or less free today .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Our freedom in the US is quickly diminishing under the guise of "Terrorism".
It makes me sick watching it happen and knowing there is nothing we can do about it.Yes and no.
Can I go to the airport, pay cash for a ticket, and hop on a plane to go anywhere I feel like whenever I do feel like it without showing ID?
No but 30 years ago I couldn't either.
Now we have any number of ways to communicate with others we didn't have before.
I recall one place I lived the phone service we had was a party line, I could pick up the phone to call someone and hearing the next door neighbor on the phone I knew I'd have to wait for them to finish before I could make my call.
Today I don't need a land-line phone, actually the only phone I have is my cell-phone.
I can take it with me and it's cheaper than the land-line phone service I used to have.
Now if only I was able to use it for wireless broadband access too.
I can't, though my sister has wireless broadband.
I haven't found it yet but Reason magazine [reason.com] had an article on this in a print issue, whether we're freer or less free today.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670760</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671386</id>
	<title>Re:How does this work?</title>
	<author>lwsimon</author>
	<datestamp>1269966240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>DNS poisoning?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>DNS poisoning ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DNS poisoning?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31672442</id>
	<title>Re:A Kill Switch?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269969120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've finally perfected my invention to stab people in the face over the internet!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've finally perfected my invention to stab people in the face over the internet !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've finally perfected my invention to stab people in the face over the internet!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671302</id>
	<title>Re:How does this work?</title>
	<author>Yvan256</author>
	<datestamp>1269966000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <strong>As far as I know</strong>, there's no Great Firewall of China style ISP-level filter here in America.</p></div></blockquote><p>This is probably your answer.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As far as I know , there 's no Great Firewall of China style ISP-level filter here in America.This is probably your answer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> As far as I know, there's no Great Firewall of China style ISP-level filter here in America.This is probably your answer.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31674048</id>
	<title>Re:It's ok people</title>
	<author>HellYeahAutomaton</author>
	<datestamp>1269974220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Right, but Dolfuss' ended in an assassination during a coup d'&#233;tat, the July Putsch. Hardly the example we wish to set for our president to befall.</p><p>In spirit tho, you are correct about the granting of power. The more powers granted and laws enacted, the higher risk of insurrection.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right , but Dolfuss ' ended in an assassination during a coup d '   tat , the July Putsch .
Hardly the example we wish to set for our president to befall.In spirit tho , you are correct about the granting of power .
The more powers granted and laws enacted , the higher risk of insurrection .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right, but Dolfuss' ended in an assassination during a coup d'état, the July Putsch.
Hardly the example we wish to set for our president to befall.In spirit tho, you are correct about the granting of power.
The more powers granted and laws enacted, the higher risk of insurrection.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671008</id>
	<title>Control</title>
	<author>tarlss</author>
	<datestamp>1269965100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He who can destroy a thing , controls a thing</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31693564</id>
	<title>Re:Much More Than What It Appears To Be</title>
	<author>Kreuzfeld</author>
	<datestamp>1270030620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From Sen. Feinstein (D-CA):  "Currently, S. 773 is awaiting action in the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and is currently undergoing some major revisions."  If this information is still current, anyone concerned with this issue should contact the appropriate members of the <a href="http://commerce.senate.gov/" title="senate.gov" rel="nofollow">committee</a> [senate.gov].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From Sen. Feinstein ( D-CA ) : " Currently , S. 773 is awaiting action in the Committee on Commerce , Science , and Transportation and is currently undergoing some major revisions .
" If this information is still current , anyone concerned with this issue should contact the appropriate members of the committee [ senate.gov ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From Sen. Feinstein (D-CA):  "Currently, S. 773 is awaiting action in the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and is currently undergoing some major revisions.
"  If this information is still current, anyone concerned with this issue should contact the appropriate members of the committee [senate.gov].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31676900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671326</id>
	<title>Is this the same overhyped bill from last year?</title>
	<author>GodfatherofSoul</author>
	<datestamp>1269966060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember that it was more about restricting internet access to infrastructure targets like power plants.  That's not to say that the actual law isn't vaguely enough worded to allow for gross breaches of civil rights.  I didn't see anything in the blurb about what the changes were to the kill switch legislation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember that it was more about restricting internet access to infrastructure targets like power plants .
That 's not to say that the actual law is n't vaguely enough worded to allow for gross breaches of civil rights .
I did n't see anything in the blurb about what the changes were to the kill switch legislation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember that it was more about restricting internet access to infrastructure targets like power plants.
That's not to say that the actual law isn't vaguely enough worded to allow for gross breaches of civil rights.
I didn't see anything in the blurb about what the changes were to the kill switch legislation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671758</id>
	<title>Re:Bye, bye freedom...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269967140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There is something you can do. It is called revolution. You - i.e. your ancestors - already did something similar, over 2 centuries ago. It resulted into the USA as we know it, today. Nothing prevents you from doing it again.</p></div><p>I prefer the idea of secession.  Nonviolent secession, just cut all ties with the Union reclaim independence. Of course, you'll probably have a tyrant like Lincoln that doesn't want to stop receiving their protection money, I mean tax revenue, and burn down cities and slaughter civilians to continue getting it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is something you can do .
It is called revolution .
You - i.e .
your ancestors - already did something similar , over 2 centuries ago .
It resulted into the USA as we know it , today .
Nothing prevents you from doing it again.I prefer the idea of secession .
Nonviolent secession , just cut all ties with the Union reclaim independence .
Of course , you 'll probably have a tyrant like Lincoln that does n't want to stop receiving their protection money , I mean tax revenue , and burn down cities and slaughter civilians to continue getting it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is something you can do.
It is called revolution.
You - i.e.
your ancestors - already did something similar, over 2 centuries ago.
It resulted into the USA as we know it, today.
Nothing prevents you from doing it again.I prefer the idea of secession.
Nonviolent secession, just cut all ties with the Union reclaim independence.
Of course, you'll probably have a tyrant like Lincoln that doesn't want to stop receiving their protection money, I mean tax revenue, and burn down cities and slaughter civilians to continue getting it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671244</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31673108</id>
	<title>1984 - a little late</title>
	<author>Maint\_Pgmr\_3</author>
	<datestamp>1269971160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>they're not as bad as the last administration, right?</p></div><p> Do as I say, not as I do.  Bush BAD, BO GOOD.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>they 're not as bad as the last administration , right ?
Do as I say , not as I do .
Bush BAD , BO GOOD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they're not as bad as the last administration, right?
Do as I say, not as I do.
Bush BAD, BO GOOD.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671474</id>
	<title>Re:Uh huh, terrororists</title>
	<author>V!NCENT</author>
	<datestamp>1269966420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because you are retarted... It's a mechanism for the US president, just like any other emergency plan they can initiate, to shut down all communications. It might be awesome that if China was to attack the USA (just an extremely unlikely situation ofcourse), the US president could shut down all communication? And be selective in this (might not want to insta-kill wallstreet, eh?). It might also be awesome that he can order it any time he wants without having to go through time consuming practices...</p><p>It's not like Obama is going to personally block a single website personally each time a person asks him this. Wouldn; t you think he doesn't have anything better to do with his limited time?</p><p>OMG. Some people are rightfully concerned. Some are just plain idiots without a clue. Seeing the glass as always half empty, even when it's full for 99.9\% it's stil 0.1\% TOTALLY EMPTY!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because you are retarted... It 's a mechanism for the US president , just like any other emergency plan they can initiate , to shut down all communications .
It might be awesome that if China was to attack the USA ( just an extremely unlikely situation ofcourse ) , the US president could shut down all communication ?
And be selective in this ( might not want to insta-kill wallstreet , eh ? ) .
It might also be awesome that he can order it any time he wants without having to go through time consuming practices...It 's not like Obama is going to personally block a single website personally each time a person asks him this .
Wouldn ; t you think he does n't have anything better to do with his limited time ? OMG .
Some people are rightfully concerned .
Some are just plain idiots without a clue .
Seeing the glass as always half empty , even when it 's full for 99.9 \ % it 's stil 0.1 \ % TOTALLY EMPTY ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because you are retarted... It's a mechanism for the US president, just like any other emergency plan they can initiate, to shut down all communications.
It might be awesome that if China was to attack the USA (just an extremely unlikely situation ofcourse), the US president could shut down all communication?
And be selective in this (might not want to insta-kill wallstreet, eh?).
It might also be awesome that he can order it any time he wants without having to go through time consuming practices...It's not like Obama is going to personally block a single website personally each time a person asks him this.
Wouldn; t you think he doesn't have anything better to do with his limited time?OMG.
Some people are rightfully concerned.
Some are just plain idiots without a clue.
Seeing the glass as always half empty, even when it's full for 99.9\% it's stil 0.1\% TOTALLY EMPTY!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670650</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31674722</id>
	<title>Re:Obama certainly deserves criticism here, but..</title>
	<author>Maestro485</author>
	<datestamp>1269976680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How can Obama deserve criticism here?</p><p>A bill with the support of a Republican Senator and a Democratic Senator in the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee has been introduced to the Senate that will have to be passed by the Senate and the House of Representatives before it gets anywhere near Obama.</p><p>Why is a bill coming out of committee such a big deal?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How can Obama deserve criticism here ? A bill with the support of a Republican Senator and a Democratic Senator in the Senate Commerce , Science and Transportation Committee has been introduced to the Senate that will have to be passed by the Senate and the House of Representatives before it gets anywhere near Obama.Why is a bill coming out of committee such a big deal ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How can Obama deserve criticism here?A bill with the support of a Republican Senator and a Democratic Senator in the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee has been introduced to the Senate that will have to be passed by the Senate and the House of Representatives before it gets anywhere near Obama.Why is a bill coming out of committee such a big deal?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670760</id>
	<title>Bye, bye freedom...</title>
	<author>MahariBalzitch</author>
	<datestamp>1269964320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Our freedom in the US is quickly diminishing under the guise of "Terrorism". It makes me sick watching it happen and knowing there is nothing we can do about it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Our freedom in the US is quickly diminishing under the guise of " Terrorism " .
It makes me sick watching it happen and knowing there is nothing we can do about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Our freedom in the US is quickly diminishing under the guise of "Terrorism".
It makes me sick watching it happen and knowing there is nothing we can do about it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670842</id>
	<title>How does this work?</title>
	<author>manekineko2</author>
	<datestamp>1269964560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know you're joking, but seriously, how would something like this even work?</p><p>As far as I know, there's no Great Firewall of China style ISP-level filter here in America. So how would they even enforce a blackout of a website?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know you 're joking , but seriously , how would something like this even work ? As far as I know , there 's no Great Firewall of China style ISP-level filter here in America .
So how would they even enforce a blackout of a website ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know you're joking, but seriously, how would something like this even work?As far as I know, there's no Great Firewall of China style ISP-level filter here in America.
So how would they even enforce a blackout of a website?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31682814</id>
	<title>Re:Better than the alternative?</title>
	<author>seekertom</author>
	<datestamp>1269969840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Can anyone think of a single example where throwing the kill switch would be better than not throwing the kill switch?"  once i had a lawnmower with these fearsome revolving blades, right out front of the mower, exposed to everything (that's how it cut the grass). I put in a kill switch because it never failed.... every time i ran the mower my cute lil' kitty escaped from the house and came running towards me at fill tilt (he missed me, poor lil' bugger). that was a single example of it's best to use the kill switch. now, as for the rest of your concerns, open your eyes... the world's leaders are hell-bent to control your every breath, every move, and this crap is just one more example of how they are going to do it... and it's also a damn good example of how well they are already in control of things.... hell, the govt is SUPPOSED to be there to protect us, right? giving one man that kind of power doesn't sound much like they are interested in PROTECTING us! think about this... "let's go all-digital, get rid of ham radio too, any information or communications system, that can't be shut down at a single source... let's disconnect the folks, don't let 'em even TALK to one another... that'll REALLY give us some mean-ass control over them!" gee, dunno who might be saying such things now-a-days. 'cept that if one of us citizens ever spoke like that we'd be locked up for treason or worse. thanks fer lis'nin   seekertom</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Can anyone think of a single example where throwing the kill switch would be better than not throwing the kill switch ?
" once i had a lawnmower with these fearsome revolving blades , right out front of the mower , exposed to everything ( that 's how it cut the grass ) .
I put in a kill switch because it never failed.... every time i ran the mower my cute lil ' kitty escaped from the house and came running towards me at fill tilt ( he missed me , poor lil ' bugger ) .
that was a single example of it 's best to use the kill switch .
now , as for the rest of your concerns , open your eyes... the world 's leaders are hell-bent to control your every breath , every move , and this crap is just one more example of how they are going to do it... and it 's also a damn good example of how well they are already in control of things.... hell , the govt is SUPPOSED to be there to protect us , right ?
giving one man that kind of power does n't sound much like they are interested in PROTECTING us !
think about this... " let 's go all-digital , get rid of ham radio too , any information or communications system , that ca n't be shut down at a single source... let 's disconnect the folks , do n't let 'em even TALK to one another... that 'll REALLY give us some mean-ass control over them !
" gee , dunno who might be saying such things now-a-days .
'cept that if one of us citizens ever spoke like that we 'd be locked up for treason or worse .
thanks fer lis'nin seekertom</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Can anyone think of a single example where throwing the kill switch would be better than not throwing the kill switch?
"  once i had a lawnmower with these fearsome revolving blades, right out front of the mower, exposed to everything (that's how it cut the grass).
I put in a kill switch because it never failed.... every time i ran the mower my cute lil' kitty escaped from the house and came running towards me at fill tilt (he missed me, poor lil' bugger).
that was a single example of it's best to use the kill switch.
now, as for the rest of your concerns, open your eyes... the world's leaders are hell-bent to control your every breath, every move, and this crap is just one more example of how they are going to do it... and it's also a damn good example of how well they are already in control of things.... hell, the govt is SUPPOSED to be there to protect us, right?
giving one man that kind of power doesn't sound much like they are interested in PROTECTING us!
think about this... "let's go all-digital, get rid of ham radio too, any information or communications system, that can't be shut down at a single source... let's disconnect the folks, don't let 'em even TALK to one another... that'll REALLY give us some mean-ass control over them!
" gee, dunno who might be saying such things now-a-days.
'cept that if one of us citizens ever spoke like that we'd be locked up for treason or worse.
thanks fer lis'nin   seekertom</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670754</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31672158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31672722
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671446
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31682526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31673108
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671736
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31697774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31673502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31683012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31672188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31674048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31674014
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31683392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31672874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31674260
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31672240
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671204
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31673138
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31680812
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671472
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31681352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671504
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31674722
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31681366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671246
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671038
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31672684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31673344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31672720
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31678416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31672442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31678004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671524
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_102</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31675732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671706
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31673432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31672274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31673014
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31681988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31682814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31673948
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31683300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31674720
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31675714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31673540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31672990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31675616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31674412
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671718
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31672618
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31672178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31682478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31675036
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671086
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31672804
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31672202
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31672368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31676084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31678174
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670802
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31676900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31693564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31673882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31675110
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31672102
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31692730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31678504
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31676530
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31674670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31674792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31676352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31674066
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31672426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31673276
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671038
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31673250
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31673502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31678892
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671038
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31673264
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31672230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31673332
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31673840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31675922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31703712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671396
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671254
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31677194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31674592
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31674808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31683584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31672768
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31672780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31682348
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31675386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31673492
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_136249_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31682984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_136249.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670668
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31682478
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31672442
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_136249.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671304
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_136249.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670656
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671254
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31683392
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671104
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31673840
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31675714
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31674066
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671472
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31674048
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31672780
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31682348
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31674670
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31673108
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31673882
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_136249.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671008
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_136249.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671382
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_136249.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670954
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31673432
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_136249.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670624
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31675732
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670842
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671864
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671836
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31678416
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671706
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31676352
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671302
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671012
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671386
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31673344
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31673540
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31672240
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31677194
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_136249.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671462
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31675616
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31678004
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31674412
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31674014
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31673948
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31673492
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_136249.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671724
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_136249.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671076
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671504
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31674792
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671312
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_136249.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671016
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31672618
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31672102
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31672274
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31672158
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31672426
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671396
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671818
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31673332
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671286
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31672722
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31672368
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31680812
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31672202
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671726
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_136249.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670824
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_136249.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31676900
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31693564
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_136249.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670760
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671988
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31683300
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31672720
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31682984
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671038
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31672684
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31673250
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31673264
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671486
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31678504
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671244
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671758
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31672768
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_136249.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670894
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671398
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31675110
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671260
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31672188
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670982
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31675922
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31673138
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671718
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31674722
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31674808
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671408
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31676084
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_136249.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671166
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671524
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_136249.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670650
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670802
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671474
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31674720
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31672990
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31675036
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_136249.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670958
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31674592
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671086
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31673276
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31683584
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31672178
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31672804
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31674260
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671676
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31703712
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31676530
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_136249.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670886
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31675386
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_136249.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31673502
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31678892
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31683012
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_136249.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670754
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671006
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671844
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671204
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671446
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31672230
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31681988
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31678174
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671736
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671070
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31682526
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671246
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31682814
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_136249.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671118
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_136249.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670962
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31681352
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_136249.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31670706
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31672874
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31697774
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31692730
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31673014
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671910
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31671194
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31681366
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_136249.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_136249.31673834
</commentlist>
</conversation>
