<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_05_1532239</id>
	<title>MS Issued a Fix For Its Unwanted FireFox Extension</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1244217960000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>As we <a href="//slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/01/2143218&amp;tid=109">discussed last February</a>, and <a href="//yro.slashdot.org/story/09/06/01/1438219">again a few days ago</a> after the Washington Post noticed, Microsoft installed without permission a hard-to-remove Firefox extension along with a service pack for .NET Framework 3.5. Reader Pigskin-Referee lets us know that, as it turns out, <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?displaylang=en&amp;FamilyID=cecc62dc-96a7-4657-af91-6383ba034eab">Microsoft issued a fix a month ago</a>; <a href="http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=963707">details here</a>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As we discussed last February , and again a few days ago after the Washington Post noticed , Microsoft installed without permission a hard-to-remove Firefox extension along with a service pack for .NET Framework 3.5 .
Reader Pigskin-Referee lets us know that , as it turns out , Microsoft issued a fix a month ago ; details here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As we discussed last February, and again a few days ago after the Washington Post noticed, Microsoft installed without permission a hard-to-remove Firefox extension along with a service pack for .NET Framework 3.5.
Reader Pigskin-Referee lets us know that, as it turns out, Microsoft issued a fix a month ago; details here.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224681</id>
	<title>This is an outrage!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244225220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I personally am astounded to think that Microsoft would have the nerve to release an application that uninstalls MY firefox addons!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I personally am astounded to think that Microsoft would have the nerve to release an application that uninstalls MY firefox addons !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I personally am astounded to think that Microsoft would have the nerve to release an application that uninstalls MY firefox addons!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224075</id>
	<title>Firefox</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244222880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's Firefox not FireFox, by now it should be clear to everyone including whoever wrote the title.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's Firefox not FireFox , by now it should be clear to everyone including whoever wrote the title .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's Firefox not FireFox, by now it should be clear to everyone including whoever wrote the title.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28225839</id>
	<title>Firefox is popular</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244230200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Firefox is definitely popular if such an extension is made available in a system update!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefox is definitely popular if such an extension is made available in a system update !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firefox is definitely popular if such an extension is made available in a system update!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224365</id>
	<title>Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244224080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You could save the teeth gnashing and anal rape metaphors for when you actually have an issue, instead of wasting it on complete non-issues. It might lower your blood pressure in the long run. But that's just my opinion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You could save the teeth gnashing and anal rape metaphors for when you actually have an issue , instead of wasting it on complete non-issues .
It might lower your blood pressure in the long run .
But that 's just my opinion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You could save the teeth gnashing and anal rape metaphors for when you actually have an issue, instead of wasting it on complete non-issues.
It might lower your blood pressure in the long run.
But that's just my opinion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28223789</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28225569</id>
	<title>Spaz down, Sparky</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244229060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I have my criticisms of Microsoft, I'm hardly a basher. Despite having lots of familiarity with Macs and a tiny bit of familiarity with LINUX, I use Microsoft operating systems exclusively.</p><p>Two things are worth mentioning here. One is that practically any palooka can show up and start one of these threads. Someone probably saw the article in the WP (or an article about the article in WP) and started a thread without doing research and finding out that this is actually an old issue, an issue that was already mentioned back in February on this site, and that Microsoft had issued a fix a month ago. Bone-headed posts happen a lot around here. That doesn't make these threads part of a sinister conspiracy against Microsoft.</p><p>The other thing worth mentioning is that frankly, this is worth mentioning again. While the disabled uninstall button was obnoxious, to me the greater wrong here was sneaking in an extension to a competitor's browser through an automatic OS update without informing the user.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I have my criticisms of Microsoft , I 'm hardly a basher .
Despite having lots of familiarity with Macs and a tiny bit of familiarity with LINUX , I use Microsoft operating systems exclusively.Two things are worth mentioning here .
One is that practically any palooka can show up and start one of these threads .
Someone probably saw the article in the WP ( or an article about the article in WP ) and started a thread without doing research and finding out that this is actually an old issue , an issue that was already mentioned back in February on this site , and that Microsoft had issued a fix a month ago .
Bone-headed posts happen a lot around here .
That does n't make these threads part of a sinister conspiracy against Microsoft.The other thing worth mentioning is that frankly , this is worth mentioning again .
While the disabled uninstall button was obnoxious , to me the greater wrong here was sneaking in an extension to a competitor 's browser through an automatic OS update without informing the user .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I have my criticisms of Microsoft, I'm hardly a basher.
Despite having lots of familiarity with Macs and a tiny bit of familiarity with LINUX, I use Microsoft operating systems exclusively.Two things are worth mentioning here.
One is that practically any palooka can show up and start one of these threads.
Someone probably saw the article in the WP (or an article about the article in WP) and started a thread without doing research and finding out that this is actually an old issue, an issue that was already mentioned back in February on this site, and that Microsoft had issued a fix a month ago.
Bone-headed posts happen a lot around here.
That doesn't make these threads part of a sinister conspiracy against Microsoft.The other thing worth mentioning is that frankly, this is worth mentioning again.
While the disabled uninstall button was obnoxious, to me the greater wrong here was sneaking in an extension to a competitor's browser through an automatic OS update without informing the user.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224077</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224265</id>
	<title>Microsoft..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244223660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Knowing them, it will leave about 50\% of the junk that the addon installed. And 100\% of the registry keys they used for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Knowing them , it will leave about 50 \ % of the junk that the addon installed .
And 100 \ % of the registry keys they used for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Knowing them, it will leave about 50\% of the junk that the addon installed.
And 100\% of the registry keys they used for it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28227245</id>
	<title>Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?</title>
	<author>whitefang1121</author>
	<datestamp>1244194200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't care if it is fixed our not, i'm just tired of listening to this same story over and over again, so for my sanities sake and yours I am going to choose to believe they fixed it and go on with my life.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't care if it is fixed our not , i 'm just tired of listening to this same story over and over again , so for my sanities sake and yours I am going to choose to believe they fixed it and go on with my life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't care if it is fixed our not, i'm just tired of listening to this same story over and over again, so for my sanities sake and yours I am going to choose to believe they fixed it and go on with my life.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28223823</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28223823</id>
	<title>Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?</title>
	<author>gmack</author>
	<datestamp>1244221980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is not actually fixed.  Even had it been removable in the first place it still would have been bad because they should not have installed it without permission.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is not actually fixed .
Even had it been removable in the first place it still would have been bad because they should not have installed it without permission .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is not actually fixed.
Even had it been removable in the first place it still would have been bad because they should not have installed it without permission.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28223723</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28227489</id>
	<title>Translation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244195880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whiny Open-source posers are bitches, and will never be happy so ignore them as they'd rather flame you than do anything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whiny Open-source posers are bitches , and will never be happy so ignore them as they 'd rather flame you than do anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whiny Open-source posers are bitches, and will never be happy so ignore them as they'd rather flame you than do anything.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224527</id>
	<title>Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244224680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You did give permission, dipshit.  They offered you the release notes and asked if you wanted to continue the install.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You did give permission , dipshit .
They offered you the release notes and asked if you wanted to continue the install .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You did give permission, dipshit.
They offered you the release notes and asked if you wanted to continue the install.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28223823</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28223771</id>
	<title>Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244221860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not quite, the majority of the people here not only don't read the article, they don't bother to read the summary they are responding to. Some don't even read the comments when they reply.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not quite , the majority of the people here not only do n't read the article , they do n't bother to read the summary they are responding to .
Some do n't even read the comments when they reply .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not quite, the majority of the people here not only don't read the article, they don't bother to read the summary they are responding to.
Some don't even read the comments when they reply.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28223723</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28228223</id>
	<title>Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?</title>
	<author>Xest</author>
	<datestamp>1244200740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course it didn't explicitly mention a Firefox plugin, it does however talk of installing software on your machine. The fact it doesn't specify what doesn't mean you didn't agree, it just means you agreed to let them install whatever they deem necessary and they deemed a Firefox plugin necessary,</p><p>You still explicitly gave them permission however you cut it.</p><p>You can avoid installing updates to certain software - this was a general update to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET, no one is stopping you installing the security updates by themselves. No one is forcing you to even use the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET framework. If however you want to run the latest applications then you have to accept what comes with that package though.</p><p>The fact is though, it's almost certainly the case that what it comes down to is people like yourself simply cannot be bothered to sift through all the updates that come out and so you are generally happy to let Microsoft make that decision as to what should and shouldn't be installed for you. Again though, if that's the case don't start whining if you don't like Microsoft's decisions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course it did n't explicitly mention a Firefox plugin , it does however talk of installing software on your machine .
The fact it does n't specify what does n't mean you did n't agree , it just means you agreed to let them install whatever they deem necessary and they deemed a Firefox plugin necessary,You still explicitly gave them permission however you cut it.You can avoid installing updates to certain software - this was a general update to .NET , no one is stopping you installing the security updates by themselves .
No one is forcing you to even use the .NET framework .
If however you want to run the latest applications then you have to accept what comes with that package though.The fact is though , it 's almost certainly the case that what it comes down to is people like yourself simply can not be bothered to sift through all the updates that come out and so you are generally happy to let Microsoft make that decision as to what should and should n't be installed for you .
Again though , if that 's the case do n't start whining if you do n't like Microsoft 's decisions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course it didn't explicitly mention a Firefox plugin, it does however talk of installing software on your machine.
The fact it doesn't specify what doesn't mean you didn't agree, it just means you agreed to let them install whatever they deem necessary and they deemed a Firefox plugin necessary,You still explicitly gave them permission however you cut it.You can avoid installing updates to certain software - this was a general update to .NET, no one is stopping you installing the security updates by themselves.
No one is forcing you to even use the .NET framework.
If however you want to run the latest applications then you have to accept what comes with that package though.The fact is though, it's almost certainly the case that what it comes down to is people like yourself simply cannot be bothered to sift through all the updates that come out and so you are generally happy to let Microsoft make that decision as to what should and shouldn't be installed for you.
Again though, if that's the case don't start whining if you don't like Microsoft's decisions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28225145</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28226797</id>
	<title>Re:Now how about Java Quick Starter?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244235180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Adobe Acrobat PDF Plug-in rep-ruh-zent!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Adobe Acrobat PDF Plug-in rep-ruh-zent ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Adobe Acrobat PDF Plug-in rep-ruh-zent!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224125</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28231345</id>
	<title>That's not a real fix</title>
	<author>cheros</author>
	<datestamp>1244285160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The "fix" as they call it only disables the MS plug-in for the current user who runs it.  The install is system wide, so the only approach that really rips it out is the one that has been detailed in various places, hacking the register and than zapping the file from the system.</p><p>It's again complete BS, not "we're sorry we didn't ask, let's undo the damage", but "we're sorry you noticed, here's something that makes it look differently".</p><p>You can trust these guys even less than a UK MP with an expense account.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The " fix " as they call it only disables the MS plug-in for the current user who runs it .
The install is system wide , so the only approach that really rips it out is the one that has been detailed in various places , hacking the register and than zapping the file from the system.It 's again complete BS , not " we 're sorry we did n't ask , let 's undo the damage " , but " we 're sorry you noticed , here 's something that makes it look differently " .You can trust these guys even less than a UK MP with an expense account .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The "fix" as they call it only disables the MS plug-in for the current user who runs it.
The install is system wide, so the only approach that really rips it out is the one that has been detailed in various places, hacking the register and than zapping the file from the system.It's again complete BS, not "we're sorry we didn't ask, let's undo the damage", but "we're sorry you noticed, here's something that makes it look differently".You can trust these guys even less than a UK MP with an expense account.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28225145</id>
	<title>Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244227140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The license agreement didn't mention anything about installing a Firefox plugin. I never agreed to having it installed.</p><p>It isn't like people have that much of a choice about security updates anyway. You can either accept their terms or be vulnerable to exploits. Switching to Linux isn't an acceptable option, MS has a moral and possibly legal duty to fix security problems in the software they provide and I pay for and those updates should not interfere with my other software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The license agreement did n't mention anything about installing a Firefox plugin .
I never agreed to having it installed.It is n't like people have that much of a choice about security updates anyway .
You can either accept their terms or be vulnerable to exploits .
Switching to Linux is n't an acceptable option , MS has a moral and possibly legal duty to fix security problems in the software they provide and I pay for and those updates should not interfere with my other software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The license agreement didn't mention anything about installing a Firefox plugin.
I never agreed to having it installed.It isn't like people have that much of a choice about security updates anyway.
You can either accept their terms or be vulnerable to exploits.
Switching to Linux isn't an acceptable option, MS has a moral and possibly legal duty to fix security problems in the software they provide and I pay for and those updates should not interfere with my other software.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224333</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28225321</id>
	<title>Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244227860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps there's a middle ground between silently installing something that can't be removed without special effort and something that's difficult to install. Like, perhaps, asking the user if they want it in the first place?</p><p>I, for one, don't want the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET "experience," whether on firefox or anywhere else. It gives no value that is of importance to me. Others may feel differently. That's the whole beauty of asking the user -- everyone can be happy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps there 's a middle ground between silently installing something that ca n't be removed without special effort and something that 's difficult to install .
Like , perhaps , asking the user if they want it in the first place ? I , for one , do n't want the .NET " experience , " whether on firefox or anywhere else .
It gives no value that is of importance to me .
Others may feel differently .
That 's the whole beauty of asking the user -- everyone can be happy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps there's a middle ground between silently installing something that can't be removed without special effort and something that's difficult to install.
Like, perhaps, asking the user if they want it in the first place?I, for one, don't want the .NET "experience," whether on firefox or anywhere else.
It gives no value that is of importance to me.
Others may feel differently.
That's the whole beauty of asking the user -- everyone can be happy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224281</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28226639</id>
	<title>Are you kidding me?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244234280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What a bunch of f**king idiots.</p><p>1. You gave permission when you installed the update. PERIOD! If you don't know what an update does don't install it.<br>2. This is standard operating procedure across the industry. If you install a program that can be accessed via a web browser, it will register the proper extensions or plug-ins. This is true of many products: iTunes, Sun's JRE, Adobe Reader, &amp; many others.<br>3. They do not 'disable' FireFox's ability to remove it. It is not their fault that you cannot remove system wide (all user) add-ons from the FireFox interface.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What a bunch of f * * king idiots.1 .
You gave permission when you installed the update .
PERIOD ! If you do n't know what an update does do n't install it.2 .
This is standard operating procedure across the industry .
If you install a program that can be accessed via a web browser , it will register the proper extensions or plug-ins .
This is true of many products : iTunes , Sun 's JRE , Adobe Reader , &amp; many others.3 .
They do not 'disable ' FireFox 's ability to remove it .
It is not their fault that you can not remove system wide ( all user ) add-ons from the FireFox interface .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What a bunch of f**king idiots.1.
You gave permission when you installed the update.
PERIOD! If you don't know what an update does don't install it.2.
This is standard operating procedure across the industry.
If you install a program that can be accessed via a web browser, it will register the proper extensions or plug-ins.
This is true of many products: iTunes, Sun's JRE, Adobe Reader, &amp; many others.3.
They do not 'disable' FireFox's ability to remove it.
It is not their fault that you cannot remove system wide (all user) add-ons from the FireFox interface.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28228231</id>
	<title>Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244200800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh Ya?</p><p>How bout M$ keeping their silent backdoor updates away from other peoples software?</p><p>You call this a non-issue? It was a clandestine act upon a competitor and one small step away from sabotage.</p><p>M$ earned the bad rep and shit like this don't make it better.</p><p>As it is I wouldn't recommend using Microsoft platforms for anything important or confidential. It's a matter of who controls the machine; who's in charge and that isn't the owner nor operator. M$ can reach into the box anytime it wants and nothing is safe. A power that has grown with each iteration of Windows since 3.11</p><p>To take offense when people get upset over snake shit such as this just makes you a shill for M$ trolling through the boards attempting damage control -- otherwise a cheerleader probably cashing a paycheck.</p><p>I for one would relish M$ pulling a stunt that brings FireFox to its knees, for the result would be a defacto global banning that no amount of M$ payroll trolls could cover.</p><p>Non-issue indeed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh Ya ? How bout M $ keeping their silent backdoor updates away from other peoples software ? You call this a non-issue ?
It was a clandestine act upon a competitor and one small step away from sabotage.M $ earned the bad rep and shit like this do n't make it better.As it is I would n't recommend using Microsoft platforms for anything important or confidential .
It 's a matter of who controls the machine ; who 's in charge and that is n't the owner nor operator .
M $ can reach into the box anytime it wants and nothing is safe .
A power that has grown with each iteration of Windows since 3.11To take offense when people get upset over snake shit such as this just makes you a shill for M $ trolling through the boards attempting damage control -- otherwise a cheerleader probably cashing a paycheck.I for one would relish M $ pulling a stunt that brings FireFox to its knees , for the result would be a defacto global banning that no amount of M $ payroll trolls could cover.Non-issue indeed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh Ya?How bout M$ keeping their silent backdoor updates away from other peoples software?You call this a non-issue?
It was a clandestine act upon a competitor and one small step away from sabotage.M$ earned the bad rep and shit like this don't make it better.As it is I wouldn't recommend using Microsoft platforms for anything important or confidential.
It's a matter of who controls the machine; who's in charge and that isn't the owner nor operator.
M$ can reach into the box anytime it wants and nothing is safe.
A power that has grown with each iteration of Windows since 3.11To take offense when people get upset over snake shit such as this just makes you a shill for M$ trolling through the boards attempting damage control -- otherwise a cheerleader probably cashing a paycheck.I for one would relish M$ pulling a stunt that brings FireFox to its knees, for the result would be a defacto global banning that no amount of M$ payroll trolls could cover.Non-issue indeed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224365</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28227407</id>
	<title>Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244195220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"it keeps MS in check"</p><p>You haven't been paying attention, have you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" it keeps MS in check " You have n't been paying attention , have you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"it keeps MS in check"You haven't been paying attention, have you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224733</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28223723</id>
	<title>So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244221680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And of course, since it's negative towards Microsoft, Slashdot dupes it a few dozen times. That's some quality journalism all-around. Oh, and it was an honest mistake in the first place, not some horrible malicious act.</p><p>Of course, if you read the Slashdot comments, you knew that Microsoft had already fixed it, since the comments are always about 10 times more on-the-ball than the actual posts. Sadly, I think the majority of visitors to this site never dive into the comments section and are probably fed a large spoon of bullshit every morning with their news.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And of course , since it 's negative towards Microsoft , Slashdot dupes it a few dozen times .
That 's some quality journalism all-around .
Oh , and it was an honest mistake in the first place , not some horrible malicious act.Of course , if you read the Slashdot comments , you knew that Microsoft had already fixed it , since the comments are always about 10 times more on-the-ball than the actual posts .
Sadly , I think the majority of visitors to this site never dive into the comments section and are probably fed a large spoon of bullshit every morning with their news .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And of course, since it's negative towards Microsoft, Slashdot dupes it a few dozen times.
That's some quality journalism all-around.
Oh, and it was an honest mistake in the first place, not some horrible malicious act.Of course, if you read the Slashdot comments, you knew that Microsoft had already fixed it, since the comments are always about 10 times more on-the-ball than the actual posts.
Sadly, I think the majority of visitors to this site never dive into the comments section and are probably fed a large spoon of bullshit every morning with their news.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28247027</id>
	<title>Mozilla Forum Says...</title>
	<author>akayani</author>
	<datestamp>1244394900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Locking -- Details of how to remove the add-on have been shown in previous posts. Discussions on whether the merits of Microsoft doing this are outside the remit of this support forum."<br><br>I wonder how Adobe would react if this was done to Acrobat. Or<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net got access to Flash to say collect stats that might benefit Silverlight. Or just injected features of Silverlight into Flash.<br><br>I'd like to see someone do some hard tests on this, seriously FF seems slow to start with it enabled and stability has been improved since it was removed. I'd like to know if this was just imaginary.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Locking -- Details of how to remove the add-on have been shown in previous posts .
Discussions on whether the merits of Microsoft doing this are outside the remit of this support forum .
" I wonder how Adobe would react if this was done to Acrobat .
Or .net got access to Flash to say collect stats that might benefit Silverlight .
Or just injected features of Silverlight into Flash.I 'd like to see someone do some hard tests on this , seriously FF seems slow to start with it enabled and stability has been improved since it was removed .
I 'd like to know if this was just imaginary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Locking -- Details of how to remove the add-on have been shown in previous posts.
Discussions on whether the merits of Microsoft doing this are outside the remit of this support forum.
"I wonder how Adobe would react if this was done to Acrobat.
Or .net got access to Flash to say collect stats that might benefit Silverlight.
Or just injected features of Silverlight into Flash.I'd like to see someone do some hard tests on this, seriously FF seems slow to start with it enabled and stability has been improved since it was removed.
I'd like to know if this was just imaginary.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28231263</id>
	<title>Dyslectics of the world: untie!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244283600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/releases/1.5.0.5.html" title="mozilla.com" rel="nofollow">How do I capitalize Firefox? How do I abbreviate it?</a> [mozilla.com]<br>
&nbsp; <br>Only the first letter is capitalized (so <b>it's Firefox, not FireFox</b>.) The preferred abbreviation is "Fx" or "fx".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How do I capitalize Firefox ?
How do I abbreviate it ?
[ mozilla.com ]   Only the first letter is capitalized ( so it 's Firefox , not FireFox .
) The preferred abbreviation is " Fx " or " fx " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do I capitalize Firefox?
How do I abbreviate it?
[mozilla.com]
  Only the first letter is capitalized (so it's Firefox, not FireFox.
) The preferred abbreviation is "Fx" or "fx".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28226507</id>
	<title>Re:Firefox</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244233500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously. It drives me nuts when people spell something willy-nilly when they clearly don't know how it's actually spelled.</p><p>See <a href="http://www.spreadfirefox.com/node/3556" title="spreadfirefox.com" rel="nofollow">Firefox vs FireFox - Logo vs LoGo</a> [spreadfirefox.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously .
It drives me nuts when people spell something willy-nilly when they clearly do n't know how it 's actually spelled.See Firefox vs FireFox - Logo vs LoGo [ spreadfirefox.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously.
It drives me nuts when people spell something willy-nilly when they clearly don't know how it's actually spelled.See Firefox vs FireFox - Logo vs LoGo [spreadfirefox.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28225475</id>
	<title>Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?</title>
	<author>BorgDrone</author>
	<datestamp>1244228640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I can't help but wonder, if the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET plugin was actually hard to install, would we be seeing complaints about how Microsoft is leaving Firefox users out in the cold by not supporting the full<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET experience in Firefox.</p></div></blockquote><p>They should have just posted the plugin on the firefox plugins webpage. It would then be just as easy to install as any other extension.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't help but wonder , if the .NET plugin was actually hard to install , would we be seeing complaints about how Microsoft is leaving Firefox users out in the cold by not supporting the full .NET experience in Firefox.They should have just posted the plugin on the firefox plugins webpage .
It would then be just as easy to install as any other extension .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't help but wonder, if the .NET plugin was actually hard to install, would we be seeing complaints about how Microsoft is leaving Firefox users out in the cold by not supporting the full .NET experience in Firefox.They should have just posted the plugin on the firefox plugins webpage.
It would then be just as easy to install as any other extension.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224281</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28225925</id>
	<title>Re:The HORROR!</title>
	<author>LurkerXXX</author>
	<datestamp>1244230680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Wait, what's the big problem? It sounds to me like they decided to give Firefox support for what is basically<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET's equivalent of Java WebStart. It means you're using a Windows platform... which you are if you're bitching about this. They didn't alter the code for firefox, or anything-- they installed an extension.</i></p><p><i><i>They installed it without permission.  Extensions change how firefox works.  That's kind of the point of them.  They add/alter functionality.  In this case potentially opening a huge security hole, without permission.</i></i></p><p><i><i><i>From the team perspective, they probably viewed it as a positive gesture--while they were updating the clickonce support on IE, they figured they would provide it on Firefox as well to give users a wider range of choice as to what their browser is.</i></i></i></p><p><i><i>Providing it on Firefox is well and good. Forcing it on Firefox is definitely not.</i></i></p><p><i><i><i>From an enterprise perspective, you probably want to use things like ClickOnce on your company Intranet; that way web applications don't have to be cludged together in either archaic standard javascript or wacky inconsistent non-standard "modern" javascript... you can make consistent interfaces for things like electronic timesheets and such. Chances are, they don't want you removing it unless you know what you're doing. Of course, there's also some tin-foil hat linux moron who is going to remove the extension with their user-level permissions because it says "Microsoft" on it, then complain about the lack of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET web application to support. Or worse... "WHY ISN'T THIS WRITTEN IN HTML 5? IT'S A WORKING DRAFT SORT OF. HOW ABOUT WxPython?!" One might even surmise that it being user-level monkey-able might make it more open to exploitation than it would be in IE.. (GreaseMonkey, anyone?)</i></i></i></p><p><i><i>Then you know nothing of enterprise perspective.  Enterprises can already roll out all the software they want to automatically.  We roll out tons of applications all the time with no javascript, thanks. </i></i></p><p><i><i>The fact of the matter is, it's platform integration. Nothing more. For most users, ClickOnce is simply convenient. It just bridges them to support for secure sandboxed<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET applications that might be convenient if provided. For wingbats on slashdot, it's A GROSS INVASION OF THEIR OMG PRIVACY THAT THEY DEMAND FOR THEIR PIRATED COPY OF WINDOWS XP.</i></i></p><p><i>It is a security issue.  And my copy of XP is very much paid for Mr. Troll.  I won't respond further because the rest of your post is just more inane trolling.  (Please mod the troll to oblivion).</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait , what 's the big problem ?
It sounds to me like they decided to give Firefox support for what is basically .NET 's equivalent of Java WebStart .
It means you 're using a Windows platform... which you are if you 're bitching about this .
They did n't alter the code for firefox , or anything-- they installed an extension.They installed it without permission .
Extensions change how firefox works .
That 's kind of the point of them .
They add/alter functionality .
In this case potentially opening a huge security hole , without permission.From the team perspective , they probably viewed it as a positive gesture--while they were updating the clickonce support on IE , they figured they would provide it on Firefox as well to give users a wider range of choice as to what their browser is.Providing it on Firefox is well and good .
Forcing it on Firefox is definitely not.From an enterprise perspective , you probably want to use things like ClickOnce on your company Intranet ; that way web applications do n't have to be cludged together in either archaic standard javascript or wacky inconsistent non-standard " modern " javascript... you can make consistent interfaces for things like electronic timesheets and such .
Chances are , they do n't want you removing it unless you know what you 're doing .
Of course , there 's also some tin-foil hat linux moron who is going to remove the extension with their user-level permissions because it says " Microsoft " on it , then complain about the lack of .NET web application to support .
Or worse... " WHY IS N'T THIS WRITTEN IN HTML 5 ?
IT 'S A WORKING DRAFT SORT OF .
HOW ABOUT WxPython ? !
" One might even surmise that it being user-level monkey-able might make it more open to exploitation than it would be in IE.. ( GreaseMonkey , anyone ?
) Then you know nothing of enterprise perspective .
Enterprises can already roll out all the software they want to automatically .
We roll out tons of applications all the time with no javascript , thanks .
The fact of the matter is , it 's platform integration .
Nothing more .
For most users , ClickOnce is simply convenient .
It just bridges them to support for secure sandboxed .NET applications that might be convenient if provided .
For wingbats on slashdot , it 's A GROSS INVASION OF THEIR OMG PRIVACY THAT THEY DEMAND FOR THEIR PIRATED COPY OF WINDOWS XP.It is a security issue .
And my copy of XP is very much paid for Mr. Troll. I wo n't respond further because the rest of your post is just more inane trolling .
( Please mod the troll to oblivion ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait, what's the big problem?
It sounds to me like they decided to give Firefox support for what is basically .NET's equivalent of Java WebStart.
It means you're using a Windows platform... which you are if you're bitching about this.
They didn't alter the code for firefox, or anything-- they installed an extension.They installed it without permission.
Extensions change how firefox works.
That's kind of the point of them.
They add/alter functionality.
In this case potentially opening a huge security hole, without permission.From the team perspective, they probably viewed it as a positive gesture--while they were updating the clickonce support on IE, they figured they would provide it on Firefox as well to give users a wider range of choice as to what their browser is.Providing it on Firefox is well and good.
Forcing it on Firefox is definitely not.From an enterprise perspective, you probably want to use things like ClickOnce on your company Intranet; that way web applications don't have to be cludged together in either archaic standard javascript or wacky inconsistent non-standard "modern" javascript... you can make consistent interfaces for things like electronic timesheets and such.
Chances are, they don't want you removing it unless you know what you're doing.
Of course, there's also some tin-foil hat linux moron who is going to remove the extension with their user-level permissions because it says "Microsoft" on it, then complain about the lack of .NET web application to support.
Or worse... "WHY ISN'T THIS WRITTEN IN HTML 5?
IT'S A WORKING DRAFT SORT OF.
HOW ABOUT WxPython?!
" One might even surmise that it being user-level monkey-able might make it more open to exploitation than it would be in IE.. (GreaseMonkey, anyone?
)Then you know nothing of enterprise perspective.
Enterprises can already roll out all the software they want to automatically.
We roll out tons of applications all the time with no javascript, thanks.
The fact of the matter is, it's platform integration.
Nothing more.
For most users, ClickOnce is simply convenient.
It just bridges them to support for secure sandboxed .NET applications that might be convenient if provided.
For wingbats on slashdot, it's A GROSS INVASION OF THEIR OMG PRIVACY THAT THEY DEMAND FOR THEIR PIRATED COPY OF WINDOWS XP.It is a security issue.
And my copy of XP is very much paid for Mr. Troll.  I won't respond further because the rest of your post is just more inane trolling.
(Please mod the troll to oblivion).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224291</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224939</id>
	<title>Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?</title>
	<author>Anonymous Struct</author>
	<datestamp>1244226300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not that I speak for the FOSS community or even care at all about this issue, but I just can't ever bring myself to have any sympathy for Microsoft.  They worked so hard for so many years to build this reputation for themselves, and they deserve all of the spoils.  My only regret is that the cost of their public image couldn't ever hope to outweigh the massive profits they've made through years of bad behavior.  It's like seeing a bully get his ass kicked for no reason at all.  Maybe he didn't do anything to deserve it (this time), but I'm not a good enough person to want to try and help him.  I admit, that's probably some kind of personal failing, but I just don't care.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not that I speak for the FOSS community or even care at all about this issue , but I just ca n't ever bring myself to have any sympathy for Microsoft .
They worked so hard for so many years to build this reputation for themselves , and they deserve all of the spoils .
My only regret is that the cost of their public image could n't ever hope to outweigh the massive profits they 've made through years of bad behavior .
It 's like seeing a bully get his ass kicked for no reason at all .
Maybe he did n't do anything to deserve it ( this time ) , but I 'm not a good enough person to want to try and help him .
I admit , that 's probably some kind of personal failing , but I just do n't care .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not that I speak for the FOSS community or even care at all about this issue, but I just can't ever bring myself to have any sympathy for Microsoft.
They worked so hard for so many years to build this reputation for themselves, and they deserve all of the spoils.
My only regret is that the cost of their public image couldn't ever hope to outweigh the massive profits they've made through years of bad behavior.
It's like seeing a bully get his ass kicked for no reason at all.
Maybe he didn't do anything to deserve it (this time), but I'm not a good enough person to want to try and help him.
I admit, that's probably some kind of personal failing, but I just don't care.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224255</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28228917</id>
	<title>Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?</title>
	<author>AnalPerfume</author>
	<datestamp>1244205960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Was it listed if you switched to custom install of available updates?<br><br>"Critical fix for EI8"<br>"Critical fix for Windows Explorer"<br>".Net Framework addon for Mozilla Firefox web browser"<br><br>Or was it an unlisted update which assumed you wanted it if you just selected automatic install?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Was it listed if you switched to custom install of available updates ?
" Critical fix for EI8 " " Critical fix for Windows Explorer " " .Net Framework addon for Mozilla Firefox web browser " Or was it an unlisted update which assumed you wanted it if you just selected automatic install ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Was it listed if you switched to custom install of available updates?
"Critical fix for EI8""Critical fix for Windows Explorer"".Net Framework addon for Mozilla Firefox web browser"Or was it an unlisted update which assumed you wanted it if you just selected automatic install?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28223823</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28225727</id>
	<title>Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?</title>
	<author>Windowser</author>
	<datestamp>1244229660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't know how to read, you insensitive clod!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know how to read , you insensitive clod !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know how to read, you insensitive clod!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28223771</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28230291</id>
	<title>slashdot is negative to microsoft</title>
	<author>akayani</author>
	<datestamp>1244225280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Slashdot is negative to Microsoft...<br><br>What a load of crap! Slashdot is totally neutral to all things. We posters are cynical on all issues. We are every bit as cynical about Apple and Linux.<br><br>Should MS have done this? Totally NOT. I had to bugger about for a week and finally to reinstall Windows to get<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.crap to load. I suspect because I had used the FX beta (and that was after I used the special removal tool buried in MS TechNet that is best found using Google). I couldn't update Silverlight or install Visual Studio. I've managed to keep my original install of XP running despite having updated the hardware at every level 3+ times in those ~7 years until<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.crap came along.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.crap is the worst MS software install I have ever experienced. It has the feeling of 'we will force you to Vista' written all over it. There are issues with ATI use of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.crap in CCC that I still haven't been able to resolve. CCC worked fine here until<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.crap was updated. ATI couldn't careless about fixing CCC for users on AGP cards and simply reverted to 'not supported' as a 'don't give a stuff' (DGS) solution.<br><br>Solutions I tried showed that only way to get<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.crap installed was to strip every part of it from the system and then reload each module in order. MS have never provided a single (one package) that manages to deal with<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.crap as a collective.<br><br>If the question was asked "Do you want<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.crap to invade your install of Firefox 3, 3.5 and Minefield?" clearly the answer here would have been "bugger off".<br><br>In fact the 'question' if it were honestly put would have been...<br><br>"Would you like to install MS<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.crap into your standards compliant browser and assist Microsoft to break the web with technologies that extend the web services to Microsoft only clients like we did with JScript and every other opportunity we can find to cause the web to be fragmented into the has windows and has nots and potentially open a security hole with source code that can't be reviewed by the Mozilla team that may or may not destabilize your Firefox browser and slow down start up times?<br><br>With [YES] &amp; [FUCK NO RACK OFF]<br><br>Clearly 99.9\% of sane people who understand are going to choose the 'rack off' option.<br><br>It's an underhanded attempt to break the web. Nothing more and nothing less. That people here are a tad pissed about it... really I think the reaction to this has been too mild.<br><br>The best thing for the web is the removal of Microsoft at the front and backends. We already have the pain in the arse drifting standards of IE to deal with. The CSS, JavaScript and XMLRequest differences.<br><br>What's needed is a class action by Web Designers to recover the time required to write Conditional Comments from Microsoft. Why should I or my clients pay for Microsoft browser war. And we should have a class action support by Mozilla for the time it takes to remove this from Mozilla products and have that cash given to the Mozilla Foundation.<br><br>If putting<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.crap into Firefox was necessary it should have been done in the open and discussed in the development forum at Mozilla. There is absolutely no excuse for this, it is a deliberate act to extend the browser wars to break the web with technologies that are not required and are specific to the Windows platform.<br><br>The comments in Slashdot, rather than being 'anti-Microsoft' haven't gone anywhere near far enough. Was it discussed in the Mozilla forum? I'll go look today but I seriously doubt it. Surely we would have heard the screaming.<br><br>It breaks security, the Firefox distribution model, the universal web and software etiquette.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Slashdot is negative to Microsoft...What a load of crap !
Slashdot is totally neutral to all things .
We posters are cynical on all issues .
We are every bit as cynical about Apple and Linux.Should MS have done this ?
Totally NOT .
I had to bugger about for a week and finally to reinstall Windows to get .crap to load .
I suspect because I had used the FX beta ( and that was after I used the special removal tool buried in MS TechNet that is best found using Google ) .
I could n't update Silverlight or install Visual Studio .
I 've managed to keep my original install of XP running despite having updated the hardware at every level 3 + times in those ~ 7 years until .crap came along .
.crap is the worst MS software install I have ever experienced .
It has the feeling of 'we will force you to Vista ' written all over it .
There are issues with ATI use of .crap in CCC that I still have n't been able to resolve .
CCC worked fine here until .crap was updated .
ATI could n't careless about fixing CCC for users on AGP cards and simply reverted to 'not supported ' as a 'do n't give a stuff ' ( DGS ) solution.Solutions I tried showed that only way to get .crap installed was to strip every part of it from the system and then reload each module in order .
MS have never provided a single ( one package ) that manages to deal with .crap as a collective.If the question was asked " Do you want .crap to invade your install of Firefox 3 , 3.5 and Minefield ?
" clearly the answer here would have been " bugger off " .In fact the 'question ' if it were honestly put would have been... " Would you like to install MS .crap into your standards compliant browser and assist Microsoft to break the web with technologies that extend the web services to Microsoft only clients like we did with JScript and every other opportunity we can find to cause the web to be fragmented into the has windows and has nots and potentially open a security hole with source code that ca n't be reviewed by the Mozilla team that may or may not destabilize your Firefox browser and slow down start up times ? With [ YES ] &amp; [ FUCK NO RACK OFF ] Clearly 99.9 \ % of sane people who understand are going to choose the 'rack off ' option.It 's an underhanded attempt to break the web .
Nothing more and nothing less .
That people here are a tad pissed about it... really I think the reaction to this has been too mild.The best thing for the web is the removal of Microsoft at the front and backends .
We already have the pain in the arse drifting standards of IE to deal with .
The CSS , JavaScript and XMLRequest differences.What 's needed is a class action by Web Designers to recover the time required to write Conditional Comments from Microsoft .
Why should I or my clients pay for Microsoft browser war .
And we should have a class action support by Mozilla for the time it takes to remove this from Mozilla products and have that cash given to the Mozilla Foundation.If putting .crap into Firefox was necessary it should have been done in the open and discussed in the development forum at Mozilla .
There is absolutely no excuse for this , it is a deliberate act to extend the browser wars to break the web with technologies that are not required and are specific to the Windows platform.The comments in Slashdot , rather than being 'anti-Microsoft ' have n't gone anywhere near far enough .
Was it discussed in the Mozilla forum ?
I 'll go look today but I seriously doubt it .
Surely we would have heard the screaming.It breaks security , the Firefox distribution model , the universal web and software etiquette .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slashdot is negative to Microsoft...What a load of crap!
Slashdot is totally neutral to all things.
We posters are cynical on all issues.
We are every bit as cynical about Apple and Linux.Should MS have done this?
Totally NOT.
I had to bugger about for a week and finally to reinstall Windows to get .crap to load.
I suspect because I had used the FX beta (and that was after I used the special removal tool buried in MS TechNet that is best found using Google).
I couldn't update Silverlight or install Visual Studio.
I've managed to keep my original install of XP running despite having updated the hardware at every level 3+ times in those ~7 years until .crap came along.
.crap is the worst MS software install I have ever experienced.
It has the feeling of 'we will force you to Vista' written all over it.
There are issues with ATI use of .crap in CCC that I still haven't been able to resolve.
CCC worked fine here until .crap was updated.
ATI couldn't careless about fixing CCC for users on AGP cards and simply reverted to 'not supported' as a 'don't give a stuff' (DGS) solution.Solutions I tried showed that only way to get .crap installed was to strip every part of it from the system and then reload each module in order.
MS have never provided a single (one package) that manages to deal with .crap as a collective.If the question was asked "Do you want .crap to invade your install of Firefox 3, 3.5 and Minefield?
" clearly the answer here would have been "bugger off".In fact the 'question' if it were honestly put would have been..."Would you like to install MS .crap into your standards compliant browser and assist Microsoft to break the web with technologies that extend the web services to Microsoft only clients like we did with JScript and every other opportunity we can find to cause the web to be fragmented into the has windows and has nots and potentially open a security hole with source code that can't be reviewed by the Mozilla team that may or may not destabilize your Firefox browser and slow down start up times?With [YES] &amp; [FUCK NO RACK OFF]Clearly 99.9\% of sane people who understand are going to choose the 'rack off' option.It's an underhanded attempt to break the web.
Nothing more and nothing less.
That people here are a tad pissed about it... really I think the reaction to this has been too mild.The best thing for the web is the removal of Microsoft at the front and backends.
We already have the pain in the arse drifting standards of IE to deal with.
The CSS, JavaScript and XMLRequest differences.What's needed is a class action by Web Designers to recover the time required to write Conditional Comments from Microsoft.
Why should I or my clients pay for Microsoft browser war.
And we should have a class action support by Mozilla for the time it takes to remove this from Mozilla products and have that cash given to the Mozilla Foundation.If putting .crap into Firefox was necessary it should have been done in the open and discussed in the development forum at Mozilla.
There is absolutely no excuse for this, it is a deliberate act to extend the browser wars to break the web with technologies that are not required and are specific to the Windows platform.The comments in Slashdot, rather than being 'anti-Microsoft' haven't gone anywhere near far enough.
Was it discussed in the Mozilla forum?
I'll go look today but I seriously doubt it.
Surely we would have heard the screaming.It breaks security, the Firefox distribution model, the universal web and software etiquette.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224733</id>
	<title>Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244225400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why is this rated informative, this is the same bullshit comment we see here every day. Look, business is business and FOSS folks are doing what they can to promote what they think is best. Microsoft does the same. In the end, it's healthy, it keeps MS in check and MS gives a few knocks to the FOSS folks that keep em coming up with new ways to push their stuff.

Competition is good. All out assault on Microsoft is fair game. ( aside from pure slandering)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is this rated informative , this is the same bullshit comment we see here every day .
Look , business is business and FOSS folks are doing what they can to promote what they think is best .
Microsoft does the same .
In the end , it 's healthy , it keeps MS in check and MS gives a few knocks to the FOSS folks that keep em coming up with new ways to push their stuff .
Competition is good .
All out assault on Microsoft is fair game .
( aside from pure slandering )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is this rated informative, this is the same bullshit comment we see here every day.
Look, business is business and FOSS folks are doing what they can to promote what they think is best.
Microsoft does the same.
In the end, it's healthy, it keeps MS in check and MS gives a few knocks to the FOSS folks that keep em coming up with new ways to push their stuff.
Competition is good.
All out assault on Microsoft is fair game.
( aside from pure slandering)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224255</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224523</id>
	<title>Re:The HORROR!</title>
	<author>BobMcD</author>
	<datestamp>1244224680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I disagree.</p><p>To me, the difference is:</p><p>A) This plugin is being installed without consent.  I'm not talking about the EULA version of the word, but the common definition.</p><p>B) At least some people use Firefox on Windows expressly so that it won't be compatible with the OS underneath.  I recommend it to Windows people all the time for exactly this reason.  Firefox is 'just a browser' and it 'just works' without requiring all this deep integration that isn't really necessary to do 99.5\% of all the things one would use a browser to do.</p><p>By combining A and B you're removing one of the key things that makes Firefox a better choice, without informing the user that you have done so.</p><p>That's not quite the same as a Java Quickstart.</p><p>Also, it isn't as if Sun has a vested interest in making Firefox behave more like IE, so that comparison is really pretty weak to begin with...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I disagree.To me , the difference is : A ) This plugin is being installed without consent .
I 'm not talking about the EULA version of the word , but the common definition.B ) At least some people use Firefox on Windows expressly so that it wo n't be compatible with the OS underneath .
I recommend it to Windows people all the time for exactly this reason .
Firefox is 'just a browser ' and it 'just works ' without requiring all this deep integration that is n't really necessary to do 99.5 \ % of all the things one would use a browser to do.By combining A and B you 're removing one of the key things that makes Firefox a better choice , without informing the user that you have done so.That 's not quite the same as a Java Quickstart.Also , it is n't as if Sun has a vested interest in making Firefox behave more like IE , so that comparison is really pretty weak to begin with.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I disagree.To me, the difference is:A) This plugin is being installed without consent.
I'm not talking about the EULA version of the word, but the common definition.B) At least some people use Firefox on Windows expressly so that it won't be compatible with the OS underneath.
I recommend it to Windows people all the time for exactly this reason.
Firefox is 'just a browser' and it 'just works' without requiring all this deep integration that isn't really necessary to do 99.5\% of all the things one would use a browser to do.By combining A and B you're removing one of the key things that makes Firefox a better choice, without informing the user that you have done so.That's not quite the same as a Java Quickstart.Also, it isn't as if Sun has a vested interest in making Firefox behave more like IE, so that comparison is really pretty weak to begin with...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224291</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28226449</id>
	<title>Re:The HORROR!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244233260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is that a competitor installed an addon for a program without the user's permission.  To me, it would be like Toyota mechanics tinkering around in the engine of my Mazda while I'm not home...and then giving me instructions on how to remove the parts they installed.  I don't really care at all what it does or if it helps me or not.</p><p>I do agree that Microsoft probably viewed this as a positive gesture, but they just went about it the wrong way by not allowing a user to choose whether or not they want it installed.  Microsoft knows that many of the people that use firefox don't actually browse available addons very often...if it all and probably saw it as wasted effort to put it out there for the minimal amount of people that would have seen the addon and would have known what the hell it actually did.</p><p>From an enterprise perspective, you don't want anything whatsoever installing on your company intranet without your permission.  Granted, it is something you would likely want to go ahead and permit to install, but an IT professional should have complete control over his network.</p><p>From a "Linux Moron" perspective, I don't think there's much chance of any of them complaining about a lack of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET web application support...but I may be wrong.</p><p>Also, I do agree with what many people have said that its partially Firefox's fault for allowing an addon to be installed without the user's permission.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that a competitor installed an addon for a program without the user 's permission .
To me , it would be like Toyota mechanics tinkering around in the engine of my Mazda while I 'm not home...and then giving me instructions on how to remove the parts they installed .
I do n't really care at all what it does or if it helps me or not.I do agree that Microsoft probably viewed this as a positive gesture , but they just went about it the wrong way by not allowing a user to choose whether or not they want it installed .
Microsoft knows that many of the people that use firefox do n't actually browse available addons very often...if it all and probably saw it as wasted effort to put it out there for the minimal amount of people that would have seen the addon and would have known what the hell it actually did.From an enterprise perspective , you do n't want anything whatsoever installing on your company intranet without your permission .
Granted , it is something you would likely want to go ahead and permit to install , but an IT professional should have complete control over his network.From a " Linux Moron " perspective , I do n't think there 's much chance of any of them complaining about a lack of .NET web application support...but I may be wrong.Also , I do agree with what many people have said that its partially Firefox 's fault for allowing an addon to be installed without the user 's permission .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that a competitor installed an addon for a program without the user's permission.
To me, it would be like Toyota mechanics tinkering around in the engine of my Mazda while I'm not home...and then giving me instructions on how to remove the parts they installed.
I don't really care at all what it does or if it helps me or not.I do agree that Microsoft probably viewed this as a positive gesture, but they just went about it the wrong way by not allowing a user to choose whether or not they want it installed.
Microsoft knows that many of the people that use firefox don't actually browse available addons very often...if it all and probably saw it as wasted effort to put it out there for the minimal amount of people that would have seen the addon and would have known what the hell it actually did.From an enterprise perspective, you don't want anything whatsoever installing on your company intranet without your permission.
Granted, it is something you would likely want to go ahead and permit to install, but an IT professional should have complete control over his network.From a "Linux Moron" perspective, I don't think there's much chance of any of them complaining about a lack of .NET web application support...but I may be wrong.Also, I do agree with what many people have said that its partially Firefox's fault for allowing an addon to be installed without the user's permission.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224291</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28225809</id>
	<title>Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?</title>
	<author>db32</author>
	<datestamp>1244230080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Personally I am waiting for the day where a date rape victim gets on the stand and testifies "It was like Microsoft installing unwanted addons just because I agreed to installing the patch!"</htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally I am waiting for the day where a date rape victim gets on the stand and testifies " It was like Microsoft installing unwanted addons just because I agreed to installing the patch !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally I am waiting for the day where a date rape victim gets on the stand and testifies "It was like Microsoft installing unwanted addons just because I agreed to installing the patch!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224077</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28225945</id>
	<title>Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244230740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When a company like Microsoft 9 out of 10 times makes hostile gestures towards the open source community...</p></div><p>On the other hand, when 9 out of 10 Microsoft stories on this site turn out to be bullshit, one wonders if Microsoft is nearly as bad as they're made out to be by people on this site.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When a company like Microsoft 9 out of 10 times makes hostile gestures towards the open source community...On the other hand , when 9 out of 10 Microsoft stories on this site turn out to be bullshit , one wonders if Microsoft is nearly as bad as they 're made out to be by people on this site .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When a company like Microsoft 9 out of 10 times makes hostile gestures towards the open source community...On the other hand, when 9 out of 10 Microsoft stories on this site turn out to be bullshit, one wonders if Microsoft is nearly as bad as they're made out to be by people on this site.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28223789</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28229165</id>
	<title>Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?</title>
	<author>uassholes</author>
	<datestamp>1244208840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Exactly: If you use MS (or it uses you), you get what you deserve.  Stop Whining.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly : If you use MS ( or it uses you ) , you get what you deserve .
Stop Whining .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly: If you use MS (or it uses you), you get what you deserve.
Stop Whining.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28225293</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224125</id>
	<title>Now how about Java Quick Starter?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244223120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Okay, now tell me how to get rid of the similarly-uninstallable "Java Quick Starter" that nobody seems to be mad about because it's not Microsoft?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , now tell me how to get rid of the similarly-uninstallable " Java Quick Starter " that nobody seems to be mad about because it 's not Microsoft ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay, now tell me how to get rid of the similarly-uninstallable "Java Quick Starter" that nobody seems to be mad about because it's not Microsoft?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224199</id>
	<title>main problem is with firefox....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244223420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it should NOT allow unsigned / unblessed extensions to be installed in the first place. signed extensions like the windows driver signing is the appropriate fix here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it should NOT allow unsigned / unblessed extensions to be installed in the first place .
signed extensions like the windows driver signing is the appropriate fix here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it should NOT allow unsigned / unblessed extensions to be installed in the first place.
signed extensions like the windows driver signing is the appropriate fix here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224829</id>
	<title>Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244225820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bringing up legitimate issues and leaving out BS is in direct contravention of timothy and kdawson's contracts, or so it would seem</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bringing up legitimate issues and leaving out BS is in direct contravention of timothy and kdawson 's contracts , or so it would seem</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bringing up legitimate issues and leaving out BS is in direct contravention of timothy and kdawson's contracts, or so it would seem</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224077</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224639</id>
	<title>Wiping Microsoft wipes the extension</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244225040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This Anonymous Coward will be removing this extension by wiping Microsoft of his machine and installing Linux.  After 25 years of developing commercial applications for Microsoft platforms, I'm done.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This Anonymous Coward will be removing this extension by wiping Microsoft of his machine and installing Linux .
After 25 years of developing commercial applications for Microsoft platforms , I 'm done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This Anonymous Coward will be removing this extension by wiping Microsoft of his machine and installing Linux.
After 25 years of developing commercial applications for Microsoft platforms, I'm done.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28226149</id>
	<title>Re:The HORROR!</title>
	<author>twidarkling</author>
	<datestamp>1244231880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>&gt; </p><p>Also, it isn't as if Sun has a vested interest in making Firefox behave more like IE, so that comparison is really pretty weak to begin with...</p></div><p>You have GOT to be kidding me. If anything, MS would have a vested interest in ensuring Firefox behaves NOTHING like Firefox. Because if there's things only IE can do, they keep their market share! Don't let your MS-hate blind you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Also , it is n't as if Sun has a vested interest in making Firefox behave more like IE , so that comparison is really pretty weak to begin with...You have GOT to be kidding me .
If anything , MS would have a vested interest in ensuring Firefox behaves NOTHING like Firefox .
Because if there 's things only IE can do , they keep their market share !
Do n't let your MS-hate blind you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Also, it isn't as if Sun has a vested interest in making Firefox behave more like IE, so that comparison is really pretty weak to begin with...You have GOT to be kidding me.
If anything, MS would have a vested interest in ensuring Firefox behaves NOTHING like Firefox.
Because if there's things only IE can do, they keep their market share!
Don't let your MS-hate blind you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224523</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28227495</id>
	<title>Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?</title>
	<author>Propaganda13</author>
	<datestamp>1244195940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You must be new here. The majority of people here on Slashdot are meme scripts.</p><p>signed,<br>The You Must Be New Here Meme Script</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You must be new here .
The majority of people here on Slashdot are meme scripts.signed,The You Must Be New Here Meme Script</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You must be new here.
The majority of people here on Slashdot are meme scripts.signed,The You Must Be New Here Meme Script</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28223771</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224255</id>
	<title>Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244223600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When the open source community 10 times out of 10 makes hostile gestures towards Microsoft....<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... well yeah, you can see how it goes.</p><p>For all Microsoft's faults, it does what it does because it's a business whilst many members of the FOSS community seems to purely rely on hatred for their reasoning.</p><p>How can the FOSS community expect to be taken seriously when it can't be mature itself and when Microsoft does something that isn't wrong it STILL attacks it? FOSS is a noble cause but the community is so often blinded by it's own bias that it's self-defeating. I guess that's what happens in an anarchy though.</p><p>Why not you know, when it does something right accept that it's done something right and encourage such behaviour rather than leave many big companies thinking the FOSS community is just a cesspool of hate not to be taken seriously?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When the open source community 10 times out of 10 makes hostile gestures towards Microsoft.... ... well yeah , you can see how it goes.For all Microsoft 's faults , it does what it does because it 's a business whilst many members of the FOSS community seems to purely rely on hatred for their reasoning.How can the FOSS community expect to be taken seriously when it ca n't be mature itself and when Microsoft does something that is n't wrong it STILL attacks it ?
FOSS is a noble cause but the community is so often blinded by it 's own bias that it 's self-defeating .
I guess that 's what happens in an anarchy though.Why not you know , when it does something right accept that it 's done something right and encourage such behaviour rather than leave many big companies thinking the FOSS community is just a cesspool of hate not to be taken seriously ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When the open source community 10 times out of 10 makes hostile gestures towards Microsoft.... ... well yeah, you can see how it goes.For all Microsoft's faults, it does what it does because it's a business whilst many members of the FOSS community seems to purely rely on hatred for their reasoning.How can the FOSS community expect to be taken seriously when it can't be mature itself and when Microsoft does something that isn't wrong it STILL attacks it?
FOSS is a noble cause but the community is so often blinded by it's own bias that it's self-defeating.
I guess that's what happens in an anarchy though.Why not you know, when it does something right accept that it's done something right and encourage such behaviour rather than leave many big companies thinking the FOSS community is just a cesspool of hate not to be taken seriously?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28223789</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224615</id>
	<title>Not good enough!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244224980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Microsoft wanted to play nice, it would've offered it as a "really cool thing to install in Firefox", not something that the user has no choice but to install unless they want to leave their system vulnerable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Microsoft wanted to play nice , it would 've offered it as a " really cool thing to install in Firefox " , not something that the user has no choice but to install unless they want to leave their system vulnerable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Microsoft wanted to play nice, it would've offered it as a "really cool thing to install in Firefox", not something that the user has no choice but to install unless they want to leave their system vulnerable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224291</id>
	<title>The HORROR!</title>
	<author>malevolentjelly</author>
	<datestamp>1244223720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wait, what's the big problem? It sounds to me like they decided to give Firefox support for what is basically<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET's equivalent of Java WebStart. It means you're using a Windows platform... which you are if you're bitching about this. They didn't alter the code for firefox, or anything-- they installed an extension.</p><p>It sounds to me like years of opensource Stockholm Syndrome has made freetards deathly frightened of platform integration and compatibility. Do you freak out when Java WebStart support is installed, also?</p><p>From the team perspective, they probably viewed it as a positive gesture--while they were updating the clickonce support on IE, they figured they would provide it on Firefox as well to give users a wider range of choice as to what their browser is.</p><p>From an enterprise perspective, you probably want to use things like ClickOnce on your company Intranet; that way web applications don't have to be cludged together in either archaic standard javascript or wacky inconsistent non-standard "modern" javascript... you can make consistent interfaces for things like electronic timesheets and such. Chances are, they don't want you removing it unless you know what you're doing. Of course, there's also some tin-foil hat linux moron who is going to remove the extension with their user-level permissions because it says "Microsoft" on it, then complain about the lack of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET web application to support. Or worse... "WHY ISN'T THIS WRITTEN IN HTML 5? IT'S A WORKING DRAFT SORT OF. HOW ABOUT WxPython?!" One might even surmise that it being user-level monkey-able might make it more open to exploitation than it would be in IE.. (GreaseMonkey, anyone?)</p><p>The fact of the matter is, it's platform integration. Nothing more.  For most users, ClickOnce is simply convenient. It just bridges them to support for secure sandboxed<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET applications that might be convenient if provided. For wingbats on slashdot, it's A GROSS INVASION OF THEIR OMG PRIVACY THAT THEY DEMAND FOR THEIR PIRATED COPY OF WINDOWS XP.</p><p>Since most of you are using a supported platform, your web browser is rather connected to the security and integration of the platform. Thus, it is Microsoft's territory, in the same way Firefox gets updated and extended if you are using Ubuntu or OpenSuSE. Of course, Firefox's biggest security hole is probably Firefox itself, but that's unimportant.</p><p>The point being is its a goddamn platform integration plugin and you people are probably afraid of your own shadows. The idea that any of you can use hideously insecure linux or mac systems, then turn around and freak out at a sandboxed<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET application starter is just awkward.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait , what 's the big problem ?
It sounds to me like they decided to give Firefox support for what is basically .NET 's equivalent of Java WebStart .
It means you 're using a Windows platform... which you are if you 're bitching about this .
They did n't alter the code for firefox , or anything-- they installed an extension.It sounds to me like years of opensource Stockholm Syndrome has made freetards deathly frightened of platform integration and compatibility .
Do you freak out when Java WebStart support is installed , also ? From the team perspective , they probably viewed it as a positive gesture--while they were updating the clickonce support on IE , they figured they would provide it on Firefox as well to give users a wider range of choice as to what their browser is.From an enterprise perspective , you probably want to use things like ClickOnce on your company Intranet ; that way web applications do n't have to be cludged together in either archaic standard javascript or wacky inconsistent non-standard " modern " javascript... you can make consistent interfaces for things like electronic timesheets and such .
Chances are , they do n't want you removing it unless you know what you 're doing .
Of course , there 's also some tin-foil hat linux moron who is going to remove the extension with their user-level permissions because it says " Microsoft " on it , then complain about the lack of .NET web application to support .
Or worse... " WHY IS N'T THIS WRITTEN IN HTML 5 ?
IT 'S A WORKING DRAFT SORT OF .
HOW ABOUT WxPython ? !
" One might even surmise that it being user-level monkey-able might make it more open to exploitation than it would be in IE.. ( GreaseMonkey , anyone ?
) The fact of the matter is , it 's platform integration .
Nothing more .
For most users , ClickOnce is simply convenient .
It just bridges them to support for secure sandboxed .NET applications that might be convenient if provided .
For wingbats on slashdot , it 's A GROSS INVASION OF THEIR OMG PRIVACY THAT THEY DEMAND FOR THEIR PIRATED COPY OF WINDOWS XP.Since most of you are using a supported platform , your web browser is rather connected to the security and integration of the platform .
Thus , it is Microsoft 's territory , in the same way Firefox gets updated and extended if you are using Ubuntu or OpenSuSE .
Of course , Firefox 's biggest security hole is probably Firefox itself , but that 's unimportant.The point being is its a goddamn platform integration plugin and you people are probably afraid of your own shadows .
The idea that any of you can use hideously insecure linux or mac systems , then turn around and freak out at a sandboxed .NET application starter is just awkward .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait, what's the big problem?
It sounds to me like they decided to give Firefox support for what is basically .NET's equivalent of Java WebStart.
It means you're using a Windows platform... which you are if you're bitching about this.
They didn't alter the code for firefox, or anything-- they installed an extension.It sounds to me like years of opensource Stockholm Syndrome has made freetards deathly frightened of platform integration and compatibility.
Do you freak out when Java WebStart support is installed, also?From the team perspective, they probably viewed it as a positive gesture--while they were updating the clickonce support on IE, they figured they would provide it on Firefox as well to give users a wider range of choice as to what their browser is.From an enterprise perspective, you probably want to use things like ClickOnce on your company Intranet; that way web applications don't have to be cludged together in either archaic standard javascript or wacky inconsistent non-standard "modern" javascript... you can make consistent interfaces for things like electronic timesheets and such.
Chances are, they don't want you removing it unless you know what you're doing.
Of course, there's also some tin-foil hat linux moron who is going to remove the extension with their user-level permissions because it says "Microsoft" on it, then complain about the lack of .NET web application to support.
Or worse... "WHY ISN'T THIS WRITTEN IN HTML 5?
IT'S A WORKING DRAFT SORT OF.
HOW ABOUT WxPython?!
" One might even surmise that it being user-level monkey-able might make it more open to exploitation than it would be in IE.. (GreaseMonkey, anyone?
)The fact of the matter is, it's platform integration.
Nothing more.
For most users, ClickOnce is simply convenient.
It just bridges them to support for secure sandboxed .NET applications that might be convenient if provided.
For wingbats on slashdot, it's A GROSS INVASION OF THEIR OMG PRIVACY THAT THEY DEMAND FOR THEIR PIRATED COPY OF WINDOWS XP.Since most of you are using a supported platform, your web browser is rather connected to the security and integration of the platform.
Thus, it is Microsoft's territory, in the same way Firefox gets updated and extended if you are using Ubuntu or OpenSuSE.
Of course, Firefox's biggest security hole is probably Firefox itself, but that's unimportant.The point being is its a goddamn platform integration plugin and you people are probably afraid of your own shadows.
The idea that any of you can use hideously insecure linux or mac systems, then turn around and freak out at a sandboxed .NET application starter is just awkward.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28225363</id>
	<title>Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?</title>
	<author>Ezrymyrh</author>
	<datestamp>1244228100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>MS next OS to be called "Squeal Like a Pig" or "Boy, You got's a purdy mouth"</htmltext>
<tokenext>MS next OS to be called " Squeal Like a Pig " or " Boy , You got 's a purdy mouth "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MS next OS to be called "Squeal Like a Pig" or "Boy, You got's a purdy mouth"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28223789</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224835</id>
	<title>Re:Now how about Java Quick Starter?</title>
	<author>YesIAmAScript</author>
	<datestamp>1244225880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My understanding is you turn that off in the Java control panel.</p><p>And that thing drives me crazy too. It has some kind of bug such that it install two copies of itself in my Firefox. Both without explicit permission.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My understanding is you turn that off in the Java control panel.And that thing drives me crazy too .
It has some kind of bug such that it install two copies of itself in my Firefox .
Both without explicit permission .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My understanding is you turn that off in the Java control panel.And that thing drives me crazy too.
It has some kind of bug such that it install two copies of itself in my Firefox.
Both without explicit permission.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224125</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28227217</id>
	<title>Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244194080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So I'm curious, since you're so obsessed with all this hot butt sex you've been having as Microsoft screws you, just how have they screwed you lately? What hostile actions has Microsoft taken towards open source lately? Was it opening the <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/opensource/" title="microsoft.com" rel="nofollow">Microsoft Open Source Labs</a> [microsoft.com]? Was it making sure <a href="http://php.iis.net/" title="iis.net" rel="nofollow">PHP runs equally well on IIS</a> [iis.net] as it does on Apache? Was it launching the <a href="http://www.codeplex.com/" title="codeplex.com" rel="nofollow">open source<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET portal CodePlex</a> [codeplex.com]? Maybe it was their monetary investment in several big open source projects? Wow, damn those evil bastards!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So I 'm curious , since you 're so obsessed with all this hot butt sex you 've been having as Microsoft screws you , just how have they screwed you lately ?
What hostile actions has Microsoft taken towards open source lately ?
Was it opening the Microsoft Open Source Labs [ microsoft.com ] ?
Was it making sure PHP runs equally well on IIS [ iis.net ] as it does on Apache ?
Was it launching the open source .NET portal CodePlex [ codeplex.com ] ?
Maybe it was their monetary investment in several big open source projects ?
Wow , damn those evil bastards !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So I'm curious, since you're so obsessed with all this hot butt sex you've been having as Microsoft screws you, just how have they screwed you lately?
What hostile actions has Microsoft taken towards open source lately?
Was it opening the Microsoft Open Source Labs [microsoft.com]?
Was it making sure PHP runs equally well on IIS [iis.net] as it does on Apache?
Was it launching the open source .NET portal CodePlex [codeplex.com]?
Maybe it was their monetary investment in several big open source projects?
Wow, damn those evil bastards!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28223789</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224281</id>
	<title>Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?</title>
	<author>mR.bRiGhTsId3</author>
	<datestamp>1244223720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I know that its bad that Microsoft silently installs things that are difficult to remove, but I can't help but wonder, if the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET plugin was actually hard to install, would we be seeing complaints about how Microsoft is leaving Firefox users out in the cold by not supporting the full<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET experience in Firefox.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know that its bad that Microsoft silently installs things that are difficult to remove , but I ca n't help but wonder , if the .NET plugin was actually hard to install , would we be seeing complaints about how Microsoft is leaving Firefox users out in the cold by not supporting the full .NET experience in Firefox .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know that its bad that Microsoft silently installs things that are difficult to remove, but I can't help but wonder, if the .NET plugin was actually hard to install, would we be seeing complaints about how Microsoft is leaving Firefox users out in the cold by not supporting the full .NET experience in Firefox.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28223789</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28249781</id>
	<title>didn't work for me</title>
	<author>FordPrefect276709</author>
	<datestamp>1244469240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I never got that FF extension - what did I do wrong?? - I feel so left out....<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;(</htmltext>
<tokenext>I never got that FF extension - what did I do wrong ? ?
- I feel so left out.... ; (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I never got that FF extension - what did I do wrong??
- I feel so left out.... ;(</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28228087</id>
	<title>pivotal point - do YOU trust microsoft</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244199900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I will follow your preference for a few days and NOT hold you responsible for the consequences.<br>Now tell me, do *you* personally trust Microsoft?</p><p>This should probably be a slashpoll too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I will follow your preference for a few days and NOT hold you responsible for the consequences.Now tell me , do * you * personally trust Microsoft ? This should probably be a slashpoll too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I will follow your preference for a few days and NOT hold you responsible for the consequences.Now tell me, do *you* personally trust Microsoft?This should probably be a slashpoll too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28225293</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224825</id>
	<title>Re:The HORROR!</title>
	<author>ratboy666</author>
	<datestamp>1244225820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, I'm a "wingbat freetard". In two words "fuck you".</p><p>This, of course, doesn't affect me. I wouldn't be arsed to comment about it, except for YOUR particular comment. Just to let you know -- we "wingbat freetards" also go crazy if a Firefox extension modifies ANOTHER extension with permission (Noscript vs Adblock). (Grrr... Don't presume that you know what's better for me. If you make that assumption, prepare to be flamed.)</p><p>On the other hand -- this is the most brilliant troll I have seen in months! Congratulations, I responded!</p><p>I wouldn't have bothered replying, except that Slashdot doesn't have a Troll+1 moderation (Troll-1 isn't applicable here; this one is pure genius).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , I 'm a " wingbat freetard " .
In two words " fuck you " .This , of course , does n't affect me .
I would n't be arsed to comment about it , except for YOUR particular comment .
Just to let you know -- we " wingbat freetards " also go crazy if a Firefox extension modifies ANOTHER extension with permission ( Noscript vs Adblock ) .
( Grrr... Do n't presume that you know what 's better for me .
If you make that assumption , prepare to be flamed .
) On the other hand -- this is the most brilliant troll I have seen in months !
Congratulations , I responded ! I would n't have bothered replying , except that Slashdot does n't have a Troll + 1 moderation ( Troll-1 is n't applicable here ; this one is pure genius ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, I'm a "wingbat freetard".
In two words "fuck you".This, of course, doesn't affect me.
I wouldn't be arsed to comment about it, except for YOUR particular comment.
Just to let you know -- we "wingbat freetards" also go crazy if a Firefox extension modifies ANOTHER extension with permission (Noscript vs Adblock).
(Grrr... Don't presume that you know what's better for me.
If you make that assumption, prepare to be flamed.
)On the other hand -- this is the most brilliant troll I have seen in months!
Congratulations, I responded!I wouldn't have bothered replying, except that Slashdot doesn't have a Troll+1 moderation (Troll-1 isn't applicable here; this one is pure genius).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224291</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28225293</id>
	<title>Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244227740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They didn't screw up.</p><p>If you don't trust Microsoft....if you don't want Microsoft messing around with your computer - DON'T LET MICROSOFT.</p><p>Install Linux and be done with it.  Or go to the Mac store and buy a mac.</p><p>EVERYONE who experienced this problem had the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net Framework installed and had automatic updates turned on.</p><p>The add-on couldn't be removed from FireFox in EXACTLY THE SAME WAY that countless others can't be removed.  When they are installed for 'all users' on the machine, individual users can't remove it.</p><p>Just like all of these others....<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; *  Java<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * VLC Player<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Adobe Acrobat<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * QuickTime<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Google Talk<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * iTunes<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Hulu<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Picasa</p><p>The 'fix' was released weeks ago - long before everyone got their panties in a wad over it.  And when I mentioned that in the last anti-ms thread here I was modded flamebait.</p><p>The worst part is that lots of people are going to honestly think they 'made Microsoft' change their mind by their complaining.  No, sorry Kid, MS had the update long before you even NOTICED.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They did n't screw up.If you do n't trust Microsoft....if you do n't want Microsoft messing around with your computer - DO N'T LET MICROSOFT.Install Linux and be done with it .
Or go to the Mac store and buy a mac.EVERYONE who experienced this problem had the .Net Framework installed and had automatic updates turned on.The add-on could n't be removed from FireFox in EXACTLY THE SAME WAY that countless others ca n't be removed .
When they are installed for 'all users ' on the machine , individual users ca n't remove it.Just like all of these others... .         * Java         * VLC Player         * Adobe Acrobat         * QuickTime         * Google Talk         * iTunes         * Hulu         * PicasaThe 'fix ' was released weeks ago - long before everyone got their panties in a wad over it .
And when I mentioned that in the last anti-ms thread here I was modded flamebait.The worst part is that lots of people are going to honestly think they 'made Microsoft ' change their mind by their complaining .
No , sorry Kid , MS had the update long before you even NOTICED .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They didn't screw up.If you don't trust Microsoft....if you don't want Microsoft messing around with your computer - DON'T LET MICROSOFT.Install Linux and be done with it.
Or go to the Mac store and buy a mac.EVERYONE who experienced this problem had the .Net Framework installed and had automatic updates turned on.The add-on couldn't be removed from FireFox in EXACTLY THE SAME WAY that countless others can't be removed.
When they are installed for 'all users' on the machine, individual users can't remove it.Just like all of these others....
        *  Java
        * VLC Player
        * Adobe Acrobat
        * QuickTime
        * Google Talk
        * iTunes
        * Hulu
        * PicasaThe 'fix' was released weeks ago - long before everyone got their panties in a wad over it.
And when I mentioned that in the last anti-ms thread here I was modded flamebait.The worst part is that lots of people are going to honestly think they 'made Microsoft' change their mind by their complaining.
No, sorry Kid, MS had the update long before you even NOTICED.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28223789</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28223789</id>
	<title>Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?</title>
	<author>Foofoobar</author>
	<datestamp>1244221920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>When a company like Microsoft 9 out of 10 times makes hostile gestures towards the open source community, are we supposed to run towards them with flowers and candy every time they screw up now and say 'we forgive you darling. lets go have buttsex on the veranda!'?<br> <br>

I dunno about you but I get screwed in the ass enough and I'm duct taping my shorts and sitting on the porch with a shotgun.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When a company like Microsoft 9 out of 10 times makes hostile gestures towards the open source community , are we supposed to run towards them with flowers and candy every time they screw up now and say 'we forgive you darling .
lets go have buttsex on the veranda ! ' ?
I dunno about you but I get screwed in the ass enough and I 'm duct taping my shorts and sitting on the porch with a shotgun .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When a company like Microsoft 9 out of 10 times makes hostile gestures towards the open source community, are we supposed to run towards them with flowers and candy every time they screw up now and say 'we forgive you darling.
lets go have buttsex on the veranda!'?
I dunno about you but I get screwed in the ass enough and I'm duct taping my shorts and sitting on the porch with a shotgun.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28223723</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28225445</id>
	<title>Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244228520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This does not work in XP. The WGA installer asks for permission, and does not install when I don't agree. The problem is, now it keeps asking after every reboot. I already spend a day digging through the Microsoft "knowledge" base, but it seems that not wanting some piece of software phoning home every day is not an option. The Microsoft support forms are even lying, saying it only runs once for legitimize users. Phoning home still counts as running in my book.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This does not work in XP .
The WGA installer asks for permission , and does not install when I do n't agree .
The problem is , now it keeps asking after every reboot .
I already spend a day digging through the Microsoft " knowledge " base , but it seems that not wanting some piece of software phoning home every day is not an option .
The Microsoft support forms are even lying , saying it only runs once for legitimize users .
Phoning home still counts as running in my book .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This does not work in XP.
The WGA installer asks for permission, and does not install when I don't agree.
The problem is, now it keeps asking after every reboot.
I already spend a day digging through the Microsoft "knowledge" base, but it seems that not wanting some piece of software phoning home every day is not an option.
The Microsoft support forms are even lying, saying it only runs once for legitimize users.
Phoning home still counts as running in my book.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224333</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28225223</id>
	<title>Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244227500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Is it too much to ask that if you have issues with MS that you bring up the legitimate issues and leave the BS alone?</p></div><p>Well, the last time I was visiting Redmond I got a concussion from a sevre blow to the head from a flying leather desk chair. Does that count?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it too much to ask that if you have issues with MS that you bring up the legitimate issues and leave the BS alone ? Well , the last time I was visiting Redmond I got a concussion from a sevre blow to the head from a flying leather desk chair .
Does that count ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it too much to ask that if you have issues with MS that you bring up the legitimate issues and leave the BS alone?Well, the last time I was visiting Redmond I got a concussion from a sevre blow to the head from a flying leather desk chair.
Does that count?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224077</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28223805</id>
	<title>Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244221920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Look out!  The gays have Personal Identification Numbers and they know how to use Automated Teller Machines!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look out !
The gays have Personal Identification Numbers and they know how to use Automated Teller Machines !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look out!
The gays have Personal Identification Numbers and they know how to use Automated Teller Machines!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28223723</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28229249</id>
	<title>Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1244210340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
So many web browsers are using Firefox now, the market share is so significant, that if they didn't sneak this plugin in,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net would have a serious disadvantage.
</p><p>
Everyone would just continue to use flash...  instead of expecting the web browser to promiscuously install software applications.
</p><p>
By the way, I see this as Active X  2.0 being involuntarily forced on people who <b>chose</b> firefox for one of the major reasons that malware couldn't easily infest it.
</p><p>
What happens when security bugs start being found in this<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net plugin??   FF could get the same bad rap IE has.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So many web browsers are using Firefox now , the market share is so significant , that if they did n't sneak this plugin in , .Net would have a serious disadvantage .
Everyone would just continue to use flash... instead of expecting the web browser to promiscuously install software applications .
By the way , I see this as Active X 2.0 being involuntarily forced on people who chose firefox for one of the major reasons that malware could n't easily infest it .
What happens when security bugs start being found in this .Net plugin ? ?
FF could get the same bad rap IE has .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
So many web browsers are using Firefox now, the market share is so significant, that if they didn't sneak this plugin in, .Net would have a serious disadvantage.
Everyone would just continue to use flash...  instead of expecting the web browser to promiscuously install software applications.
By the way, I see this as Active X  2.0 being involuntarily forced on people who chose firefox for one of the major reasons that malware couldn't easily infest it.
What happens when security bugs start being found in this .Net plugin??
FF could get the same bad rap IE has.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224281</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28227153</id>
	<title>Re:Wiping Microsoft wipes the extension</title>
	<author>Minimalist360</author>
	<datestamp>1244193720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>An anonymous poster claiming that he's been developing 25 years on Windows commercially is suddenly going to throw away his career to start anew on Linux, because an update installed a plugin. And this post is on Slashdot, and it's modded interesting. Yeah, that's SO interesting. I thought it was just drivel, predictable, and/or noise. Little did I know!</htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous poster claiming that he 's been developing 25 years on Windows commercially is suddenly going to throw away his career to start anew on Linux , because an update installed a plugin .
And this post is on Slashdot , and it 's modded interesting .
Yeah , that 's SO interesting .
I thought it was just drivel , predictable , and/or noise .
Little did I know !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous poster claiming that he's been developing 25 years on Windows commercially is suddenly going to throw away his career to start anew on Linux, because an update installed a plugin.
And this post is on Slashdot, and it's modded interesting.
Yeah, that's SO interesting.
I thought it was just drivel, predictable, and/or noise.
Little did I know!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224639</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224077</id>
	<title>Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244222880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is it too much to ask that if you have issues with MS that you bring up the legitimate issues and leave the BS alone?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it too much to ask that if you have issues with MS that you bring up the legitimate issues and leave the BS alone ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it too much to ask that if you have issues with MS that you bring up the legitimate issues and leave the BS alone?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28223789</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28225171</id>
	<title>Re:Firefox</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1244227260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's Firefox not FireFox</p></div><p>No, it's IceWeasel, with weasel pronounced the way Pauly Shore says it: "Ice Weee-zel"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's Firefox not FireFoxNo , it 's IceWeasel , with weasel pronounced the way Pauly Shore says it : " Ice Weee-zel "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's Firefox not FireFoxNo, it's IceWeasel, with weasel pronounced the way Pauly Shore says it: "Ice Weee-zel"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28225149</id>
	<title>Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?</title>
	<author>mazarin5</author>
	<datestamp>1244227140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Not quite, the majority of the people here not only don't read the article, they don't bother to read the summary they are responding to. Some don't even read the comments when they reply.</p></div><p>They are not!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not quite , the majority of the people here not only do n't read the article , they do n't bother to read the summary they are responding to .
Some do n't even read the comments when they reply.They are not !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not quite, the majority of the people here not only don't read the article, they don't bother to read the summary they are responding to.
Some don't even read the comments when they reply.They are not!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28223771</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28227337</id>
	<title>Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244194800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't mind Microsoft updating their own software.</p><p>They updated software that isn't theirs.</p><p>That's bad.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't mind Microsoft updating their own software.They updated software that is n't theirs.That 's bad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't mind Microsoft updating their own software.They updated software that isn't theirs.That's bad.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224333</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28230083</id>
	<title>This was the final-final straw for me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244222340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Very long time Windows user here. WGA was the first final straw for me but I let it slide for several years....but now with this stunt it has really pushed me over the edge. I have already switched my wife over by purchasing her a Mac Mini. I will be following suit in the next week. Really Microsoft, if wanted me to switch so badly all you had to do was ask. Your wish is my command. Thanks for the memories though.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Very long time Windows user here .
WGA was the first final straw for me but I let it slide for several years....but now with this stunt it has really pushed me over the edge .
I have already switched my wife over by purchasing her a Mac Mini .
I will be following suit in the next week .
Really Microsoft , if wanted me to switch so badly all you had to do was ask .
Your wish is my command .
Thanks for the memories though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Very long time Windows user here.
WGA was the first final straw for me but I let it slide for several years....but now with this stunt it has really pushed me over the edge.
I have already switched my wife over by purchasing her a Mac Mini.
I will be following suit in the next week.
Really Microsoft, if wanted me to switch so badly all you had to do was ask.
Your wish is my command.
Thanks for the memories though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28225537</id>
	<title>Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?</title>
	<author>cml4524</author>
	<datestamp>1244228880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First of all, those other updates don't get installed silently among other, legitimate updates. Secondly, it affected anyone that installed that<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET update regardless of how they did it.</p><p>Like someone else said, this should have been an option in the installation process for that could be unchecked. You shouldn't make changes to other people's software without their permission. So, yea, Microsoft certainly did screw up.</p><p>Is it the end of the world? No. They offered a fix, so it's more like a minor annoyance for those who don't want it, but it's still a screw-up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First of all , those other updates do n't get installed silently among other , legitimate updates .
Secondly , it affected anyone that installed that .NET update regardless of how they did it.Like someone else said , this should have been an option in the installation process for that could be unchecked .
You should n't make changes to other people 's software without their permission .
So , yea , Microsoft certainly did screw up.Is it the end of the world ?
No. They offered a fix , so it 's more like a minor annoyance for those who do n't want it , but it 's still a screw-up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First of all, those other updates don't get installed silently among other, legitimate updates.
Secondly, it affected anyone that installed that .NET update regardless of how they did it.Like someone else said, this should have been an option in the installation process for that could be unchecked.
You shouldn't make changes to other people's software without their permission.
So, yea, Microsoft certainly did screw up.Is it the end of the world?
No. They offered a fix, so it's more like a minor annoyance for those who don't want it, but it's still a screw-up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28225293</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28225415</id>
	<title>Re:The HORROR!</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1244228400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It sounds to me like years of opensource Stockholm Syndrome has made freetards deathly frightened of platform integration and compatibility.</p></div><p>Nice trolling paytard.  Hopefully you'll get a few +1 Funny moderations.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>From the team perspective, they probably viewed it as a positive gesture--while they were updating the clickonce support on IE, they figured they would provide it on Firefox as well to give users a wider range of choice as to what their browser is.</p></div><p>And the MS Office team sure took Sun's ODF plugin positively.  If every version of Java started stealth installing the Sun ODF plugin into installed versions of Office to fix the broken compatibility (and made it non-removable) don't you think Sysadmins on both sides of the aisle would be crying foul?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>For wingbats on slashdot, it's A GROSS INVASION OF THEIR OMG PRIVACY THAT THEY DEMAND FOR THEIR PIRATED COPY OF WINDOWS XP.</p></div><p>Most of the comments expressing anger were from Windows Sysadmins managing legit Windows machines.  The Linux guys laughed.  The Mac guys didn't read the article because it wasn't hosted at apple.slashdot.org<br>
Quite a few sysadmins were surprised by this because checking FF plugins isn't part of the usual procedure on a test machine that you installed a new<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET framework patch to.  Sure, fire up the cirtical<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET using apps, make sure everything's working.  Groovy on all X test machines?  Shoot the patch out to group 1.  Day 2, group 2.  Day 3, group 3<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... a week later user notices a new add-on.  WTF, it's on all the machines!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It sounds to me like years of opensource Stockholm Syndrome has made freetards deathly frightened of platform integration and compatibility.Nice trolling paytard .
Hopefully you 'll get a few + 1 Funny moderations.From the team perspective , they probably viewed it as a positive gesture--while they were updating the clickonce support on IE , they figured they would provide it on Firefox as well to give users a wider range of choice as to what their browser is.And the MS Office team sure took Sun 's ODF plugin positively .
If every version of Java started stealth installing the Sun ODF plugin into installed versions of Office to fix the broken compatibility ( and made it non-removable ) do n't you think Sysadmins on both sides of the aisle would be crying foul ? For wingbats on slashdot , it 's A GROSS INVASION OF THEIR OMG PRIVACY THAT THEY DEMAND FOR THEIR PIRATED COPY OF WINDOWS XP.Most of the comments expressing anger were from Windows Sysadmins managing legit Windows machines .
The Linux guys laughed .
The Mac guys did n't read the article because it was n't hosted at apple.slashdot.org Quite a few sysadmins were surprised by this because checking FF plugins is n't part of the usual procedure on a test machine that you installed a new .NET framework patch to .
Sure , fire up the cirtical .NET using apps , make sure everything 's working .
Groovy on all X test machines ?
Shoot the patch out to group 1 .
Day 2 , group 2 .
Day 3 , group 3 ... a week later user notices a new add-on .
WTF , it 's on all the machines !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It sounds to me like years of opensource Stockholm Syndrome has made freetards deathly frightened of platform integration and compatibility.Nice trolling paytard.
Hopefully you'll get a few +1 Funny moderations.From the team perspective, they probably viewed it as a positive gesture--while they were updating the clickonce support on IE, they figured they would provide it on Firefox as well to give users a wider range of choice as to what their browser is.And the MS Office team sure took Sun's ODF plugin positively.
If every version of Java started stealth installing the Sun ODF plugin into installed versions of Office to fix the broken compatibility (and made it non-removable) don't you think Sysadmins on both sides of the aisle would be crying foul?For wingbats on slashdot, it's A GROSS INVASION OF THEIR OMG PRIVACY THAT THEY DEMAND FOR THEIR PIRATED COPY OF WINDOWS XP.Most of the comments expressing anger were from Windows Sysadmins managing legit Windows machines.
The Linux guys laughed.
The Mac guys didn't read the article because it wasn't hosted at apple.slashdot.org
Quite a few sysadmins were surprised by this because checking FF plugins isn't part of the usual procedure on a test machine that you installed a new .NET framework patch to.
Sure, fire up the cirtical .NET using apps, make sure everything's working.
Groovy on all X test machines?
Shoot the patch out to group 1.
Day 2, group 2.
Day 3, group 3 ... a week later user notices a new add-on.
WTF, it's on all the machines!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224291</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224333</id>
	<title>Re:So the WaPo reports a story a month obsolete?</title>
	<author>Xest</author>
	<datestamp>1244223900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, you know that button you click when you install updates that has two radio options, one where you accept the terms and one where you don't?</p><p>That's where you gave permission.</p><p>If you didn't install it explicitly, the alternative is that you gave permission when you accepted automatic updates.</p><p>If you don't want these things on your system, then don't give permission. Don't give permission and then claim you never actually gave permission when you blatantly did because otherwise it wouldn't have installed in the first place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , you know that button you click when you install updates that has two radio options , one where you accept the terms and one where you do n't ? That 's where you gave permission.If you did n't install it explicitly , the alternative is that you gave permission when you accepted automatic updates.If you do n't want these things on your system , then do n't give permission .
Do n't give permission and then claim you never actually gave permission when you blatantly did because otherwise it would n't have installed in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, you know that button you click when you install updates that has two radio options, one where you accept the terms and one where you don't?That's where you gave permission.If you didn't install it explicitly, the alternative is that you gave permission when you accepted automatic updates.If you don't want these things on your system, then don't give permission.
Don't give permission and then claim you never actually gave permission when you blatantly did because otherwise it wouldn't have installed in the first place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28223823</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224693</id>
	<title>And the rest of the story...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244225280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Scott Hanselman put up a nice post today outlining the whole story. He points out why it turned out this way, how to uninstall it and even put up the source code so you can see their evil ways for those who were too lazy to unzip the xpi.</p><p>http://www.hanselman.com/blog/HowToRemoveTheNETClickOnceFirefoxExtension.aspx</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Scott Hanselman put up a nice post today outlining the whole story .
He points out why it turned out this way , how to uninstall it and even put up the source code so you can see their evil ways for those who were too lazy to unzip the xpi.http : //www.hanselman.com/blog/HowToRemoveTheNETClickOnceFirefoxExtension.aspx</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Scott Hanselman put up a nice post today outlining the whole story.
He points out why it turned out this way, how to uninstall it and even put up the source code so you can see their evil ways for those who were too lazy to unzip the xpi.http://www.hanselman.com/blog/HowToRemoveTheNETClickOnceFirefoxExtension.aspx</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28226487</id>
	<title>Nitpick</title>
	<author>the\_other\_chewey</author>
	<datestamp>1244233440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's Firefox, not FireFox. &lt;/nitpick&gt;</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's Firefox , not FireFox .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's Firefox, not FireFox. </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224473</id>
	<title>Going to be around for a long time</title>
	<author>pembo13</author>
	<datestamp>1244224500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is going to be around on machine for quite some time still.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is going to be around on machine for quite some time still .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is going to be around on machine for quite some time still.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28228291</id>
	<title>Re:Wiping Microsoft wipes the extension</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244201280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This Anonymous Coward will be removing this extension by wiping Microsoft of his machine and installing Linux.  After 25 years of developing commercial applications for Microsoft platforms, I'm done.</p></div><p>Much like a baby-eating Satanist sex-addict pedophile atheist who suddenly finds JAYZUS, right?</p><p>Here's a hint: try not to sound like a made-up conversion story and people might take you seriously.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This Anonymous Coward will be removing this extension by wiping Microsoft of his machine and installing Linux .
After 25 years of developing commercial applications for Microsoft platforms , I 'm done.Much like a baby-eating Satanist sex-addict pedophile atheist who suddenly finds JAYZUS , right ? Here 's a hint : try not to sound like a made-up conversion story and people might take you seriously .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This Anonymous Coward will be removing this extension by wiping Microsoft of his machine and installing Linux.
After 25 years of developing commercial applications for Microsoft platforms, I'm done.Much like a baby-eating Satanist sex-addict pedophile atheist who suddenly finds JAYZUS, right?Here's a hint: try not to sound like a made-up conversion story and people might take you seriously.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224639</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1532239_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28225415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224291
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1532239_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28225727
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28223771
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28223723
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1532239_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28227495
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28223771
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28223723
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1532239_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28229249
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224281
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28223789
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28223723
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1532239_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28226149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224291
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1532239_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28227337
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224333
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28223823
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28223723
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1532239_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28225149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28223771
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28223723
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1532239_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28229165
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28225293
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28223789
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28223723
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1532239_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28225809
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224077
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28223789
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28223723
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1532239_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28227245
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28223823
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28223723
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1532239_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28225945
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28223789
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28223723
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1532239_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28225475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224281
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28223789
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28223723
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1532239_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28223805
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28223723
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1532239_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28225223
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224077
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28223789
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28223723
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1532239_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28225925
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224291
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1532239_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224527
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28223823
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28223723
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1532239_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28227217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28223789
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28223723
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1532239_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28228917
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28223823
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28223723
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1532239_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28226507
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224075
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1532239_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28228087
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28225293
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28223789
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28223723
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1532239_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28226797
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224125
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1532239_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224829
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224077
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28223789
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28223723
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1532239_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28225537
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28225293
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28223789
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28223723
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1532239_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224939
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224255
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28223789
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28223723
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1532239_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28228231
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224365
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28223789
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28223723
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1532239_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28227153
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224639
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1532239_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224835
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224125
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1532239_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224825
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224291
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1532239_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28225445
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224333
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28223823
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28223723
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1532239_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28225171
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224075
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1532239_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28228291
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224639
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1532239_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28227407
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224733
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224255
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28223789
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28223723
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1532239_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28225363
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28223789
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28223723
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1532239_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28225321
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224281
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28223789
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28223723
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1532239_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28226449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224291
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1532239_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28228223
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28225145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224333
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28223823
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28223723
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1532239_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28225569
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224077
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28223789
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28223723
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_1532239.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28226639
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_1532239.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224693
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_1532239.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224075
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28225171
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28226507
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_1532239.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224125
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28226797
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224835
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_1532239.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28230083
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_1532239.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28223723
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28223805
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28223789
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224255
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224733
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28227407
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224939
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28225945
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224365
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28228231
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28225363
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224077
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28225223
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224829
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28225569
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28225809
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28225293
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28228087
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28229165
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28225537
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224281
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28225321
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28229249
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28225475
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28227217
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28223771
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28225727
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28225149
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28227495
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28223823
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224333
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28225445
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28227337
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28225145
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28228223
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224527
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28228917
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28227245
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_1532239.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224639
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28227153
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28228291
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_1532239.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224291
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28226449
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28225925
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28225415
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224825
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28224523
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1532239.28226149
</commentlist>
</conversation>
