<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_05_29_1513243</id>
	<title>What a Hacked PC Can Be Used For</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1243610280000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader points out that the Security Fix blog is running a feature looking at the <a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2009/05/the\_scrap\_value\_of\_a\_hacked\_pc.html">different ways hacked/cracked computers can be abused</a> by cyber scammers. <i>"Computer users often dismiss Internet security best practices because they find them inconvenient, or because they think the rules don't apply to them. Many cling to the misguided belief that because they don't bank or shop online, that bad guys won't target them. The next time you hear this claim, please refer the misguided person to this blog post, which attempts to examine some of the more common &mdash; yet often overlooked &mdash; ways that cyber crooks can put your PC to criminal use."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader points out that the Security Fix blog is running a feature looking at the different ways hacked/cracked computers can be abused by cyber scammers .
" Computer users often dismiss Internet security best practices because they find them inconvenient , or because they think the rules do n't apply to them .
Many cling to the misguided belief that because they do n't bank or shop online , that bad guys wo n't target them .
The next time you hear this claim , please refer the misguided person to this blog post , which attempts to examine some of the more common    yet often overlooked    ways that cyber crooks can put your PC to criminal use .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader points out that the Security Fix blog is running a feature looking at the different ways hacked/cracked computers can be abused by cyber scammers.
"Computer users often dismiss Internet security best practices because they find them inconvenient, or because they think the rules don't apply to them.
Many cling to the misguided belief that because they don't bank or shop online, that bad guys won't target them.
The next time you hear this claim, please refer the misguided person to this blog post, which attempts to examine some of the more common — yet often overlooked — ways that cyber crooks can put your PC to criminal use.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139555</id>
	<title>My hacked PC</title>
	<author>Dystopian Rebel</author>
	<datestamp>1243615560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I can no longer read files because of changes to proprietary formats,<br>if I cannot play media because of DRM,<br>if I cannot use my hardware because proprietary drivers don't exist and the manufacturer won't release the information needed to create an open-source driver,<br>if I cannot obtain security updates because my OS is wrongly deemed to be an unauthorized copy,<br>if I am not allowed to install the software that I buy on any PC I choose without having to call for permission,<br>if the software on my computer calls home without my explicit permission,<br>if the software on my computer transmits information about my computer without my explicit permission,</p><p>I have lost control of my computer and it has been hacked.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I can no longer read files because of changes to proprietary formats,if I can not play media because of DRM,if I can not use my hardware because proprietary drivers do n't exist and the manufacturer wo n't release the information needed to create an open-source driver,if I can not obtain security updates because my OS is wrongly deemed to be an unauthorized copy,if I am not allowed to install the software that I buy on any PC I choose without having to call for permission,if the software on my computer calls home without my explicit permission,if the software on my computer transmits information about my computer without my explicit permission,I have lost control of my computer and it has been hacked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I can no longer read files because of changes to proprietary formats,if I cannot play media because of DRM,if I cannot use my hardware because proprietary drivers don't exist and the manufacturer won't release the information needed to create an open-source driver,if I cannot obtain security updates because my OS is wrongly deemed to be an unauthorized copy,if I am not allowed to install the software that I buy on any PC I choose without having to call for permission,if the software on my computer calls home without my explicit permission,if the software on my computer transmits information about my computer without my explicit permission,I have lost control of my computer and it has been hacked.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28140763</id>
	<title>Re:My hacked PC</title>
	<author>SlothDead</author>
	<datestamp>1243621920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>
if I cannot obtain security updates because my OS is wrongly deemed to be an unauthorized copy,
</p></div><p>Which pirated OS is excluded from security patches? As far as I know Microsoft distributes security patches to pirates to protect the customers from attacks.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>if I can not obtain security updates because my OS is wrongly deemed to be an unauthorized copy , Which pirated OS is excluded from security patches ?
As far as I know Microsoft distributes security patches to pirates to protect the customers from attacks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
if I cannot obtain security updates because my OS is wrongly deemed to be an unauthorized copy,
Which pirated OS is excluded from security patches?
As far as I know Microsoft distributes security patches to pirates to protect the customers from attacks.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28142661</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243629540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is no security.  Let me tell you about a recent experience with Vista.  I was hacked I don't know how many different ways.  I noticed strange activity on a new machine and I installed a popular anti-virus product (some say it is the best).  A lot of the preinstalled stuff was infected as well as Windows Live.  After repeated attempts to get rid of the infections I realized the only solution was to reformat.  I used a Vista install disk and asked to repartition and reformat, but still it didn't feel right.  I downloaded a Linux partition tool and found the hidden partition and got rid of it.  I'd tell you the name but the last thing I want is for this tool to be targeted.  On another machine I had to reset the BIOS to the defaults to get rid of the hidden partition. Even with the Linux tool.</p><p>Feeling somewhat safer I figured I would try and format a USB flash drive on a machine running the anti-virus with the latest updates.  I plugged it in and it immediately started installing 'audio drivers'.  Before I could unplug the Ethernet cable (less than 10 seconds) it had spread the virus to 2 other computers and I was back where I started (remove the battery, wait, BIOS defaults).  The Anti-Virus was clueless.  ANY USB device with storage should be suspect.  This includes iPhones.  I plugged an iPod Touch into an infected computer and it was quite happy to spread it to another computer.  iTunes (on a Mac) was smart enough to recognize something was wrong with the infected back up and wouldn't restore it but it meant starting from scratch with contacts, settings,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>Next comes the router.  Even after the machines were cleaned some of the settings on the router my ISP provided couldn't be changed.  Like disabling remote access.  After repeated attempts to disable it my router went into lock down and I had to call my ISP to unlock it.  I bought another router so my network is now behind another firewall but I don't think it matters.  Just for fun I power cycle the routers several times per day.</p><p>I am still invited to install Adobe Flash from sites that I know don't have any Flash.  I'm hoping this will stop soon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no security .
Let me tell you about a recent experience with Vista .
I was hacked I do n't know how many different ways .
I noticed strange activity on a new machine and I installed a popular anti-virus product ( some say it is the best ) .
A lot of the preinstalled stuff was infected as well as Windows Live .
After repeated attempts to get rid of the infections I realized the only solution was to reformat .
I used a Vista install disk and asked to repartition and reformat , but still it did n't feel right .
I downloaded a Linux partition tool and found the hidden partition and got rid of it .
I 'd tell you the name but the last thing I want is for this tool to be targeted .
On another machine I had to reset the BIOS to the defaults to get rid of the hidden partition .
Even with the Linux tool.Feeling somewhat safer I figured I would try and format a USB flash drive on a machine running the anti-virus with the latest updates .
I plugged it in and it immediately started installing 'audio drivers' .
Before I could unplug the Ethernet cable ( less than 10 seconds ) it had spread the virus to 2 other computers and I was back where I started ( remove the battery , wait , BIOS defaults ) .
The Anti-Virus was clueless .
ANY USB device with storage should be suspect .
This includes iPhones .
I plugged an iPod Touch into an infected computer and it was quite happy to spread it to another computer .
iTunes ( on a Mac ) was smart enough to recognize something was wrong with the infected back up and would n't restore it but it meant starting from scratch with contacts , settings , ...Next comes the router .
Even after the machines were cleaned some of the settings on the router my ISP provided could n't be changed .
Like disabling remote access .
After repeated attempts to disable it my router went into lock down and I had to call my ISP to unlock it .
I bought another router so my network is now behind another firewall but I do n't think it matters .
Just for fun I power cycle the routers several times per day.I am still invited to install Adobe Flash from sites that I know do n't have any Flash .
I 'm hoping this will stop soon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no security.
Let me tell you about a recent experience with Vista.
I was hacked I don't know how many different ways.
I noticed strange activity on a new machine and I installed a popular anti-virus product (some say it is the best).
A lot of the preinstalled stuff was infected as well as Windows Live.
After repeated attempts to get rid of the infections I realized the only solution was to reformat.
I used a Vista install disk and asked to repartition and reformat, but still it didn't feel right.
I downloaded a Linux partition tool and found the hidden partition and got rid of it.
I'd tell you the name but the last thing I want is for this tool to be targeted.
On another machine I had to reset the BIOS to the defaults to get rid of the hidden partition.
Even with the Linux tool.Feeling somewhat safer I figured I would try and format a USB flash drive on a machine running the anti-virus with the latest updates.
I plugged it in and it immediately started installing 'audio drivers'.
Before I could unplug the Ethernet cable (less than 10 seconds) it had spread the virus to 2 other computers and I was back where I started (remove the battery, wait, BIOS defaults).
The Anti-Virus was clueless.
ANY USB device with storage should be suspect.
This includes iPhones.
I plugged an iPod Touch into an infected computer and it was quite happy to spread it to another computer.
iTunes (on a Mac) was smart enough to recognize something was wrong with the infected back up and wouldn't restore it but it meant starting from scratch with contacts, settings, ...Next comes the router.
Even after the machines were cleaned some of the settings on the router my ISP provided couldn't be changed.
Like disabling remote access.
After repeated attempts to disable it my router went into lock down and I had to call my ISP to unlock it.
I bought another router so my network is now behind another firewall but I don't think it matters.
Just for fun I power cycle the routers several times per day.I am still invited to install Adobe Flash from sites that I know don't have any Flash.
I'm hoping this will stop soon.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28143361</id>
	<title>Re:Hello, I'm "misguided"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243589520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There must be a problem with your firewall, or NAT configuration.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There must be a problem with your firewall , or NAT configuration .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There must be a problem with your firewall, or NAT configuration.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139751</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139751</id>
	<title>Re:Hello, I'm "misguided"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243616700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was reinstalling a PC at work, started it downloading/installing the 50+ updates it needed, after SP1 was installed<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....got called away<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....</p><p>Next day remembered I had not finished it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... had an error on the screen, and the System32 folder had only *6* files in it!</p><p>The error was two viruses fighting each other for control and one losing<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...all this while logged in as a default user, and behind a NAT and firewall<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.....</p><p>Needless to say the machine was wiped to the bare metal and reinstalled<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was reinstalling a PC at work , started it downloading/installing the 50 + updates it needed , after SP1 was installed ....got called away ....Next day remembered I had not finished it ... had an error on the screen , and the System32 folder had only * 6 * files in it ! The error was two viruses fighting each other for control and one losing .... ...all this while logged in as a default user , and behind a NAT and firewall .....Needless to say the machine was wiped to the bare metal and reinstalled .... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was reinstalling a PC at work, started it downloading/installing the 50+ updates it needed, after SP1 was installed ....got called away ....Next day remembered I had not finished it ... had an error on the screen, and the System32 folder had only *6* files in it!The error was two viruses fighting each other for control and one losing .... ...all this while logged in as a default user, and behind a NAT and firewall .....Needless to say the machine was wiped to the bare metal and reinstalled .....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139525</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28146347</id>
	<title>Re:The apocalypticism is getting old</title>
	<author>ion.simon.c</author>
	<datestamp>1243608480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How would spreading your *nix fs across multiple partitions limit the number of places an attacker could go? Are you supposing that these partitions are unmounted at the time of the attack?</p><p>*confused*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How would spreading your * nix fs across multiple partitions limit the number of places an attacker could go ?
Are you supposing that these partitions are unmounted at the time of the attack ?
* confused *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How would spreading your *nix fs across multiple partitions limit the number of places an attacker could go?
Are you supposing that these partitions are unmounted at the time of the attack?
*confused*</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139547</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28140983</id>
	<title>Screw em</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243622880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why help ignorant people who don't want to be helped? I think it's funny when my friends tell stories about how they clicked on a link for fr33 prOn or 5u93r awesm GaMeZ and *horror of horrors* got a VIRUS instead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why help ignorant people who do n't want to be helped ?
I think it 's funny when my friends tell stories about how they clicked on a link for fr33 prOn or 5u93r awesm GaMeZ and * horror of horrors * got a VIRUS instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why help ignorant people who don't want to be helped?
I think it's funny when my friends tell stories about how they clicked on a link for fr33 prOn or 5u93r awesm GaMeZ and *horror of horrors* got a VIRUS instead.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139805</id>
	<title>Re:Hello, I'm "misguided"</title>
	<author>\_Sprocket\_</author>
	<datestamp>1243617000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As it turns out, unlike Symantec, McAffeee et al would have you beliveve, COMMON SENSE goes a very long towards keeping your PC safe. Best of all it's free!!!!</p></div><p>It's not as common as you would think.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As it turns out , unlike Symantec , McAffeee et al would have you beliveve , COMMON SENSE goes a very long towards keeping your PC safe .
Best of all it 's free ! ! !
! It 's not as common as you would think .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As it turns out, unlike Symantec, McAffeee et al would have you beliveve, COMMON SENSE goes a very long towards keeping your PC safe.
Best of all it's free!!!
!It's not as common as you would think.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139525</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28140273</id>
	<title>blame China!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243619340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some one can use it to blame China attacking US army's computer systems! Brilliant!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some one can use it to blame China attacking US army 's computer systems !
Brilliant !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some one can use it to blame China attacking US army's computer systems!
Brilliant!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28157117</id>
	<title>Re:Hello, I'm "misguided"</title>
	<author>goarilla</author>
	<datestamp>1243771320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <em>The free AV (resource-hog Avast) was the last to go.</em></p></div> </blockquote><p>
that's funny because today the free avast is probably the most lightweight and effective (free) av software i've found</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The free AV ( resource-hog Avast ) was the last to go .
that 's funny because today the free avast is probably the most lightweight and effective ( free ) av software i 've found</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The free AV (resource-hog Avast) was the last to go.
that's funny because today the free avast is probably the most lightweight and effective (free) av software i've found
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139525</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28165995</id>
	<title>hacked pc</title>
	<author>whereisjustice</author>
	<datestamp>1243858560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No one can imagine how serious this problem is until you've been embroiled in a child porn case.  My son's ex-wife had a child pornographer friend of hers hack into his computer and plant child porn in order to gain custody of their children.  No matter how innocent you are, once a jury sees a couple hours of the most disgusting filth you can imagine, they'd convict Jesus Christ.  It didn't matter one single bit to the jury that none of the material had been opened, viewed, most had been downloaded at times he was working, his ex-wife bragged about doing it, etc., etc., etc., my son was still convicted and is serving 30 years in prison.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No one can imagine how serious this problem is until you 've been embroiled in a child porn case .
My son 's ex-wife had a child pornographer friend of hers hack into his computer and plant child porn in order to gain custody of their children .
No matter how innocent you are , once a jury sees a couple hours of the most disgusting filth you can imagine , they 'd convict Jesus Christ .
It did n't matter one single bit to the jury that none of the material had been opened , viewed , most had been downloaded at times he was working , his ex-wife bragged about doing it , etc. , etc. , etc. , my son was still convicted and is serving 30 years in prison .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No one can imagine how serious this problem is until you've been embroiled in a child porn case.
My son's ex-wife had a child pornographer friend of hers hack into his computer and plant child porn in order to gain custody of their children.
No matter how innocent you are, once a jury sees a couple hours of the most disgusting filth you can imagine, they'd convict Jesus Christ.
It didn't matter one single bit to the jury that none of the material had been opened, viewed, most had been downloaded at times he was working, his ex-wife bragged about doing it, etc., etc., etc., my son was still convicted and is serving 30 years in prison.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28141709</id>
	<title>A bit of rhetoric</title>
	<author>oryator</author>
	<datestamp>1243625820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>And so, my fellow HaX0rz, ask not what a hacked PC can do for you; ask what you can do for a hacked PC.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And so , my fellow HaX0rz , ask not what a hacked PC can do for you ; ask what you can do for a hacked PC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And so, my fellow HaX0rz, ask not what a hacked PC can do for you; ask what you can do for a hacked PC.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28142571</id>
	<title>What a rooted system is good for</title>
	<author>x102output</author>
	<datestamp>1243629120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>glftpd / pzs-ng


then xnc<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</htmltext>
<tokenext>glftpd / pzs-ng then xnc ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>glftpd / pzs-ng


then xnc ;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139391</id>
	<title>Re:They don't care</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243614780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Same experience here.</p><p>However, I told people all those issues that are mentioned in TFA.  The response of my friends?  "So what?"  -- They do not feel responsible for malware running on their computer.  Somehow, I can even understand them; they just bought a computer and pay an ADSL line -- why should they care if their computer is broken by design (e.g. needs an update before the first connection as it was the case with Windows XP before the computers have been delivered with SP2 installed)?  It's hardly their fault.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Same experience here.However , I told people all those issues that are mentioned in TFA .
The response of my friends ?
" So what ?
" -- They do not feel responsible for malware running on their computer .
Somehow , I can even understand them ; they just bought a computer and pay an ADSL line -- why should they care if their computer is broken by design ( e.g .
needs an update before the first connection as it was the case with Windows XP before the computers have been delivered with SP2 installed ) ?
It 's hardly their fault .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Same experience here.However, I told people all those issues that are mentioned in TFA.
The response of my friends?
"So what?
"  -- They do not feel responsible for malware running on their computer.
Somehow, I can even understand them; they just bought a computer and pay an ADSL line -- why should they care if their computer is broken by design (e.g.
needs an update before the first connection as it was the case with Windows XP before the computers have been delivered with SP2 installed)?
It's hardly their fault.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139269</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139943</id>
	<title>HELP</title>
	<author>buttfscking</author>
	<datestamp>1243617780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why is my mouse moving all by itself!?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is my mouse moving all by itself !
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is my mouse moving all by itself!
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28140235</id>
	<title>Re:My hacked PC</title>
	<author>cj1127</author>
	<datestamp>1243619160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sometimes I wish I could just <tt>killall rmsSoapbox</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sometimes I wish I could just killall rmsSoapbox</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sometimes I wish I could just killall rmsSoapbox</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28141653</id>
	<title>Re:They don't care</title>
	<author>Hyppy</author>
	<datestamp>1243625580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With friends like that, who needs enemies?</p><p>Thanks, I'll be here all week.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With friends like that , who needs enemies ? Thanks , I 'll be here all week .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With friends like that, who needs enemies?Thanks, I'll be here all week.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28141205</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28140149</id>
	<title>H*Commerce in the comments</title>
	<author>CleverDan</author>
	<datestamp>1243618800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I read through the comments and found a reference to the <a href="http://www.stophcommerce.com/" title="stophcommerce.com" rel="nofollow">stop H*Commerce</a> [stophcommerce.com] site put up by McAfee. Documentary style videos that the average non-./ reader can understand.<br> <br>
I think that 'H*Commerce' sounds a bit hokey/awkward, but I give McAfee props for trying to boost awareness.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I read through the comments and found a reference to the stop H * Commerce [ stophcommerce.com ] site put up by McAfee .
Documentary style videos that the average non-./ reader can understand .
I think that 'H * Commerce ' sounds a bit hokey/awkward , but I give McAfee props for trying to boost awareness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read through the comments and found a reference to the stop H*Commerce [stophcommerce.com] site put up by McAfee.
Documentary style videos that the average non-./ reader can understand.
I think that 'H*Commerce' sounds a bit hokey/awkward, but I give McAfee props for trying to boost awareness.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139993</id>
	<title>Re:Hello, I'm "misguided"</title>
	<author>Krneki</author>
	<datestamp>1243618020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Cool, now improve the security by using Firefox + AdBlock plus. Since most of the viruses come through advertisement, removing them makes your surfing more secure.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cool , now improve the security by using Firefox + AdBlock plus .
Since most of the viruses come through advertisement , removing them makes your surfing more secure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cool, now improve the security by using Firefox + AdBlock plus.
Since most of the viruses come through advertisement, removing them makes your surfing more secure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139525</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139633</id>
	<title>Obligatory bad car analogy</title>
	<author>PPH</author>
	<datestamp>1243615920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Many people respond to the security issue with the idea that a PC should be plugged in and "just work" with no further effort on their part.
</p><p>Think of the responsibility one has when purchasing a motor vehicle. There are numerous safety issues that the operator must address. Plus, you don't just park it and leave the keys in the ignition (illegal in many places) so anyone else can jump in and drive it around.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Many people respond to the security issue with the idea that a PC should be plugged in and " just work " with no further effort on their part .
Think of the responsibility one has when purchasing a motor vehicle .
There are numerous safety issues that the operator must address .
Plus , you do n't just park it and leave the keys in the ignition ( illegal in many places ) so anyone else can jump in and drive it around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many people respond to the security issue with the idea that a PC should be plugged in and "just work" with no further effort on their part.
Think of the responsibility one has when purchasing a motor vehicle.
There are numerous safety issues that the operator must address.
Plus, you don't just park it and leave the keys in the ignition (illegal in many places) so anyone else can jump in and drive it around.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139647</id>
	<title>Obligatory Airplane! Reference</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243615980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"What do you make of this hacked PC?"

</p><p>"Oh, you could make a boat anchor, a fish tank, or a flower pot!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" What do you make of this hacked PC ?
" " Oh , you could make a boat anchor , a fish tank , or a flower pot !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"What do you make of this hacked PC?
"

"Oh, you could make a boat anchor, a fish tank, or a flower pot!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28141905</id>
	<title>Re:The apocalypticism is getting old</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1243626600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>3. Use multiple disk partitions. On Windows, that means you can reinstall faster if you do get hit by something,</p></div><p>I used to suggest this for Windows.  I no longer do.  Why?  I keep seeing reinfections from D:\autorun.inf (yes, HDDs run autorun too)<br>
Even for people capable enough to reinstall their own OS to a specific partition, and knowledgeable enough to turn off autorun, it's common to want to check D:\ right after installation to make sure the files are still there.  Oops, didn't wipe out d:\autorun.inf with a boot CD, and didn't turn off autorun yet?  Reinfected.<br>
Side benefit: copying files on reinstall helps people clean out the cruft on their desktops.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>3 .
Use multiple disk partitions .
On Windows , that means you can reinstall faster if you do get hit by something,I used to suggest this for Windows .
I no longer do .
Why ? I keep seeing reinfections from D : \ autorun.inf ( yes , HDDs run autorun too ) Even for people capable enough to reinstall their own OS to a specific partition , and knowledgeable enough to turn off autorun , it 's common to want to check D : \ right after installation to make sure the files are still there .
Oops , did n't wipe out d : \ autorun.inf with a boot CD , and did n't turn off autorun yet ?
Reinfected . Side benefit : copying files on reinstall helps people clean out the cruft on their desktops .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3.
Use multiple disk partitions.
On Windows, that means you can reinstall faster if you do get hit by something,I used to suggest this for Windows.
I no longer do.
Why?  I keep seeing reinfections from D:\autorun.inf (yes, HDDs run autorun too)
Even for people capable enough to reinstall their own OS to a specific partition, and knowledgeable enough to turn off autorun, it's common to want to check D:\ right after installation to make sure the files are still there.
Oops, didn't wipe out d:\autorun.inf with a boot CD, and didn't turn off autorun yet?
Reinfected.
Side benefit: copying files on reinstall helps people clean out the cruft on their desktops.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139547</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28140201</id>
	<title>Computer security is like a convertable car</title>
	<author>AnAdventurer</author>
	<datestamp>1243618920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>You buy a nice convertible car and you are out driving it around. The sky is cloudy and it looks looks like rain. What do you do and who responsibility is it to put the top up?<p>
1) Do you wait for the car manufacturer to install a rain sensor (now that you are on the road and you see that it sometimes rains, that would have been a good option to get) that will automatically put the roof up when it senses the first rain drop?</p><p>
2) Do you pull over before it rains and put the top up to be safe?</p><p>
3) Do you drive around with the top down blaming the car maker for designing a car that can get wet and/or doesn't keep the rain out automatically all the time forever?</p><p>

How is computer security different (metaphorically speaking)? I am sorry, but we all know it's up to the user.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You buy a nice convertible car and you are out driving it around .
The sky is cloudy and it looks looks like rain .
What do you do and who responsibility is it to put the top up ?
1 ) Do you wait for the car manufacturer to install a rain sensor ( now that you are on the road and you see that it sometimes rains , that would have been a good option to get ) that will automatically put the roof up when it senses the first rain drop ?
2 ) Do you pull over before it rains and put the top up to be safe ?
3 ) Do you drive around with the top down blaming the car maker for designing a car that can get wet and/or does n't keep the rain out automatically all the time forever ?
How is computer security different ( metaphorically speaking ) ?
I am sorry , but we all know it 's up to the user .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You buy a nice convertible car and you are out driving it around.
The sky is cloudy and it looks looks like rain.
What do you do and who responsibility is it to put the top up?
1) Do you wait for the car manufacturer to install a rain sensor (now that you are on the road and you see that it sometimes rains, that would have been a good option to get) that will automatically put the roof up when it senses the first rain drop?
2) Do you pull over before it rains and put the top up to be safe?
3) Do you drive around with the top down blaming the car maker for designing a car that can get wet and/or doesn't keep the rain out automatically all the time forever?
How is computer security different (metaphorically speaking)?
I am sorry, but we all know it's up to the user.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28146761</id>
	<title>Fuk security</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243614060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can take your damn blog post and shove it up your ass.  If i have to freakn worry about freakn security every second of the day I'd have no time left to live my life.  I didn't fuking buy a damn computer just so I can spend all my day enhancing the security of my computer to a fortress, I buy the damn box to get work done and use it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can take your damn blog post and shove it up your ass .
If i have to freakn worry about freakn security every second of the day I 'd have no time left to live my life .
I did n't fuking buy a damn computer just so I can spend all my day enhancing the security of my computer to a fortress , I buy the damn box to get work done and use it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can take your damn blog post and shove it up your ass.
If i have to freakn worry about freakn security every second of the day I'd have no time left to live my life.
I didn't fuking buy a damn computer just so I can spend all my day enhancing the security of my computer to a fortress, I buy the damn box to get work done and use it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28142667</id>
	<title>Re:!sudo != idiot</title>
	<author>petrus4</author>
	<datestamp>1243629600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Something else I forgot to mention, about why I feel more secure using sudo.</p><p>Unless you've written a bad shell script, one sudo invocation = one root command.</p><p>Granted, you can keep issuing dumb sudo commands one after the other, but it takes more effort to do, involving possibly having to re-enter your password multiple times, in other words also increasing the likelihood of you stopping to wonder wtf you're doing.</p><p>This also means I minimise the amount of time the root account is active, which makes me very happy as well.  In my own mind anyway, less active root = more secure root.  It means less chance that I've made a mistake, such as a blank or partly blank +x root shell script, which an attacker can then use as the equivalent of a blank cheque on the system.</p><p>It's also been pointed out before that many consider root too powerful, with a single overall super user representing a single point of weakness in the system.  I'm currently researching the means to create a scenario with sudo where ports/upgrades are handled by a single user, and a few other things are all each handled by respective users as well, and said users will only have access to very specific directories, and very specific commands.  Use of text editors in particular (vi(m), ed, ee, cat, sed, echo) will be tightly restricted.</p><p>It might end up meaning that I need to type in a few different passwords, but the upside is that if I ever was going to get a potential hacker, they wouldn't necessarily just be able to bank on getting a single root password for overall access to the entire system; if couldn't get the root password, they'd need to know around six others, and if they didn't know all of them, whichever users they had broken, would only have access to very specific subsections of the system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Something else I forgot to mention , about why I feel more secure using sudo.Unless you 've written a bad shell script , one sudo invocation = one root command.Granted , you can keep issuing dumb sudo commands one after the other , but it takes more effort to do , involving possibly having to re-enter your password multiple times , in other words also increasing the likelihood of you stopping to wonder wtf you 're doing.This also means I minimise the amount of time the root account is active , which makes me very happy as well .
In my own mind anyway , less active root = more secure root .
It means less chance that I 've made a mistake , such as a blank or partly blank + x root shell script , which an attacker can then use as the equivalent of a blank cheque on the system.It 's also been pointed out before that many consider root too powerful , with a single overall super user representing a single point of weakness in the system .
I 'm currently researching the means to create a scenario with sudo where ports/upgrades are handled by a single user , and a few other things are all each handled by respective users as well , and said users will only have access to very specific directories , and very specific commands .
Use of text editors in particular ( vi ( m ) , ed , ee , cat , sed , echo ) will be tightly restricted.It might end up meaning that I need to type in a few different passwords , but the upside is that if I ever was going to get a potential hacker , they would n't necessarily just be able to bank on getting a single root password for overall access to the entire system ; if could n't get the root password , they 'd need to know around six others , and if they did n't know all of them , whichever users they had broken , would only have access to very specific subsections of the system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Something else I forgot to mention, about why I feel more secure using sudo.Unless you've written a bad shell script, one sudo invocation = one root command.Granted, you can keep issuing dumb sudo commands one after the other, but it takes more effort to do, involving possibly having to re-enter your password multiple times, in other words also increasing the likelihood of you stopping to wonder wtf you're doing.This also means I minimise the amount of time the root account is active, which makes me very happy as well.
In my own mind anyway, less active root = more secure root.
It means less chance that I've made a mistake, such as a blank or partly blank +x root shell script, which an attacker can then use as the equivalent of a blank cheque on the system.It's also been pointed out before that many consider root too powerful, with a single overall super user representing a single point of weakness in the system.
I'm currently researching the means to create a scenario with sudo where ports/upgrades are handled by a single user, and a few other things are all each handled by respective users as well, and said users will only have access to very specific directories, and very specific commands.
Use of text editors in particular (vi(m), ed, ee, cat, sed, echo) will be tightly restricted.It might end up meaning that I need to type in a few different passwords, but the upside is that if I ever was going to get a potential hacker, they wouldn't necessarily just be able to bank on getting a single root password for overall access to the entire system; if couldn't get the root password, they'd need to know around six others, and if they didn't know all of them, whichever users they had broken, would only have access to very specific subsections of the system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28141501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139269</id>
	<title>They don't care</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243614120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Over the years I've offered help staying secure to friends, co-workers, etc. and I've learned that they just don't care.  Most people only want help in one situation- when they have a virus that interferes with their computer working properly.  Then they want it removed so they can go back to doing all the stuff that got it on their machine.</p><p>If you don't believe me - tell someone who isn't a tech person to go read this blog post.  A week or two later ask them if they read it.  I'm gonna go out on a limb and say over 90\% wont.</p><p>Or talk to someone like that about security.  Watch as their eyes glaze over and they look for a way to escape.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Over the years I 've offered help staying secure to friends , co-workers , etc .
and I 've learned that they just do n't care .
Most people only want help in one situation- when they have a virus that interferes with their computer working properly .
Then they want it removed so they can go back to doing all the stuff that got it on their machine.If you do n't believe me - tell someone who is n't a tech person to go read this blog post .
A week or two later ask them if they read it .
I 'm gon na go out on a limb and say over 90 \ % wont.Or talk to someone like that about security .
Watch as their eyes glaze over and they look for a way to escape .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Over the years I've offered help staying secure to friends, co-workers, etc.
and I've learned that they just don't care.
Most people only want help in one situation- when they have a virus that interferes with their computer working properly.
Then they want it removed so they can go back to doing all the stuff that got it on their machine.If you don't believe me - tell someone who isn't a tech person to go read this blog post.
A week or two later ask them if they read it.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say over 90\% wont.Or talk to someone like that about security.
Watch as their eyes glaze over and they look for a way to escape.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28140195</id>
	<title>No real-world analogue</title>
	<author>Captain Spam</author>
	<datestamp>1243618920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem, in my opinion, is that people who don't seem to care about computer security are the sort of people who abstract a computer into real-world analogues and stick to that, hard.  That is, they're the sort who've been taught how a computer works solely by comparing it to things they know outside the computer world (i.e. "your hard drive is like a big filing cabinet and you don't need to care past that", "email is just like getting letters, just over the internet!", "the media player is like a big jukebox with all your favorite songs!").  Anything that doesn't fit in their real-world analogue system is for those stupid smelly nerds who exist solely to fix your problems when they inevitably happen.</p><p>And that last part is where it starts to go wrong.  Try explaining computer security to a non-techie.  If you go from the technical end of what's happening, they'll get confused and ignore you.  If you go from a real-world analogue method, you'll be inventing all sorts of fantastical explanations that, to a real-world person, sound patently absurd, the stuff of fantasies and science fiction for those stupid smelly nerds who exist solely to fix their problems when they inevitably happen.</p><p>For example, they'll think you're out of your mind when you tell them there's botnets trying to break into your computer(s) endlessly without rest, and they don't care who you are or how rich you are.  Try explaining that in a real-world or sorta-real-world context: There's an army of zombies on your lawn, they feel no pain, they want to get into your house, they will never stop, your brains are as good as anyone else's, and unless you stay on the ball, they WILL get in and make you one of them (not to mention the fact that, of course, we don't want zombies on the lawn).  Does that sound like something anyone outside the computer world would take seriously?</p><p>They can't see it, they can't abstract it out to anything that makes sense in their minds, they don't know how it would happen, it sounds really stupid, so <b>you're</b> the crazy person, and they can go back to cheerfully installing smiley packs.  End of story.  Unless there's some way to explain it that doesn't bore them, test their attention spans, or make them think <b>we're</b> the crazy people, they're going to ignore security concerns and just assume it's someone else's problem.  Like those stupid smelly nerds.  They don't have anything better to do, just staring at all that white on black text all day long.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem , in my opinion , is that people who do n't seem to care about computer security are the sort of people who abstract a computer into real-world analogues and stick to that , hard .
That is , they 're the sort who 've been taught how a computer works solely by comparing it to things they know outside the computer world ( i.e .
" your hard drive is like a big filing cabinet and you do n't need to care past that " , " email is just like getting letters , just over the internet !
" , " the media player is like a big jukebox with all your favorite songs ! " ) .
Anything that does n't fit in their real-world analogue system is for those stupid smelly nerds who exist solely to fix your problems when they inevitably happen.And that last part is where it starts to go wrong .
Try explaining computer security to a non-techie .
If you go from the technical end of what 's happening , they 'll get confused and ignore you .
If you go from a real-world analogue method , you 'll be inventing all sorts of fantastical explanations that , to a real-world person , sound patently absurd , the stuff of fantasies and science fiction for those stupid smelly nerds who exist solely to fix their problems when they inevitably happen.For example , they 'll think you 're out of your mind when you tell them there 's botnets trying to break into your computer ( s ) endlessly without rest , and they do n't care who you are or how rich you are .
Try explaining that in a real-world or sorta-real-world context : There 's an army of zombies on your lawn , they feel no pain , they want to get into your house , they will never stop , your brains are as good as anyone else 's , and unless you stay on the ball , they WILL get in and make you one of them ( not to mention the fact that , of course , we do n't want zombies on the lawn ) .
Does that sound like something anyone outside the computer world would take seriously ? They ca n't see it , they ca n't abstract it out to anything that makes sense in their minds , they do n't know how it would happen , it sounds really stupid , so you 're the crazy person , and they can go back to cheerfully installing smiley packs .
End of story .
Unless there 's some way to explain it that does n't bore them , test their attention spans , or make them think we 're the crazy people , they 're going to ignore security concerns and just assume it 's someone else 's problem .
Like those stupid smelly nerds .
They do n't have anything better to do , just staring at all that white on black text all day long .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem, in my opinion, is that people who don't seem to care about computer security are the sort of people who abstract a computer into real-world analogues and stick to that, hard.
That is, they're the sort who've been taught how a computer works solely by comparing it to things they know outside the computer world (i.e.
"your hard drive is like a big filing cabinet and you don't need to care past that", "email is just like getting letters, just over the internet!
", "the media player is like a big jukebox with all your favorite songs!").
Anything that doesn't fit in their real-world analogue system is for those stupid smelly nerds who exist solely to fix your problems when they inevitably happen.And that last part is where it starts to go wrong.
Try explaining computer security to a non-techie.
If you go from the technical end of what's happening, they'll get confused and ignore you.
If you go from a real-world analogue method, you'll be inventing all sorts of fantastical explanations that, to a real-world person, sound patently absurd, the stuff of fantasies and science fiction for those stupid smelly nerds who exist solely to fix their problems when they inevitably happen.For example, they'll think you're out of your mind when you tell them there's botnets trying to break into your computer(s) endlessly without rest, and they don't care who you are or how rich you are.
Try explaining that in a real-world or sorta-real-world context: There's an army of zombies on your lawn, they feel no pain, they want to get into your house, they will never stop, your brains are as good as anyone else's, and unless you stay on the ball, they WILL get in and make you one of them (not to mention the fact that, of course, we don't want zombies on the lawn).
Does that sound like something anyone outside the computer world would take seriously?They can't see it, they can't abstract it out to anything that makes sense in their minds, they don't know how it would happen, it sounds really stupid, so you're the crazy person, and they can go back to cheerfully installing smiley packs.
End of story.
Unless there's some way to explain it that doesn't bore them, test their attention spans, or make them think we're the crazy people, they're going to ignore security concerns and just assume it's someone else's problem.
Like those stupid smelly nerds.
They don't have anything better to do, just staring at all that white on black text all day long.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139525</id>
	<title>Hello, I'm "misguided"</title>
	<author>rodrigoandrade</author>
	<datestamp>1243615440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've been online since mid-1995, and never suffered an attack, aside from a couple minor virus infections from pirated games.<br><br>Until recently, I played the tin-folied-hat, security/privacy paranoid nutjob, being very careful when visiting unkown or shady sites (always using FF or Netscape back then), stacked under layers upon layers of AV, firewall, NAT router, anti-spyware/malware, anti-trojan, and whatever other crap Symantec and McAffee could sell me. I couldn't buy/download/update enough secuity software.<br><br>And yes, I've been doing trouble-free banking and shopping online since 1995. And who says money can't buy security??<br><br>One day I decided I had enough!! Partly due to a period of unemployment (03-04), partly due to a slow PC (Pentium with 64 MB of RAM), I decided to shun most of that security stuff little by little. The free AV (resource-hog Avast) was the last to go.<br><br>Fast-forward to 2008, 3 PCs later. The only security feature I have is my NAT router, and best of all I'M STILL DOING TROUBLE-FREE ONLINE BANKING AND SHOPPING!! No virii, no malware, no nothing!!!! I scan my PC once a year, just to be safe, and still nothing!!<br><br>As it turns out, unlike Symantec, McAffeee et al would have you beliveve, COMMON SENSE goes a very long towards keeping your PC safe. Best of all it's free!!!!<br><br>And yes, I've been using Windows all this time, and my PC stays online almost 24/7.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been online since mid-1995 , and never suffered an attack , aside from a couple minor virus infections from pirated games.Until recently , I played the tin-folied-hat , security/privacy paranoid nutjob , being very careful when visiting unkown or shady sites ( always using FF or Netscape back then ) , stacked under layers upon layers of AV , firewall , NAT router , anti-spyware/malware , anti-trojan , and whatever other crap Symantec and McAffee could sell me .
I could n't buy/download/update enough secuity software.And yes , I 've been doing trouble-free banking and shopping online since 1995 .
And who says money ca n't buy security ?
? One day I decided I had enough ! !
Partly due to a period of unemployment ( 03-04 ) , partly due to a slow PC ( Pentium with 64 MB of RAM ) , I decided to shun most of that security stuff little by little .
The free AV ( resource-hog Avast ) was the last to go.Fast-forward to 2008 , 3 PCs later .
The only security feature I have is my NAT router , and best of all I 'M STILL DOING TROUBLE-FREE ONLINE BANKING AND SHOPPING ! !
No virii , no malware , no nothing ! ! ! !
I scan my PC once a year , just to be safe , and still nothing !
! As it turns out , unlike Symantec , McAffeee et al would have you beliveve , COMMON SENSE goes a very long towards keeping your PC safe .
Best of all it 's free ! ! !
! And yes , I 've been using Windows all this time , and my PC stays online almost 24/7 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been online since mid-1995, and never suffered an attack, aside from a couple minor virus infections from pirated games.Until recently, I played the tin-folied-hat, security/privacy paranoid nutjob, being very careful when visiting unkown or shady sites (always using FF or Netscape back then), stacked under layers upon layers of AV, firewall, NAT router, anti-spyware/malware, anti-trojan, and whatever other crap Symantec and McAffee could sell me.
I couldn't buy/download/update enough secuity software.And yes, I've been doing trouble-free banking and shopping online since 1995.
And who says money can't buy security?
?One day I decided I had enough!!
Partly due to a period of unemployment (03-04), partly due to a slow PC (Pentium with 64 MB of RAM), I decided to shun most of that security stuff little by little.
The free AV (resource-hog Avast) was the last to go.Fast-forward to 2008, 3 PCs later.
The only security feature I have is my NAT router, and best of all I'M STILL DOING TROUBLE-FREE ONLINE BANKING AND SHOPPING!!
No virii, no malware, no nothing!!!!
I scan my PC once a year, just to be safe, and still nothing!
!As it turns out, unlike Symantec, McAffeee et al would have you beliveve, COMMON SENSE goes a very long towards keeping your PC safe.
Best of all it's free!!!
!And yes, I've been using Windows all this time, and my PC stays online almost 24/7.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28145677</id>
	<title>Re:Hello, I'm "misguided"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243602360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>sounds like somebody might have installed a virus on your network sometime after you got called away. i've left several fresh installed XP boxes that had an internet connection and not one of them was messed up the slightest.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>sounds like somebody might have installed a virus on your network sometime after you got called away .
i 've left several fresh installed XP boxes that had an internet connection and not one of them was messed up the slightest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>sounds like somebody might have installed a virus on your network sometime after you got called away.
i've left several fresh installed XP boxes that had an internet connection and not one of them was messed up the slightest.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139751</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28143753</id>
	<title>Re:They don't care</title>
	<author>Lost Race</author>
	<datestamp>1243591140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Not that I'm advocating anybody should tell a devious lie to a friend in order to make him/her smarten the hell up<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div> </blockquote><p> <a href="http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1249701&amp;cid=28143649" title="slashdot.org">It's not necessarily a lie.</a> [slashdot.org] </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not that I 'm advocating anybody should tell a devious lie to a friend in order to make him/her smarten the hell up ... It 's not necessarily a lie .
[ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not that I'm advocating anybody should tell a devious lie to a friend in order to make him/her smarten the hell up ...  It's not necessarily a lie.
[slashdot.org] 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139941</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139941</id>
	<title>Re:They don't care</title>
	<author>oldspewey</author>
	<datestamp>1243617780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They do not feel responsible for malware running on their computer.</p></div><p>There is one exception<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... one thing that scares the bejeezus out of most people<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and that's when you tell them their computer is being used as part of a kiddie porn ring. Somehow, when people learn that their machine is being used to host images of 8-year-olds being sexually abused, they suddenly take the concept of computer security a lot more seriously.</p><p>Not that I'm advocating anybody should tell a devious lie to a friend in order to make him/her smarten the hell up<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... I'm just saying is all.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They do not feel responsible for malware running on their computer.There is one exception ... one thing that scares the bejeezus out of most people ... and that 's when you tell them their computer is being used as part of a kiddie porn ring .
Somehow , when people learn that their machine is being used to host images of 8-year-olds being sexually abused , they suddenly take the concept of computer security a lot more seriously.Not that I 'm advocating anybody should tell a devious lie to a friend in order to make him/her smarten the hell up ... I 'm just saying is all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They do not feel responsible for malware running on their computer.There is one exception ... one thing that scares the bejeezus out of most people ... and that's when you tell them their computer is being used as part of a kiddie porn ring.
Somehow, when people learn that their machine is being used to host images of 8-year-olds being sexually abused, they suddenly take the concept of computer security a lot more seriously.Not that I'm advocating anybody should tell a devious lie to a friend in order to make him/her smarten the hell up ... I'm just saying is all.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139391</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28209799</id>
	<title>Re:If you can't get people to wear seat-belts</title>
	<author>dstones</author>
	<datestamp>1244130960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>ain't that the truth.</htmltext>
<tokenext>ai n't that the truth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ain't that the truth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28140131</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28144761</id>
	<title>Re:They don't care</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1243596120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now that a manga collector <a href="http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/05/manga-porn/" title="wired.com">got jailed up to 15 years</a> [wired.com] having a some, hosting a website to the internet with plain and real child pornography should get at least death penalty (they will try to push it to something worse).

You could not care if your pc is sending spam, or cracking captchas, or serving malware, not affecting specially you... but hosting a child porn site in your own pc is a bit risky taking that into account.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now that a manga collector got jailed up to 15 years [ wired.com ] having a some , hosting a website to the internet with plain and real child pornography should get at least death penalty ( they will try to push it to something worse ) .
You could not care if your pc is sending spam , or cracking captchas , or serving malware , not affecting specially you... but hosting a child porn site in your own pc is a bit risky taking that into account .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now that a manga collector got jailed up to 15 years [wired.com] having a some, hosting a website to the internet with plain and real child pornography should get at least death penalty (they will try to push it to something worse).
You could not care if your pc is sending spam, or cracking captchas, or serving malware, not affecting specially you... but hosting a child porn site in your own pc is a bit risky taking that into account.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28141205</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28141889</id>
	<title>Running Windows is already a crime (n/t)</title>
	<author>toby</author>
	<datestamp>1243626480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>(should be, anyway:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( should be , anyway : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(should be, anyway:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28141597</id>
	<title>Meh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243625340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I severely restrict the value my box would add to a botnet by having Virgin Media as my ISP. You won't host too many pr0nz and warez servers on the crappy 8k/sec upstream I have.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I severely restrict the value my box would add to a botnet by having Virgin Media as my ISP .
You wo n't host too many pr0nz and warez servers on the crappy 8k/sec upstream I have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I severely restrict the value my box would add to a botnet by having Virgin Media as my ISP.
You won't host too many pr0nz and warez servers on the crappy 8k/sec upstream I have.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139547</id>
	<title>The apocalypticism is getting old</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243615560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm tired of the press and so-called "experts," taking the Chicken Little approach to security, personally.  There are a few basic ground rules; if you follow them, 90\%+ of the time, you're going to be fine.</p><p>1.  Ideally, don't use a Windows machine on the Internet.  (Yeah, right)  If you must, however, don't browse sites devoted to smilies, ringtones, custom mouse pointers, or that sort of crap...you're asking for it that way.</p><p>2.  If you use Linux or FreeBSD, use sudo.  Do NOT be an idiot and just use root all the time, and don't use sudo without a password on it, either.</p><p>3.  Use multiple disk partitions.  On Windows, that means you can reinstall faster if you do get hit by something, and on Linux or FreeBSD, it hopefully limits the number of places an attacker can go.</p><p>4.  Realise that while virii/trojans might be common on Windows, actual live attacks on individual machines (i.e., with an actual human 14 year old on the other end) are rare almost to the point of rendering the scenario academic.  That's not to say that they don't occur at all, mind you, but there was this absolute paranoid idiot who I saw being interviewed a few months back, who was declared an, "expert," who spoke of using virtualisation and various other gratuitously overblown means of keeping people out of his systems, and also advanced the theory that the entire Internet could effortlessly be destroyed in around five minutes flat.</p><p>5.  Virus scanners on Windows are hugely overrated.  Use one if you must, but I've never seen an infested Windows box that didn't have multiple virus scanners running, thus proving that in the grand scheme of things, they really don't do all that much.  A better idea is to learn to identify the types of sites that virii can typically be picked up from, and avoiding said sites.</p><p>Basic, minimal security, up to a certain point, is of crucial necessity, IMHO.  Beyond that point, however, most paranoiacs are actually hobbyists who don't realise it.  Their obsessive measures aren't truly as necessary as they think they are; for the most part they do what they do more simply because they like it, than because they actually <b>need</b> to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm tired of the press and so-called " experts , " taking the Chicken Little approach to security , personally .
There are a few basic ground rules ; if you follow them , 90 \ % + of the time , you 're going to be fine.1 .
Ideally , do n't use a Windows machine on the Internet .
( Yeah , right ) If you must , however , do n't browse sites devoted to smilies , ringtones , custom mouse pointers , or that sort of crap...you 're asking for it that way.2 .
If you use Linux or FreeBSD , use sudo .
Do NOT be an idiot and just use root all the time , and do n't use sudo without a password on it , either.3 .
Use multiple disk partitions .
On Windows , that means you can reinstall faster if you do get hit by something , and on Linux or FreeBSD , it hopefully limits the number of places an attacker can go.4 .
Realise that while virii/trojans might be common on Windows , actual live attacks on individual machines ( i.e. , with an actual human 14 year old on the other end ) are rare almost to the point of rendering the scenario academic .
That 's not to say that they do n't occur at all , mind you , but there was this absolute paranoid idiot who I saw being interviewed a few months back , who was declared an , " expert , " who spoke of using virtualisation and various other gratuitously overblown means of keeping people out of his systems , and also advanced the theory that the entire Internet could effortlessly be destroyed in around five minutes flat.5 .
Virus scanners on Windows are hugely overrated .
Use one if you must , but I 've never seen an infested Windows box that did n't have multiple virus scanners running , thus proving that in the grand scheme of things , they really do n't do all that much .
A better idea is to learn to identify the types of sites that virii can typically be picked up from , and avoiding said sites.Basic , minimal security , up to a certain point , is of crucial necessity , IMHO .
Beyond that point , however , most paranoiacs are actually hobbyists who do n't realise it .
Their obsessive measures are n't truly as necessary as they think they are ; for the most part they do what they do more simply because they like it , than because they actually need to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm tired of the press and so-called "experts," taking the Chicken Little approach to security, personally.
There are a few basic ground rules; if you follow them, 90\%+ of the time, you're going to be fine.1.
Ideally, don't use a Windows machine on the Internet.
(Yeah, right)  If you must, however, don't browse sites devoted to smilies, ringtones, custom mouse pointers, or that sort of crap...you're asking for it that way.2.
If you use Linux or FreeBSD, use sudo.
Do NOT be an idiot and just use root all the time, and don't use sudo without a password on it, either.3.
Use multiple disk partitions.
On Windows, that means you can reinstall faster if you do get hit by something, and on Linux or FreeBSD, it hopefully limits the number of places an attacker can go.4.
Realise that while virii/trojans might be common on Windows, actual live attacks on individual machines (i.e., with an actual human 14 year old on the other end) are rare almost to the point of rendering the scenario academic.
That's not to say that they don't occur at all, mind you, but there was this absolute paranoid idiot who I saw being interviewed a few months back, who was declared an, "expert," who spoke of using virtualisation and various other gratuitously overblown means of keeping people out of his systems, and also advanced the theory that the entire Internet could effortlessly be destroyed in around five minutes flat.5.
Virus scanners on Windows are hugely overrated.
Use one if you must, but I've never seen an infested Windows box that didn't have multiple virus scanners running, thus proving that in the grand scheme of things, they really don't do all that much.
A better idea is to learn to identify the types of sites that virii can typically be picked up from, and avoiding said sites.Basic, minimal security, up to a certain point, is of crucial necessity, IMHO.
Beyond that point, however, most paranoiacs are actually hobbyists who don't realise it.
Their obsessive measures aren't truly as necessary as they think they are; for the most part they do what they do more simply because they like it, than because they actually need to.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28141205</id>
	<title>Re:They don't care</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243623720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Somehow, when people learn that their machine is being used to host images of 8-year-olds being sexually abused, they suddenly take the concept of computer security a lot more seriously.
<br> <br>
Not that I'm advocating anybody should tell a devious lie to a friend in order to make him/her smarten the hell up<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... I'm just saying is all.</p></div><p>There's absolutely no reason to lie to your friend in the name of security.<br>
Just compromise his machine and put some kiddie porn on it.  For bonus points, notify the FBI and wait near his house with a folding chair, some soda, and a bag of popcorn.<br>
<br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...or was that what you do to <i>enemies</i>?  Crap, I have some apologizing to do.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Somehow , when people learn that their machine is being used to host images of 8-year-olds being sexually abused , they suddenly take the concept of computer security a lot more seriously .
Not that I 'm advocating anybody should tell a devious lie to a friend in order to make him/her smarten the hell up ... I 'm just saying is all.There 's absolutely no reason to lie to your friend in the name of security .
Just compromise his machine and put some kiddie porn on it .
For bonus points , notify the FBI and wait near his house with a folding chair , some soda , and a bag of popcorn .
...or was that what you do to enemies ?
Crap , I have some apologizing to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Somehow, when people learn that their machine is being used to host images of 8-year-olds being sexually abused, they suddenly take the concept of computer security a lot more seriously.
Not that I'm advocating anybody should tell a devious lie to a friend in order to make him/her smarten the hell up ... I'm just saying is all.There's absolutely no reason to lie to your friend in the name of security.
Just compromise his machine and put some kiddie porn on it.
For bonus points, notify the FBI and wait near his house with a folding chair, some soda, and a bag of popcorn.
...or was that what you do to enemies?
Crap, I have some apologizing to do.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139941</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28141953</id>
	<title>Re:Hello, I'm "misguided"</title>
	<author>Knara</author>
	<datestamp>1243626840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sad to say, the logical conclusion is that your internal network was compromised in some fashion (an infected host on the LAN that got your install), not the external connection to the internet.
</p><p>If you're at home and only have 1-2 hosts behind a NAT, this isn't as much of a risk.
</p><p>Also, ever heard of OS images?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sad to say , the logical conclusion is that your internal network was compromised in some fashion ( an infected host on the LAN that got your install ) , not the external connection to the internet .
If you 're at home and only have 1-2 hosts behind a NAT , this is n't as much of a risk .
Also , ever heard of OS images ?
: P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sad to say, the logical conclusion is that your internal network was compromised in some fashion (an infected host on the LAN that got your install), not the external connection to the internet.
If you're at home and only have 1-2 hosts behind a NAT, this isn't as much of a risk.
Also, ever heard of OS images?
:P</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139751</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28146385</id>
	<title>install Linux of course</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243609020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>what else?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>what else ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what else?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139947</id>
	<title>Re:Hello, I'm "misguided"</title>
	<author>Kozz</author>
	<datestamp>1243617780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Congratulations, you've won the fool's lottery!</p><p>The simple fact is that it's pretty hard (not impossible) to defend against 0-day exploits, no matter how much common sense (or paranoia) you might have.  I suppose you run with NoScript, FlashBlock, AdBlock, etc?</p><p>I'm knowledgeable and informed (hey, I'm on Slashdot, right? [tongue-in-cheek]).  I had a work laptop that was p0wned because a rogue advertiser sent a specially-crafted PDF which exploited a hole (amongst many, surely) in Adobe Reader (aka Acrobat).  Since then I've replaced Acrobat with a safer more lightweight alternative and use AdBlock.</p><p>I agree that common sense goes a long way, but if it's the only protection in your toolkit, it's most certainly just a matter of time...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Congratulations , you 've won the fool 's lottery ! The simple fact is that it 's pretty hard ( not impossible ) to defend against 0-day exploits , no matter how much common sense ( or paranoia ) you might have .
I suppose you run with NoScript , FlashBlock , AdBlock , etc ? I 'm knowledgeable and informed ( hey , I 'm on Slashdot , right ?
[ tongue-in-cheek ] ) . I had a work laptop that was p0wned because a rogue advertiser sent a specially-crafted PDF which exploited a hole ( amongst many , surely ) in Adobe Reader ( aka Acrobat ) .
Since then I 've replaced Acrobat with a safer more lightweight alternative and use AdBlock.I agree that common sense goes a long way , but if it 's the only protection in your toolkit , it 's most certainly just a matter of time.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Congratulations, you've won the fool's lottery!The simple fact is that it's pretty hard (not impossible) to defend against 0-day exploits, no matter how much common sense (or paranoia) you might have.
I suppose you run with NoScript, FlashBlock, AdBlock, etc?I'm knowledgeable and informed (hey, I'm on Slashdot, right?
[tongue-in-cheek]).  I had a work laptop that was p0wned because a rogue advertiser sent a specially-crafted PDF which exploited a hole (amongst many, surely) in Adobe Reader (aka Acrobat).
Since then I've replaced Acrobat with a safer more lightweight alternative and use AdBlock.I agree that common sense goes a long way, but if it's the only protection in your toolkit, it's most certainly just a matter of time...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139525</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28142787</id>
	<title>Re:!sudo != idiot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243630080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>For someone claiming to be so smart you completely misunderstood what the GP was saying. Nice work, Mensa boy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For someone claiming to be so smart you completely misunderstood what the GP was saying .
Nice work , Mensa boy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For someone claiming to be so smart you completely misunderstood what the GP was saying.
Nice work, Mensa boy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28141501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139251</id>
	<title>hacked PC's</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243614000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can suck my dick.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can suck my dick .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can suck my dick.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28148071</id>
	<title>Re:The apocalypticism is getting old</title>
	<author>rusl</author>
	<datestamp>1243677420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>well said</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>well said</tokentext>
<sentencetext>well said</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139547</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28147645</id>
	<title>Re:They don't care</title>
	<author>rdnetto</author>
	<datestamp>1243626720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps there's a way to leverage this - write a virus that tells the user they are infected and downloading child porn, and the FBI are being contacted. If the virus actually searches for and downloads the content, then this should get considerable media attention, possibly changing the public perception.<br>It's a pretty grey idea morally, but would certainly be effective.</p><p>---<br>I hereby release all ideas, concepts and designs in this post into the public domain. Where this is not possible, all users are granted implicit permission to use it in any way they desire.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps there 's a way to leverage this - write a virus that tells the user they are infected and downloading child porn , and the FBI are being contacted .
If the virus actually searches for and downloads the content , then this should get considerable media attention , possibly changing the public perception.It 's a pretty grey idea morally , but would certainly be effective.---I hereby release all ideas , concepts and designs in this post into the public domain .
Where this is not possible , all users are granted implicit permission to use it in any way they desire .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps there's a way to leverage this - write a virus that tells the user they are infected and downloading child porn, and the FBI are being contacted.
If the virus actually searches for and downloads the content, then this should get considerable media attention, possibly changing the public perception.It's a pretty grey idea morally, but would certainly be effective.---I hereby release all ideas, concepts and designs in this post into the public domain.
Where this is not possible, all users are granted implicit permission to use it in any way they desire.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139941</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139675</id>
	<title>Re:Hello, I'm "misguided"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243616160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you scan it offline or online?  As in, do you boot from external media (which you created using an uninfected PC) to run the scan, or do you do it on the machine?</p><p>My parents machine was dumping out spam (verified with wireshark) even though AVG said it was clean and updated.  I installed other AV softs, same thing.  I copied softs like stinger to external media, booted a PE disk, still clean.</p><p>I finally downloaded an<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.iso with AV built in on my linux box, burned it, and rebooted the infected PC with it.  Almost every single EXE was infected.  But as far as all the security softs on that machine could tell, it was clean as a whistle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you scan it offline or online ?
As in , do you boot from external media ( which you created using an uninfected PC ) to run the scan , or do you do it on the machine ? My parents machine was dumping out spam ( verified with wireshark ) even though AVG said it was clean and updated .
I installed other AV softs , same thing .
I copied softs like stinger to external media , booted a PE disk , still clean.I finally downloaded an .iso with AV built in on my linux box , burned it , and rebooted the infected PC with it .
Almost every single EXE was infected .
But as far as all the security softs on that machine could tell , it was clean as a whistle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you scan it offline or online?
As in, do you boot from external media (which you created using an uninfected PC) to run the scan, or do you do it on the machine?My parents machine was dumping out spam (verified with wireshark) even though AVG said it was clean and updated.
I installed other AV softs, same thing.
I copied softs like stinger to external media, booted a PE disk, still clean.I finally downloaded an .iso with AV built in on my linux box, burned it, and rebooted the infected PC with it.
Almost every single EXE was infected.
But as far as all the security softs on that machine could tell, it was clean as a whistle.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139525</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28142133</id>
	<title>Re:They don't care</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243627620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry to say it, but you are the kind of lying person I wouldn't ever want to be a friend with.</p><p>The idea of pushing your agenda *by lying* about it is just wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry to say it , but you are the kind of lying person I would n't ever want to be a friend with.The idea of pushing your agenda * by lying * about it is just wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry to say it, but you are the kind of lying person I wouldn't ever want to be a friend with.The idea of pushing your agenda *by lying* about it is just wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139941</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28140131</id>
	<title>If you can't get people to wear seat-belts</title>
	<author>petes\_PoV</author>
	<datestamp>1243618680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>which save their lives, what chance is there to voluntarily inconvenience themselves, to stop bad things happening to others.
Most of the hazards in this article don't materially affect the hacked individual. Yes, if your machine sends spam out, that's bad, but only for the people who receive it.  So their selfish natures come to the fore: on the one hand I can do nothing, on the other I can make my life harder so that a bunch of people I've never met get a small amount of less SPAM / porn / whatever.
<p>
Couple with this, the article is full of fuzzy words like: potential, could, may, can, possibly. There's nothing in it that says, authoritatively that anything bad will <b>CERTAINLY</b> happen if you don't secure your machine. Hell, people exceed the speed limit 'cause they don't think they'll get caught. Imagine what they'd do if there's not even a chance of any financial penalty for wrong-doing or laziness.
</p><p>
In the end, appealing to the average Joe's sense of community responibility is a non-starter. There's got to be mandated security that cannot be disabled. It's got to work all the time and it's got to be ubiquitous. Until then, the situation won't get any better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>which save their lives , what chance is there to voluntarily inconvenience themselves , to stop bad things happening to others .
Most of the hazards in this article do n't materially affect the hacked individual .
Yes , if your machine sends spam out , that 's bad , but only for the people who receive it .
So their selfish natures come to the fore : on the one hand I can do nothing , on the other I can make my life harder so that a bunch of people I 've never met get a small amount of less SPAM / porn / whatever .
Couple with this , the article is full of fuzzy words like : potential , could , may , can , possibly .
There 's nothing in it that says , authoritatively that anything bad will CERTAINLY happen if you do n't secure your machine .
Hell , people exceed the speed limit 'cause they do n't think they 'll get caught .
Imagine what they 'd do if there 's not even a chance of any financial penalty for wrong-doing or laziness .
In the end , appealing to the average Joe 's sense of community responibility is a non-starter .
There 's got to be mandated security that can not be disabled .
It 's got to work all the time and it 's got to be ubiquitous .
Until then , the situation wo n't get any better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>which save their lives, what chance is there to voluntarily inconvenience themselves, to stop bad things happening to others.
Most of the hazards in this article don't materially affect the hacked individual.
Yes, if your machine sends spam out, that's bad, but only for the people who receive it.
So their selfish natures come to the fore: on the one hand I can do nothing, on the other I can make my life harder so that a bunch of people I've never met get a small amount of less SPAM / porn / whatever.
Couple with this, the article is full of fuzzy words like: potential, could, may, can, possibly.
There's nothing in it that says, authoritatively that anything bad will CERTAINLY happen if you don't secure your machine.
Hell, people exceed the speed limit 'cause they don't think they'll get caught.
Imagine what they'd do if there's not even a chance of any financial penalty for wrong-doing or laziness.
In the end, appealing to the average Joe's sense of community responibility is a non-starter.
There's got to be mandated security that cannot be disabled.
It's got to work all the time and it's got to be ubiquitous.
Until then, the situation won't get any better.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28141375</id>
	<title>Re:They don't care</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243624440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I do it all the time.  I don't say *you are* hosting CP, but I will tell them, "For all we know, you've been hosting CP this whole time you've been infected."</p><p>They tend to stay on top of security after that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do it all the time .
I do n't say * you are * hosting CP , but I will tell them , " For all we know , you 've been hosting CP this whole time you 've been infected .
" They tend to stay on top of security after that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do it all the time.
I don't say *you are* hosting CP, but I will tell them, "For all we know, you've been hosting CP this whole time you've been infected.
"They tend to stay on top of security after that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139941</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28140621</id>
	<title>Cloud Computing at its Finest!</title>
	<author>scorp1us</author>
	<datestamp>1243621140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Looking at all the apps, it seems the hackers have created proof-of-concept cloud computing model. I wouldn't be so upset about haing my machine cracked if I got paid for my computing power. Then, we can all win!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Looking at all the apps , it seems the hackers have created proof-of-concept cloud computing model .
I would n't be so upset about haing my machine cracked if I got paid for my computing power .
Then , we can all win !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looking at all the apps, it seems the hackers have created proof-of-concept cloud computing model.
I wouldn't be so upset about haing my machine cracked if I got paid for my computing power.
Then, we can all win!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28141501</id>
	<title>!sudo != idiot</title>
	<author>nuckfuts</author>
	<datestamp>1243625040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I take umbrage when called an IDIOT for not using sudo. I've been an administrator for many years on numerous flavours of *nix and I've NEVER had a problem caused by misapplication of root priviledge.</p><p>I've also habitually run Windows with administrative priviledges, because I personally find that the benefits of a limited account are insufficient to outweigh the repeated inconveniences it imposes on me.</p><p>I've also eschewed running antivirus software on my current (Vista x64) desktop.</p><p>Do any of these choices make me an IDIOT? I don't think so. In fact, if IQ tests mean anything, I can point out that I'm a member of Mensa, and in the high range even within that group.</p><p>Do these choices make me careless? Quite the opposite. I am knowledgeable and very CAREFUL.</p><p>Typing "sudo" in front of a command does not make you intellectually superior. What's to stop you from typing "sudo something\_stupid"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I take umbrage when called an IDIOT for not using sudo .
I 've been an administrator for many years on numerous flavours of * nix and I 've NEVER had a problem caused by misapplication of root priviledge.I 've also habitually run Windows with administrative priviledges , because I personally find that the benefits of a limited account are insufficient to outweigh the repeated inconveniences it imposes on me.I 've also eschewed running antivirus software on my current ( Vista x64 ) desktop.Do any of these choices make me an IDIOT ?
I do n't think so .
In fact , if IQ tests mean anything , I can point out that I 'm a member of Mensa , and in the high range even within that group.Do these choices make me careless ?
Quite the opposite .
I am knowledgeable and very CAREFUL.Typing " sudo " in front of a command does not make you intellectually superior .
What 's to stop you from typing " sudo something \ _stupid " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I take umbrage when called an IDIOT for not using sudo.
I've been an administrator for many years on numerous flavours of *nix and I've NEVER had a problem caused by misapplication of root priviledge.I've also habitually run Windows with administrative priviledges, because I personally find that the benefits of a limited account are insufficient to outweigh the repeated inconveniences it imposes on me.I've also eschewed running antivirus software on my current (Vista x64) desktop.Do any of these choices make me an IDIOT?
I don't think so.
In fact, if IQ tests mean anything, I can point out that I'm a member of Mensa, and in the high range even within that group.Do these choices make me careless?
Quite the opposite.
I am knowledgeable and very CAREFUL.Typing "sudo" in front of a command does not make you intellectually superior.
What's to stop you from typing "sudo something\_stupid"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139547</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139749</id>
	<title>common sense helps a lot</title>
	<author>davidwr</author>
	<datestamp>1243616700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you do these easy things you will greatly lower your risk profile:</p><p>1) Install a NAT or other hardware firewall that blocks unsolicited incoming traffic<br>2) Never visit the Internet except known-safe sites<br>2b) Pray the known-safe sites never get hijacked or have off-site ads or other content<br>3) Never insert a thumb drive or other media except from a trusted source.  Copying your factory music CDs to an MP3 player that's never touched another machine is okay, but that's about it.<br>4) Make sure everyone using your computer follows these practices.</p><p>You are still vulnerable to trusted web sites that get hijacked, visitors to your house that put their infected thumb drives into your computer without asking, and other issues, but the risk is greatly reduced.</p><p>The downside is you've just sacrificed the ability to use search engines in any meaningful way, as well as the ability to click on off-site links from trustworthy sites.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you do these easy things you will greatly lower your risk profile : 1 ) Install a NAT or other hardware firewall that blocks unsolicited incoming traffic2 ) Never visit the Internet except known-safe sites2b ) Pray the known-safe sites never get hijacked or have off-site ads or other content3 ) Never insert a thumb drive or other media except from a trusted source .
Copying your factory music CDs to an MP3 player that 's never touched another machine is okay , but that 's about it.4 ) Make sure everyone using your computer follows these practices.You are still vulnerable to trusted web sites that get hijacked , visitors to your house that put their infected thumb drives into your computer without asking , and other issues , but the risk is greatly reduced.The downside is you 've just sacrificed the ability to use search engines in any meaningful way , as well as the ability to click on off-site links from trustworthy sites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you do these easy things you will greatly lower your risk profile:1) Install a NAT or other hardware firewall that blocks unsolicited incoming traffic2) Never visit the Internet except known-safe sites2b) Pray the known-safe sites never get hijacked or have off-site ads or other content3) Never insert a thumb drive or other media except from a trusted source.
Copying your factory music CDs to an MP3 player that's never touched another machine is okay, but that's about it.4) Make sure everyone using your computer follows these practices.You are still vulnerable to trusted web sites that get hijacked, visitors to your house that put their infected thumb drives into your computer without asking, and other issues, but the risk is greatly reduced.The downside is you've just sacrificed the ability to use search engines in any meaningful way, as well as the ability to click on off-site links from trustworthy sites.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139525</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28142165</id>
	<title>"Internet security best practices"</title>
	<author>droopycom</author>
	<datestamp>1243627680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My ass!</p><p>I dont follow any either because nobody can even agree on what they are.... Like password rotation.... The most stupid "best practice" I've ever seen.</p><p>So my wireless is wide-open, I never change my passwords...  and because of that I have a good life.</p><p>That may change, but nothing I can do will significantly change the odd of it happening without making my life miserable with stupids annoyance to start with...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My ass ! I dont follow any either because nobody can even agree on what they are.... Like password rotation.... The most stupid " best practice " I 've ever seen.So my wireless is wide-open , I never change my passwords... and because of that I have a good life.That may change , but nothing I can do will significantly change the odd of it happening without making my life miserable with stupids annoyance to start with.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My ass!I dont follow any either because nobody can even agree on what they are.... Like password rotation.... The most stupid "best practice" I've ever seen.So my wireless is wide-open, I never change my passwords...  and because of that I have a good life.That may change, but nothing I can do will significantly change the odd of it happening without making my life miserable with stupids annoyance to start with...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28143795</id>
	<title>From the comments</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1243591320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Now you have to work around them and they're eating your food, peeking into your private matters, running up your phone bill, misusing your name, and pushing you out of your house.</i> Isn't that usually known as "getting married"?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now you have to work around them and they 're eating your food , peeking into your private matters , running up your phone bill , misusing your name , and pushing you out of your house .
Is n't that usually known as " getting married " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now you have to work around them and they're eating your food, peeking into your private matters, running up your phone bill, misusing your name, and pushing you out of your house.
Isn't that usually known as "getting married"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28142405</id>
	<title>Re:If you can't get people to wear seat-belts</title>
	<author>belg4mit</author>
	<datestamp>1243628520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tragedy of the commons</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tragedy of the commons</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tragedy of the commons</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28140131</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28140583</id>
	<title>Re:They don't care</title>
	<author>Ezrymyrh</author>
	<datestamp>1243620840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I too had this problem for a long time with  people asking me to *fix* their rigs, and in every case it was dumb security practices that got them compromised. Then i realized i was being an enabler and i cant help them all, started telling them i was retired and they would have to fix it themselves. About 1/3 did nothing, Or bought another computer. And the other 2/3 either found another sucker to fix it for them. Or *Gasp did it for themselves...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I too had this problem for a long time with people asking me to * fix * their rigs , and in every case it was dumb security practices that got them compromised .
Then i realized i was being an enabler and i cant help them all , started telling them i was retired and they would have to fix it themselves .
About 1/3 did nothing , Or bought another computer .
And the other 2/3 either found another sucker to fix it for them .
Or * Gasp did it for themselves.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I too had this problem for a long time with  people asking me to *fix* their rigs, and in every case it was dumb security practices that got them compromised.
Then i realized i was being an enabler and i cant help them all, started telling them i was retired and they would have to fix it themselves.
About 1/3 did nothing, Or bought another computer.
And the other 2/3 either found another sucker to fix it for them.
Or *Gasp did it for themselves...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139391</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28140067</id>
	<title>Re:Hello, I'm "misguided"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243618320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm with you.  I stopped using big brand AV software about 10 years ago because it kept crashing my full screen online games to tell me that it quarantined a cookie or that nothing was wrong (Much like <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7\_Ixx6N8dE" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">WKUK What is it Baby?</a> [youtube.com]).</p><p>I have nothing protecting me except firefox and a home router with next to no security on it.  Every couple years I reformat my computers to speed things up a bit, not because I have any viruses.  Sure, my pc may get hacked one day whether I'm careful or not, but Norton sure isn't going to stop that from happening if I open that email from ebay saying that there are some unknown charges on my account and I need to click the link and login to access them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm with you .
I stopped using big brand AV software about 10 years ago because it kept crashing my full screen online games to tell me that it quarantined a cookie or that nothing was wrong ( Much like WKUK What is it Baby ?
[ youtube.com ] ) .I have nothing protecting me except firefox and a home router with next to no security on it .
Every couple years I reformat my computers to speed things up a bit , not because I have any viruses .
Sure , my pc may get hacked one day whether I 'm careful or not , but Norton sure is n't going to stop that from happening if I open that email from ebay saying that there are some unknown charges on my account and I need to click the link and login to access them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm with you.
I stopped using big brand AV software about 10 years ago because it kept crashing my full screen online games to tell me that it quarantined a cookie or that nothing was wrong (Much like WKUK What is it Baby?
[youtube.com]).I have nothing protecting me except firefox and a home router with next to no security on it.
Every couple years I reformat my computers to speed things up a bit, not because I have any viruses.
Sure, my pc may get hacked one day whether I'm careful or not, but Norton sure isn't going to stop that from happening if I open that email from ebay saying that there are some unknown charges on my account and I need to click the link and login to access them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139525</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28146983</id>
	<title>Re:My hacked PC</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243616580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're posting on a BBS that you have no control over.  You're screwed, man.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're posting on a BBS that you have no control over .
You 're screwed , man .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're posting on a BBS that you have no control over.
You're screwed, man.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28142051</id>
	<title>Re:The apocalypticism is getting old</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243627260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I thought I could destroy the internet in 5 minutes, I would do it just so I could watch it go down.</p><p>The infamy would be worth *any* legal consequences.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I thought I could destroy the internet in 5 minutes , I would do it just so I could watch it go down.The infamy would be worth * any * legal consequences .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I thought I could destroy the internet in 5 minutes, I would do it just so I could watch it go down.The infamy would be worth *any* legal consequences.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139547</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1513243_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28143361
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139751
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139525
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1513243_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28143753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139941
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139391
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139269
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1513243_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28209799
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28140131
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1513243_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28142405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28140131
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1513243_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139993
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139525
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1513243_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28157117
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139525
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1513243_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28141905
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139547
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1513243_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28141653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28141205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139941
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139391
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139269
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1513243_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28145677
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139751
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139525
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1513243_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28140763
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139555
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1513243_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28140235
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139555
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1513243_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139749
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139525
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1513243_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28146983
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139555
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1513243_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139947
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139525
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1513243_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28142667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28141501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139547
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1513243_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28142133
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139941
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139391
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139269
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1513243_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139675
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139525
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1513243_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28147645
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139941
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139391
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139269
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1513243_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28146347
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139547
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1513243_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28141375
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139941
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139391
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139269
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1513243_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28148071
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139547
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1513243_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28142787
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28141501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139547
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1513243_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28141953
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139751
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139525
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1513243_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28140583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139391
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139269
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1513243_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139805
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139525
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1513243_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28144761
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28141205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139941
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139391
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139269
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1513243_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28140067
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139525
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1513243_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28142051
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139547
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_1513243.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139647
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_1513243.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139943
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_1513243.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139555
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28140763
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28146983
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28140235
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_1513243.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28140201
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_1513243.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28140131
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28142405
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28209799
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_1513243.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139269
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139391
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28140583
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139941
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28147645
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28143753
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28142133
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28141375
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28141205
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28144761
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28141653
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_1513243.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139547
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28142051
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28148071
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28141501
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28142787
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28142667
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28141905
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28146347
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_1513243.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28142661
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_1513243.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139525
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28157117
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139805
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139749
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139993
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28140067
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139675
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139751
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28143361
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28141953
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28145677
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1513243.28139947
</commentlist>
</conversation>
