<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_09_2243247</id>
	<title>Microsoft Sets Record With Monster Patch Tuesday</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1244556300000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://twitter.com/computerworld" rel="nofollow">CWmike</a> writes <i>"Microsoft today issued 10 security updates that <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&amp;articleId=9134156">patched a record 31 vulnerabilities</a> in Windows, Internet Explorer, Excel, Word, Windows Search and other programs, including 18 bugs marked 'critical.' Of the 10 bulletins, six patched some part of Windows, while three patched an Office application or component, and one fixed a flaw in IE. The total bug count was the most patched by Microsoft in a single month since the company began regularly scheduled updates in 2003. The previous record of 26 vulnerabilities patched occurred in both August 2008 and August 2006. 'This is a very broad bunch,' said Wolfgang Kandek, CTO at Qualys, 'compared to last month, which was really all about PowerPoint. You've got to work everywhere, servers and workstations, and even Macs if you have them. It's not getting any better, the number of vulnerabilities [Microsoft discloses] continues to grow.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>CWmike writes " Microsoft today issued 10 security updates that patched a record 31 vulnerabilities in Windows , Internet Explorer , Excel , Word , Windows Search and other programs , including 18 bugs marked 'critical .
' Of the 10 bulletins , six patched some part of Windows , while three patched an Office application or component , and one fixed a flaw in IE .
The total bug count was the most patched by Microsoft in a single month since the company began regularly scheduled updates in 2003 .
The previous record of 26 vulnerabilities patched occurred in both August 2008 and August 2006 .
'This is a very broad bunch, ' said Wolfgang Kandek , CTO at Qualys , 'compared to last month , which was really all about PowerPoint .
You 've got to work everywhere , servers and workstations , and even Macs if you have them .
It 's not getting any better , the number of vulnerabilities [ Microsoft discloses ] continues to grow .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CWmike writes "Microsoft today issued 10 security updates that patched a record 31 vulnerabilities in Windows, Internet Explorer, Excel, Word, Windows Search and other programs, including 18 bugs marked 'critical.
' Of the 10 bulletins, six patched some part of Windows, while three patched an Office application or component, and one fixed a flaw in IE.
The total bug count was the most patched by Microsoft in a single month since the company began regularly scheduled updates in 2003.
The previous record of 26 vulnerabilities patched occurred in both August 2008 and August 2006.
'This is a very broad bunch,' said Wolfgang Kandek, CTO at Qualys, 'compared to last month, which was really all about PowerPoint.
You've got to work everywhere, servers and workstations, and even Macs if you have them.
It's not getting any better, the number of vulnerabilities [Microsoft discloses] continues to grow.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28275123</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft is too big to fail</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1244567880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Funny enough, the <i>internet</i> itself would survive, since most of it does actually not depend on Windows. What would probably take a huge hit is the economy, considering that most companies rely on Windows for processing and storage.</p><p>Tempting, I tell you, tempting the dark side is...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny enough , the internet itself would survive , since most of it does actually not depend on Windows .
What would probably take a huge hit is the economy , considering that most companies rely on Windows for processing and storage.Tempting , I tell you , tempting the dark side is.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny enough, the internet itself would survive, since most of it does actually not depend on Windows.
What would probably take a huge hit is the economy, considering that most companies rely on Windows for processing and storage.Tempting, I tell you, tempting the dark side is...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274423</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274921</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft is too big to fail</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244565960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Back in the days of the Microsoft worms there was no default firewall and many default network exposed services, find one flaw in something and you could infect pretty much every other Windows machine on the net. They learned from that, and now there's very little chance of a machine being infected unless the machine calls out, either it's checking mail, browsing the web or whatever. Diversification is overrated, pretty much all *nix boxes use OpenSSL so how's that not a major monoculture? Or Apache for web hosting? Find me a remote exploit in the default config with no login info and you'll see full-blown panic in no time. Except that you don't. Nor has there been a major IIS security issue for ages either.</p><p>Computers don't act randomly. You minimize the contact area, analyze the heck out of it until you're really, really sure that it's correct with formal proof if you damn well please and then it will act that way. Always. Making five clones only gives you the chance to implement a bug five times more. And if it's really more sensitive than that, there's always firewalling off those entire networks. Code does not travel by magic, in short unless there's a secret port knock the NSA can do to make Windows bring down its own defenses it's not going to happen. Not anymore than I think you can break my Linux box.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Back in the days of the Microsoft worms there was no default firewall and many default network exposed services , find one flaw in something and you could infect pretty much every other Windows machine on the net .
They learned from that , and now there 's very little chance of a machine being infected unless the machine calls out , either it 's checking mail , browsing the web or whatever .
Diversification is overrated , pretty much all * nix boxes use OpenSSL so how 's that not a major monoculture ?
Or Apache for web hosting ?
Find me a remote exploit in the default config with no login info and you 'll see full-blown panic in no time .
Except that you do n't .
Nor has there been a major IIS security issue for ages either.Computers do n't act randomly .
You minimize the contact area , analyze the heck out of it until you 're really , really sure that it 's correct with formal proof if you damn well please and then it will act that way .
Always. Making five clones only gives you the chance to implement a bug five times more .
And if it 's really more sensitive than that , there 's always firewalling off those entire networks .
Code does not travel by magic , in short unless there 's a secret port knock the NSA can do to make Windows bring down its own defenses it 's not going to happen .
Not anymore than I think you can break my Linux box .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back in the days of the Microsoft worms there was no default firewall and many default network exposed services, find one flaw in something and you could infect pretty much every other Windows machine on the net.
They learned from that, and now there's very little chance of a machine being infected unless the machine calls out, either it's checking mail, browsing the web or whatever.
Diversification is overrated, pretty much all *nix boxes use OpenSSL so how's that not a major monoculture?
Or Apache for web hosting?
Find me a remote exploit in the default config with no login info and you'll see full-blown panic in no time.
Except that you don't.
Nor has there been a major IIS security issue for ages either.Computers don't act randomly.
You minimize the contact area, analyze the heck out of it until you're really, really sure that it's correct with formal proof if you damn well please and then it will act that way.
Always. Making five clones only gives you the chance to implement a bug five times more.
And if it's really more sensitive than that, there's always firewalling off those entire networks.
Code does not travel by magic, in short unless there's a secret port knock the NSA can do to make Windows bring down its own defenses it's not going to happen.
Not anymore than I think you can break my Linux box.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274341</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274669</id>
	<title>Re:I'm sure they could do better</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244563740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>How is parent troll?

There are definitely more bugs to fix in Windows than 31.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How is parent troll ?
There are definitely more bugs to fix in Windows than 31 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is parent troll?
There are definitely more bugs to fix in Windows than 31.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274273</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28281455</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft is too big to fail</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1244656140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Microsoft has become a single point of failure that poses and unacceptably enormous risk to our society's normal functioning.</i> <p>
The geek has been piping this tune since the launch of the IBM PC</p><p> - and we all still here.</p><p>
<i>Even if each failure is 99\% safe, sooner or later we're going to have a major Warhol Worm that brings the entire Internet to its knees--along with large portions of the world's economy. Actually, I'd wager that the NSA already has the capability, and probably several other state actors, too.</i> </p><p>
If you want to bring the Internet down - and keep it down - what you really need is a dragline to snag the right cables.</p><p> The geek's magical - whimsical - Warhol Worm is little more than a distraction.</p><p> You can do far more damage by simply mismanaging the traffic that flows through Google.</p><p>
The Windows client OS or app runs spends most of its time off-line or within the relatively safe confines of a corporate Intranet or a local ISP.</p><p>
It should not be impossible to isolate the problem.</p><p>
I'd take a small side bet that the clueless user on Automatic Updates will be adequately protected by the patch that has been sitting on the geek's PC for the last four months.

<i>The dinosaurs seemed incredibly successful, too, but too many of them were too similar--and look what happened. In diversity there is strength.</i> </p><p>
I'd say a 185 million year run <b>is</b> incredibly successful.</p><p> The dinosaurs were taken out by an event that erased more than 70 percent of Earth's living species. <br> <a href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/03/0307\_030307\_impactcrater.html" title="nationalgeographic.com">"Dinosaur-Killer" Asteroid Crater Imaged for First Time</a> [nationalgeographic.com] </p><p>
Plants. Animals. Proto-life forms.</p><p> When you get down to the basics we are  not so very different after all.</p><p>
That is the real lesson here.</p><p>
Tech is the geek's Maginot Line.</p><p>
It never reaches as far as it needs to. Impressive when seen head-on. Not so much from the backside.</p><p>
So strike from the rear. You strike at weaknesses in the user. In the administrator. The developer. The man behind the curtain.</p><p>
<i>Point of clarification: I'm not arguing against standards--but they need to be open and agreed upon, not imposed by and for the sake of monopoly.</i> </p><p>
Of course you are arguing against standards.</p><p> It is rare when standards do more than codify practice. Standards create a monoculture of their own.</p><p>
Standards emerge from committees who are ridden by internal political, ideological and economic rivalries and whose progress is glacially slow.</p><p> The entrepreneur takes the losses he must, but his real interest is in staking out new ground - and he moves very quickly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft has become a single point of failure that poses and unacceptably enormous risk to our society 's normal functioning .
The geek has been piping this tune since the launch of the IBM PC - and we all still here .
Even if each failure is 99 \ % safe , sooner or later we 're going to have a major Warhol Worm that brings the entire Internet to its knees--along with large portions of the world 's economy .
Actually , I 'd wager that the NSA already has the capability , and probably several other state actors , too .
If you want to bring the Internet down - and keep it down - what you really need is a dragline to snag the right cables .
The geek 's magical - whimsical - Warhol Worm is little more than a distraction .
You can do far more damage by simply mismanaging the traffic that flows through Google .
The Windows client OS or app runs spends most of its time off-line or within the relatively safe confines of a corporate Intranet or a local ISP .
It should not be impossible to isolate the problem .
I 'd take a small side bet that the clueless user on Automatic Updates will be adequately protected by the patch that has been sitting on the geek 's PC for the last four months .
The dinosaurs seemed incredibly successful , too , but too many of them were too similar--and look what happened .
In diversity there is strength .
I 'd say a 185 million year run is incredibly successful .
The dinosaurs were taken out by an event that erased more than 70 percent of Earth 's living species .
" Dinosaur-Killer " Asteroid Crater Imaged for First Time [ nationalgeographic.com ] Plants .
Animals. Proto-life forms .
When you get down to the basics we are not so very different after all .
That is the real lesson here .
Tech is the geek 's Maginot Line .
It never reaches as far as it needs to .
Impressive when seen head-on .
Not so much from the backside .
So strike from the rear .
You strike at weaknesses in the user .
In the administrator .
The developer .
The man behind the curtain .
Point of clarification : I 'm not arguing against standards--but they need to be open and agreed upon , not imposed by and for the sake of monopoly .
Of course you are arguing against standards .
It is rare when standards do more than codify practice .
Standards create a monoculture of their own .
Standards emerge from committees who are ridden by internal political , ideological and economic rivalries and whose progress is glacially slow .
The entrepreneur takes the losses he must , but his real interest is in staking out new ground - and he moves very quickly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft has become a single point of failure that poses and unacceptably enormous risk to our society's normal functioning.
The geek has been piping this tune since the launch of the IBM PC - and we all still here.
Even if each failure is 99\% safe, sooner or later we're going to have a major Warhol Worm that brings the entire Internet to its knees--along with large portions of the world's economy.
Actually, I'd wager that the NSA already has the capability, and probably several other state actors, too.
If you want to bring the Internet down - and keep it down - what you really need is a dragline to snag the right cables.
The geek's magical - whimsical - Warhol Worm is little more than a distraction.
You can do far more damage by simply mismanaging the traffic that flows through Google.
The Windows client OS or app runs spends most of its time off-line or within the relatively safe confines of a corporate Intranet or a local ISP.
It should not be impossible to isolate the problem.
I'd take a small side bet that the clueless user on Automatic Updates will be adequately protected by the patch that has been sitting on the geek's PC for the last four months.
The dinosaurs seemed incredibly successful, too, but too many of them were too similar--and look what happened.
In diversity there is strength.
I'd say a 185 million year run is incredibly successful.
The dinosaurs were taken out by an event that erased more than 70 percent of Earth's living species.
"Dinosaur-Killer" Asteroid Crater Imaged for First Time [nationalgeographic.com] 
Plants.
Animals. Proto-life forms.
When you get down to the basics we are  not so very different after all.
That is the real lesson here.
Tech is the geek's Maginot Line.
It never reaches as far as it needs to.
Impressive when seen head-on.
Not so much from the backside.
So strike from the rear.
You strike at weaknesses in the user.
In the administrator.
The developer.
The man behind the curtain.
Point of clarification: I'm not arguing against standards--but they need to be open and agreed upon, not imposed by and for the sake of monopoly.
Of course you are arguing against standards.
It is rare when standards do more than codify practice.
Standards create a monoculture of their own.
Standards emerge from committees who are ridden by internal political, ideological and economic rivalries and whose progress is glacially slow.
The entrepreneur takes the losses he must, but his real interest is in staking out new ground - and he moves very quickly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274341</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274935</id>
	<title>So what?</title>
	<author>Velorium</author>
	<datestamp>1244566140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well if they're being fixed what's the problem? If nobody knew about them in the first place and they're spotting them and resolving them, who the hell cares?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well if they 're being fixed what 's the problem ?
If nobody knew about them in the first place and they 're spotting them and resolving them , who the hell cares ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well if they're being fixed what's the problem?
If nobody knew about them in the first place and they're spotting them and resolving them, who the hell cares?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28275161</id>
	<title>Re:The positive side of the Borg icon</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244568240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Squashing 31 vulnerabilities in a single patch, is, in a word, efficient.</p></div><p>Well, that's <em>one</em> way to positively spin "sat on patches until there were enough to bother with".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Squashing 31 vulnerabilities in a single patch , is , in a word , efficient.Well , that 's one way to positively spin " sat on patches until there were enough to bother with " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Squashing 31 vulnerabilities in a single patch, is, in a word, efficient.Well, that's one way to positively spin "sat on patches until there were enough to bother with".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274383</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28289445</id>
	<title>Re:Vulnerabilities?</title>
	<author>jawahar</author>
	<datestamp>1244656620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think Govt must mandate to OPEN SOURCE these 31 vulnerabilities, including 18 bugs so that customers can evaluate the direct and indirect impact on their other software systems.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think Govt must mandate to OPEN SOURCE these 31 vulnerabilities , including 18 bugs so that customers can evaluate the direct and indirect impact on their other software systems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think Govt must mandate to OPEN SOURCE these 31 vulnerabilities, including 18 bugs so that customers can evaluate the direct and indirect impact on their other software systems.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274433</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274757</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft is too big to fail</title>
	<author>symbolset</author>
	<datestamp>1244564340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why is it these days that when I see the words "too big to fail" attached to a company that I automatically imagine it is secretly burning down from within?
</p><p>It's not a few compromised hosts.  It's several millions under the control of no more than ten people.  Any one of them could sht down the Internet, and would if they saw a profit in it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is it these days that when I see the words " too big to fail " attached to a company that I automatically imagine it is secretly burning down from within ?
It 's not a few compromised hosts .
It 's several millions under the control of no more than ten people .
Any one of them could sht down the Internet , and would if they saw a profit in it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is it these days that when I see the words "too big to fail" attached to a company that I automatically imagine it is secretly burning down from within?
It's not a few compromised hosts.
It's several millions under the control of no more than ten people.
Any one of them could sht down the Internet, and would if they saw a profit in it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274423</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274793</id>
	<title>poem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244564700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ah jeez comparing linux to windows please<br>we try to compare but do we dare<br>they will always be two different peas</p><p>they are both OSes,<br>and windows will always need patches<br>and the year of the linux desktop...we'll never see!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah jeez comparing linux to windows pleasewe try to compare but do we darethey will always be two different peasthey are both OSes,and windows will always need patchesand the year of the linux desktop...we 'll never see !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah jeez comparing linux to windows pleasewe try to compare but do we darethey will always be two different peasthey are both OSes,and windows will always need patchesand the year of the linux desktop...we'll never see!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274341</id>
	<title>Microsoft is too big to fail</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244560860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft has become a single point of failure that poses and unacceptably enormous risk to our society's normal functioning. Consider it in light of the birthday paradox. Even if each failure is 99\% safe, sooner or later we're going to have a major Warhol Worm that brings the entire Internet to its knees--along with large portions of the world's economy. Actually, I'd wager that the NSA already has the capability, and probably several other state actors, too.</p><p>Massive monoculture is always dangerous. The dinosaurs seemed incredibly successful, too, but too many of them were too similar--and look what happened. In diversity there is strength.</p><p>I'm not saying we should kill Microsoft. Just cut it up into four or five small pieces, give each of them a copy of the source code, and tell them to run with it. No non-public communications permitted, and let the customers actually have the MEANINGFUL freedom to pick and choose. Not only will there be more pressure to produce new versions, but within a few versions we'll have enough diversity to prevent totally massive fails.</p><p>Point of clarification: I'm not arguing against standards--but they need to be open and agreed upon, not imposed by and for the sake of monopoly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft has become a single point of failure that poses and unacceptably enormous risk to our society 's normal functioning .
Consider it in light of the birthday paradox .
Even if each failure is 99 \ % safe , sooner or later we 're going to have a major Warhol Worm that brings the entire Internet to its knees--along with large portions of the world 's economy .
Actually , I 'd wager that the NSA already has the capability , and probably several other state actors , too.Massive monoculture is always dangerous .
The dinosaurs seemed incredibly successful , too , but too many of them were too similar--and look what happened .
In diversity there is strength.I 'm not saying we should kill Microsoft .
Just cut it up into four or five small pieces , give each of them a copy of the source code , and tell them to run with it .
No non-public communications permitted , and let the customers actually have the MEANINGFUL freedom to pick and choose .
Not only will there be more pressure to produce new versions , but within a few versions we 'll have enough diversity to prevent totally massive fails.Point of clarification : I 'm not arguing against standards--but they need to be open and agreed upon , not imposed by and for the sake of monopoly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft has become a single point of failure that poses and unacceptably enormous risk to our society's normal functioning.
Consider it in light of the birthday paradox.
Even if each failure is 99\% safe, sooner or later we're going to have a major Warhol Worm that brings the entire Internet to its knees--along with large portions of the world's economy.
Actually, I'd wager that the NSA already has the capability, and probably several other state actors, too.Massive monoculture is always dangerous.
The dinosaurs seemed incredibly successful, too, but too many of them were too similar--and look what happened.
In diversity there is strength.I'm not saying we should kill Microsoft.
Just cut it up into four or five small pieces, give each of them a copy of the source code, and tell them to run with it.
No non-public communications permitted, and let the customers actually have the MEANINGFUL freedom to pick and choose.
Not only will there be more pressure to produce new versions, but within a few versions we'll have enough diversity to prevent totally massive fails.Point of clarification: I'm not arguing against standards--but they need to be open and agreed upon, not imposed by and for the sake of monopoly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28280437</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft is too big to fail</title>
	<author>D Ninja</author>
	<datestamp>1244652300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In numbers there is strength as well. There is quite some evidence that birds are the living direct descendants of the dinosaurs - and in a way I have always been puzzled on how it would be possible that all dinosaurs would become extinct but other types of animals (mammals, crocodiles) not. Dinosaurs were often huge animals, so relative few numbers before the earth is full. That is more likely to have been their undoing. When 90\% gets killed, finding a mate becomes really hard due to the huge distance between individuals.</p> </div><p>It's not a car analogy...cannot parse...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In numbers there is strength as well .
There is quite some evidence that birds are the living direct descendants of the dinosaurs - and in a way I have always been puzzled on how it would be possible that all dinosaurs would become extinct but other types of animals ( mammals , crocodiles ) not .
Dinosaurs were often huge animals , so relative few numbers before the earth is full .
That is more likely to have been their undoing .
When 90 \ % gets killed , finding a mate becomes really hard due to the huge distance between individuals .
It 's not a car analogy...can not parse.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In numbers there is strength as well.
There is quite some evidence that birds are the living direct descendants of the dinosaurs - and in a way I have always been puzzled on how it would be possible that all dinosaurs would become extinct but other types of animals (mammals, crocodiles) not.
Dinosaurs were often huge animals, so relative few numbers before the earth is full.
That is more likely to have been their undoing.
When 90\% gets killed, finding a mate becomes really hard due to the huge distance between individuals.
It's not a car analogy...cannot parse...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274523</id>
	<title>This is either good or bad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244562300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>the number of vulnerabilities [Microsoft discloses] continues to grow.'</i> </p><p>This is either good or bad.  I cannot tell without knowing the history of their disclosure to (stuck in the pipeline) ratio.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the number of vulnerabilities [ Microsoft discloses ] continues to grow .
' This is either good or bad .
I can not tell without knowing the history of their disclosure to ( stuck in the pipeline ) ratio .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> the number of vulnerabilities [Microsoft discloses] continues to grow.
' This is either good or bad.
I cannot tell without knowing the history of their disclosure to (stuck in the pipeline) ratio.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28277233</id>
	<title>Re:Vulnerabilities?</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1244632140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A bug is something not working as intended. Slashdot's rendering [...]</p></div><p>Snipped, but not so as to change the meaning<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A bug is something not working as intended .
Slashdot 's rendering [ ... ] Snipped , but not so as to change the meaning ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A bug is something not working as intended.
Slashdot's rendering [...]Snipped, but not so as to change the meaning ;)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274995</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274459</id>
	<title>This explains the update warning at work</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244561820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I work in a department that uses mostly Macs (the rest of the company using PCs, as would be expected).  Since we mostly use Macs, and since our IT people have explicitly stated they don't service Macs, we were a little confused when an email went around saying not to update our systems until IT had a chance to clear it.  Obviously it was never meant for my department, but given the breadth of fixes, I'm wondering what kind of hell IT will catch if the Sales or Admin departments get updated and find applications broken.</p><p>Has anyone had anything break from this update, or has it been smooth sailing?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I work in a department that uses mostly Macs ( the rest of the company using PCs , as would be expected ) .
Since we mostly use Macs , and since our IT people have explicitly stated they do n't service Macs , we were a little confused when an email went around saying not to update our systems until IT had a chance to clear it .
Obviously it was never meant for my department , but given the breadth of fixes , I 'm wondering what kind of hell IT will catch if the Sales or Admin departments get updated and find applications broken.Has anyone had anything break from this update , or has it been smooth sailing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I work in a department that uses mostly Macs (the rest of the company using PCs, as would be expected).
Since we mostly use Macs, and since our IT people have explicitly stated they don't service Macs, we were a little confused when an email went around saying not to update our systems until IT had a chance to clear it.
Obviously it was never meant for my department, but given the breadth of fixes, I'm wondering what kind of hell IT will catch if the Sales or Admin departments get updated and find applications broken.Has anyone had anything break from this update, or has it been smooth sailing?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28275643</id>
	<title>Re:M-M-M-M-M-onster Patch! (n/t)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244571660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that was so unfunny I shit myself</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that was so unfunny I shit myself</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that was so unfunny I shit myself</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274595</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28276433</id>
	<title>Re:Even Macs?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244666280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Java VM allows arbitrary code execution on Max OSX".<br>(Repeat 10 times until you get it).</p><p>And before you start about how that's "not the same" because Sun is a different company, consider this. XP SP3, Vista, Windows have all been progressively more secure. ActiveX and driveby installs are *almost* a thing of the past, and the last major bad shit was Sasser Worm and the likes that exploited open services.</p><p>But nothing will stop some lemon installing the latest screensaver, or 1000 email smileys onto their system, and once the trojan or whatever is *inside* the machine calling out, there's not a lot you can do on *any* O/S. For me now, I don't worry so much about the core Windows anymore, but fret every time my wife or kids installs something they got off the net.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Java VM allows arbitrary code execution on Max OSX " .
( Repeat 10 times until you get it ) .And before you start about how that 's " not the same " because Sun is a different company , consider this .
XP SP3 , Vista , Windows have all been progressively more secure .
ActiveX and driveby installs are * almost * a thing of the past , and the last major bad shit was Sasser Worm and the likes that exploited open services.But nothing will stop some lemon installing the latest screensaver , or 1000 email smileys onto their system , and once the trojan or whatever is * inside * the machine calling out , there 's not a lot you can do on * any * O/S .
For me now , I do n't worry so much about the core Windows anymore , but fret every time my wife or kids installs something they got off the net .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Java VM allows arbitrary code execution on Max OSX".
(Repeat 10 times until you get it).And before you start about how that's "not the same" because Sun is a different company, consider this.
XP SP3, Vista, Windows have all been progressively more secure.
ActiveX and driveby installs are *almost* a thing of the past, and the last major bad shit was Sasser Worm and the likes that exploited open services.But nothing will stop some lemon installing the latest screensaver, or 1000 email smileys onto their system, and once the trojan or whatever is *inside* the machine calling out, there's not a lot you can do on *any* O/S.
For me now, I don't worry so much about the core Windows anymore, but fret every time my wife or kids installs something they got off the net.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274369</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28275629</id>
	<title>Re:5 critical updates for me</title>
	<author>perryizgr8</author>
	<datestamp>1244571600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>After reading the headline here I instantly closed firefox, opened IE and did my updates (and for Office too).  5 were listed critical.   There were a total of 9 updates and some of those were for hardware.</p></div><p>either you are lying or i am mad. you DON'T need ie for windows/microsoft update.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>After reading the headline here I instantly closed firefox , opened IE and did my updates ( and for Office too ) .
5 were listed critical .
There were a total of 9 updates and some of those were for hardware.either you are lying or i am mad .
you DO N'T need ie for windows/microsoft update .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After reading the headline here I instantly closed firefox, opened IE and did my updates (and for Office too).
5 were listed critical.
There were a total of 9 updates and some of those were for hardware.either you are lying or i am mad.
you DON'T need ie for windows/microsoft update.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274741</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28275071</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft is too big to fail</title>
	<author>TheVelvetFlamebait</author>
	<datestamp>1244567460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Me? I've quit playing the moderation game and opted out of moderation long ago.</p></div></blockquote><p>If you want to make the moderation system better, you might consider contributing.</p><blockquote><div><p>If<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. wasn't so poorly programmed, I suppose that might exempt my posts from moderation. Something like 'judge not and be not judged'?</p></div></blockquote><p>Sure, that could work. But, of course, you would have to start at -1 in case you started posting links to goatse or attack sites in all your posts, but at least there would be no chance of you being modded up!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Me ?
I 've quit playing the moderation game and opted out of moderation long ago.If you want to make the moderation system better , you might consider contributing.If / .
was n't so poorly programmed , I suppose that might exempt my posts from moderation .
Something like 'judge not and be not judged ' ? Sure , that could work .
But , of course , you would have to start at -1 in case you started posting links to goatse or attack sites in all your posts , but at least there would be no chance of you being modded up !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Me?
I've quit playing the moderation game and opted out of moderation long ago.If you want to make the moderation system better, you might consider contributing.If /.
wasn't so poorly programmed, I suppose that might exempt my posts from moderation.
Something like 'judge not and be not judged'?Sure, that could work.
But, of course, you would have to start at -1 in case you started posting links to goatse or attack sites in all your posts, but at least there would be no chance of you being modded up!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274457</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28289715</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft is too big to fail</title>
	<author>RocketRabbit</author>
	<datestamp>1244658780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Back in the days of the Microsoft worms..."</p><p>OK you already lost me.</p><p>Despite the housecleaning Microsoft is still THE hosting platform for literally thousands of botnets.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Back in the days of the Microsoft worms... " OK you already lost me.Despite the housecleaning Microsoft is still THE hosting platform for literally thousands of botnets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Back in the days of the Microsoft worms..."OK you already lost me.Despite the housecleaning Microsoft is still THE hosting platform for literally thousands of botnets.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274921</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274433</id>
	<title>Vulnerabilities?</title>
	<author>Korbeau</author>
	<datestamp>1244561580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Vulnerabilities?  What does this word mean?  "31 vulnerabilities, including 18 bugs marked as critical."</p><p>In my mind a bug and a vulnerability are 2 different things, one englobing the other.</p><p>Let me get this straight<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... if you're telling me my computer has a "vulnerability", it means I got chances to get a notepad.exe application start out of nowhere with the words "I've hax0r Ur C8mput8r" or something in my face.</p><p>Reading the article I don't know if it's some random critical bug in some MS application, or if it depends of me running a service in X or Y situation and the attacker is in the intranet or whatever, or if I need to go to a very *very* untrusted site that even Avast! won't let me do to get attacked<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... please be specific!</p><p>Every month or so there is such articles about MS patches<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... hell, let's do this with every god-damn software patches around?  With Ubuntu you get to install patches every week also!  Heck, the Java upgrader thingy pops-up every month too.</p><p>What does "vulnerabilities" mean, in this context, seriously?  Am I in danger?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Vulnerabilities ?
What does this word mean ?
" 31 vulnerabilities , including 18 bugs marked as critical .
" In my mind a bug and a vulnerability are 2 different things , one englobing the other.Let me get this straight ... if you 're telling me my computer has a " vulnerability " , it means I got chances to get a notepad.exe application start out of nowhere with the words " I 've hax0r Ur C8mput8r " or something in my face.Reading the article I do n't know if it 's some random critical bug in some MS application , or if it depends of me running a service in X or Y situation and the attacker is in the intranet or whatever , or if I need to go to a very * very * untrusted site that even Avast !
wo n't let me do to get attacked ... please be specific ! Every month or so there is such articles about MS patches ... hell , let 's do this with every god-damn software patches around ?
With Ubuntu you get to install patches every week also !
Heck , the Java upgrader thingy pops-up every month too.What does " vulnerabilities " mean , in this context , seriously ?
Am I in danger ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Vulnerabilities?
What does this word mean?
"31 vulnerabilities, including 18 bugs marked as critical.
"In my mind a bug and a vulnerability are 2 different things, one englobing the other.Let me get this straight ... if you're telling me my computer has a "vulnerability", it means I got chances to get a notepad.exe application start out of nowhere with the words "I've hax0r Ur C8mput8r" or something in my face.Reading the article I don't know if it's some random critical bug in some MS application, or if it depends of me running a service in X or Y situation and the attacker is in the intranet or whatever, or if I need to go to a very *very* untrusted site that even Avast!
won't let me do to get attacked ... please be specific!Every month or so there is such articles about MS patches ... hell, let's do this with every god-damn software patches around?
With Ubuntu you get to install patches every week also!
Heck, the Java upgrader thingy pops-up every month too.What does "vulnerabilities" mean, in this context, seriously?
Am I in danger?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28277997</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft is too big to fail</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244640480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Didn't you write this same crap yesterday on another topic?  Do you have this generic post sitting open on notepad hoping to copy &amp; paste a couple of times a day?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't you write this same crap yesterday on another topic ?
Do you have this generic post sitting open on notepad hoping to copy &amp; paste a couple of times a day ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't you write this same crap yesterday on another topic?
Do you have this generic post sitting open on notepad hoping to copy &amp; paste a couple of times a day?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274423</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28278173</id>
	<title>Re:pan-MS patch</title>
	<author>Ginger Unicorn</author>
	<datestamp>1244641980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>are you a fucking retard? or do you just live in opposite-land?</htmltext>
<tokenext>are you a fucking retard ?
or do you just live in opposite-land ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>are you a fucking retard?
or do you just live in opposite-land?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274801</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274273</id>
	<title>I'm sure they could do better</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244560260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Next tuesday they could double that amount with the right attitude...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Next tuesday they could double that amount with the right attitude.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Next tuesday they could double that amount with the right attitude...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274423</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft is too big to fail</title>
	<author>Daniel Dvorkin</author>
	<datestamp>1244561520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I agree that the Windows monocultire is a bad thing, I think it's important to remember that you could kill every single Windows machine in the world and most of the infrastructure than runs the internet would keep humming along quite happily.  What's at risk is primarily desktops and corporate (intranet) servers.  Losing these machines would be bad, but "brings the entire Internet to its knees" is an exaggeration.  Admins would just cut off the infected machines and keep going.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I agree that the Windows monocultire is a bad thing , I think it 's important to remember that you could kill every single Windows machine in the world and most of the infrastructure than runs the internet would keep humming along quite happily .
What 's at risk is primarily desktops and corporate ( intranet ) servers .
Losing these machines would be bad , but " brings the entire Internet to its knees " is an exaggeration .
Admins would just cut off the infected machines and keep going .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I agree that the Windows monocultire is a bad thing, I think it's important to remember that you could kill every single Windows machine in the world and most of the infrastructure than runs the internet would keep humming along quite happily.
What's at risk is primarily desktops and corporate (intranet) servers.
Losing these machines would be bad, but "brings the entire Internet to its knees" is an exaggeration.
Admins would just cut off the infected machines and keep going.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274341</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28277287</id>
	<title>Re:unethical technology</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244632860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A lot of extra *PAID* work, it's called putting your own interests before those of the client.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A lot of extra * PAID * work , it 's called putting your own interests before those of the client .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A lot of extra *PAID* work, it's called putting your own interests before those of the client.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28275015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28297267</id>
	<title>Re:Scary Good or Scary Bad?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244747400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Assuming you're running on the same hardware, with a relatively recent video card, cpu, etc., your Windows install should be no slower, and quite probably faster at running 3d games as compared to the *BSD box. If it is slower, you're either starving it for resources, or just have it misconfigured. And I'd guess that a lack of resources for the OS would count as misconfigured as well, so that's what it really boils down to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Assuming you 're running on the same hardware , with a relatively recent video card , cpu , etc. , your Windows install should be no slower , and quite probably faster at running 3d games as compared to the * BSD box .
If it is slower , you 're either starving it for resources , or just have it misconfigured .
And I 'd guess that a lack of resources for the OS would count as misconfigured as well , so that 's what it really boils down to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Assuming you're running on the same hardware, with a relatively recent video card, cpu, etc., your Windows install should be no slower, and quite probably faster at running 3d games as compared to the *BSD box.
If it is slower, you're either starving it for resources, or just have it misconfigured.
And I'd guess that a lack of resources for the OS would count as misconfigured as well, so that's what it really boils down to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274415</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274791</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft is too big to fail</title>
	<author>BronsCon</author>
	<datestamp>1244564700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For pure irony, I mod you +5, Fail.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For pure irony , I mod you + 5 , Fail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For pure irony, I mod you +5, Fail.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274457</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28276571</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft is too big to fail</title>
	<author>tiggertaebo</author>
	<datestamp>1244624880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who cares that web/dns servers etc keep running if there are no clients to make use of them?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who cares that web/dns servers etc keep running if there are no clients to make use of them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who cares that web/dns servers etc keep running if there are no clients to make use of them?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274423</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274457</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft is too big to fail</title>
	<author>shanen</author>
	<datestamp>1244561820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To the spineless cowardly censorious moron with the negative mod points:</p><p>Exactly what part of the post were you unable to understand? If you don't ask questions, you'll just continue being a bloody ignorant twit.</p><p>And your mother wore army boots, too.</p><p>However, I do thank you for your additional evidence of the quality of most of the moderation on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.--but it was scarcely needed. I've pretty much given up looking for funny or witty posts these days. A moderation of +5 funny apparently means that some moderators recognized at least one of the traditional 'funny' memes in the post.</p><p>Me? I've quit playing the moderation game and opted out of moderation long ago. If<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. wasn't so poorly programmed, I suppose that might exempt my posts from moderation. Something like 'judge not and be not judged'?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To the spineless cowardly censorious moron with the negative mod points : Exactly what part of the post were you unable to understand ?
If you do n't ask questions , you 'll just continue being a bloody ignorant twit.And your mother wore army boots , too.However , I do thank you for your additional evidence of the quality of most of the moderation on /.--but it was scarcely needed .
I 've pretty much given up looking for funny or witty posts these days .
A moderation of + 5 funny apparently means that some moderators recognized at least one of the traditional 'funny ' memes in the post.Me ?
I 've quit playing the moderation game and opted out of moderation long ago .
If / .
was n't so poorly programmed , I suppose that might exempt my posts from moderation .
Something like 'judge not and be not judged ' ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To the spineless cowardly censorious moron with the negative mod points:Exactly what part of the post were you unable to understand?
If you don't ask questions, you'll just continue being a bloody ignorant twit.And your mother wore army boots, too.However, I do thank you for your additional evidence of the quality of most of the moderation on /.--but it was scarcely needed.
I've pretty much given up looking for funny or witty posts these days.
A moderation of +5 funny apparently means that some moderators recognized at least one of the traditional 'funny' memes in the post.Me?
I've quit playing the moderation game and opted out of moderation long ago.
If /.
wasn't so poorly programmed, I suppose that might exempt my posts from moderation.
Something like 'judge not and be not judged'?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274341</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274885</id>
	<title>Oh joy!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244565600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft. Windows. Updates. Patches. On slashdot?</p><p>*quickly gets the popcorn and F5's the comments*</p><p>Oh good one!</p><p>*munch munch*</p><p>hahahaha funny</p><p>*munch*</p><p>ooooo</p><p>*munch munch*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft .
Windows. Updates .
Patches. On slashdot ?
* quickly gets the popcorn and F5 's the comments * Oh good one !
* munch munch * hahahaha funny * munch * ooooo * munch munch *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft.
Windows. Updates.
Patches. On slashdot?
*quickly gets the popcorn and F5's the comments*Oh good one!
*munch munch*hahahaha funny*munch*ooooo*munch munch*</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28276255</id>
	<title>Re:I'm sure they could do better</title>
	<author>Centurix</author>
	<datestamp>1244664420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean Dr. Watson Snr?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean Dr. Watson Snr ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean Dr. Watson Snr?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28275003</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28275837</id>
	<title>Sure, that's impressive, but</title>
	<author>commodoresloat</author>
	<datestamp>1244573340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>what I found really impressive about this Monster Patch is the fact that they were able to apply it to the Monster without getting bitten and slashed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>what I found really impressive about this Monster Patch is the fact that they were able to apply it to the Monster without getting bitten and slashed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what I found really impressive about this Monster Patch is the fact that they were able to apply it to the Monster without getting bitten and slashed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274383</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28275391</id>
	<title>Um...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244569920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Am I the only one who was hoping for a Monster Patch Tuesday event?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Am I the only one who was hoping for a Monster Patch Tuesday event ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Am I the only one who was hoping for a Monster Patch Tuesday event?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274291</id>
	<title>sub-prime vulnerabilities</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244560440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When is it going to collapse and bankrupt Microsoft?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When is it going to collapse and bankrupt Microsoft ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When is it going to collapse and bankrupt Microsoft?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274651</id>
	<title>Re:This explains the update warning at work</title>
	<author>cupantae</author>
	<datestamp>1244563560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I work in a department that uses mostly Macs (the rest of the company using Windows, as would be expected). Since we mostly use Macs, and since our IT people have explicitly stated they don't service Macs, we were a little confused when an email went around saying not to update our systems until IT had a chance to clear it. Obviously it was never meant for my department, but given the breadth of fixes, I'm wondering what kind of hell IT will catch if the Sales or Admin departments get updated and find applications broken.</p><p>Has anyone had anything break from this update, or has it been smooth sailing?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I work in a department that uses mostly Macs ( the rest of the company using Windows , as would be expected ) .
Since we mostly use Macs , and since our IT people have explicitly stated they do n't service Macs , we were a little confused when an email went around saying not to update our systems until IT had a chance to clear it .
Obviously it was never meant for my department , but given the breadth of fixes , I 'm wondering what kind of hell IT will catch if the Sales or Admin departments get updated and find applications broken.Has anyone had anything break from this update , or has it been smooth sailing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I work in a department that uses mostly Macs (the rest of the company using Windows, as would be expected).
Since we mostly use Macs, and since our IT people have explicitly stated they don't service Macs, we were a little confused when an email went around saying not to update our systems until IT had a chance to clear it.
Obviously it was never meant for my department, but given the breadth of fixes, I'm wondering what kind of hell IT will catch if the Sales or Admin departments get updated and find applications broken.Has anyone had anything break from this update, or has it been smooth sailing?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274459</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28278691</id>
	<title>Re:This explains the update warning at work</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1244644860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, there were semi-recent updates for 10.5 too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , there were semi-recent updates for 10.5 too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, there were semi-recent updates for 10.5 too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274459</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274629</id>
	<title>Re:M-M-M-M-M-onster Patch! (n/t)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244563320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He did the patch<br>He did the monster patch<br>The monster patch<br>It was a graveyard smash<br>He did the patch<br>It caught on in a flash<br>He did the patch<br>He did the monster patch</p><p>etc</p><p>Now someone do it properly</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He did the patchHe did the monster patchThe monster patchIt was a graveyard smashHe did the patchIt caught on in a flashHe did the patchHe did the monster patchetcNow someone do it properly</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He did the patchHe did the monster patchThe monster patchIt was a graveyard smashHe did the patchIt caught on in a flashHe did the patchHe did the monster patchetcNow someone do it properly</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274323</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274741</id>
	<title>5 critical updates for me</title>
	<author>Mistlefoot</author>
	<datestamp>1244564280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am currently using Windows Vista, that was, as of 1 week ago, up to date.  I am also using IE 8.  I have Office 2003 on this machine.  I have automatic updates turned off as I do them weekly and like to see what it coming in.<br><br>After reading the headline here I instantly closed firefox, opened IE and did my updates (and for Office too).  5 were listed critical.   There were a total of 9 updates and some of those were for hardware.<br><br>Reading the article does not offer clarity but I suspect that this includes updates for different OS'es, different versions of Office and different versions of IE.  The sentence "work everywhere, servers and workstations, and even Macs" implies that these were updates involving every category of software Microsoft makes.<br><br>While even 5 critical updates are too many, I really wish the article had touched on how many critical updates would be required for Vista, with IE 8 and Office 2007 (the newest version).  Although I am sure greed is the larger reason, Microsoft has been trying to stop selling XP for about 2 years now but still continue to update it (and will be for some time I am sure).  When talking about security my expectation is that you will be using the laterst versions of Linux (pick your vendor), Windows, Apple software or even BSD.  If you aren't, you wear some of the burden of responsibility as well as the OS when problems arise.<br><br>I distrust MS as much as the next guy (as I said, I manually do my windows updates BUT set the updates to run automatically in Ubuntu), but I really wish people didn't go out of the way to make MS look bad when they do a fine job of that on their own.  I have it when MS spouts Linux FUD too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am currently using Windows Vista , that was , as of 1 week ago , up to date .
I am also using IE 8 .
I have Office 2003 on this machine .
I have automatic updates turned off as I do them weekly and like to see what it coming in.After reading the headline here I instantly closed firefox , opened IE and did my updates ( and for Office too ) .
5 were listed critical .
There were a total of 9 updates and some of those were for hardware.Reading the article does not offer clarity but I suspect that this includes updates for different OS'es , different versions of Office and different versions of IE .
The sentence " work everywhere , servers and workstations , and even Macs " implies that these were updates involving every category of software Microsoft makes.While even 5 critical updates are too many , I really wish the article had touched on how many critical updates would be required for Vista , with IE 8 and Office 2007 ( the newest version ) .
Although I am sure greed is the larger reason , Microsoft has been trying to stop selling XP for about 2 years now but still continue to update it ( and will be for some time I am sure ) .
When talking about security my expectation is that you will be using the laterst versions of Linux ( pick your vendor ) , Windows , Apple software or even BSD .
If you are n't , you wear some of the burden of responsibility as well as the OS when problems arise.I distrust MS as much as the next guy ( as I said , I manually do my windows updates BUT set the updates to run automatically in Ubuntu ) , but I really wish people did n't go out of the way to make MS look bad when they do a fine job of that on their own .
I have it when MS spouts Linux FUD too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am currently using Windows Vista, that was, as of 1 week ago, up to date.
I am also using IE 8.
I have Office 2003 on this machine.
I have automatic updates turned off as I do them weekly and like to see what it coming in.After reading the headline here I instantly closed firefox, opened IE and did my updates (and for Office too).
5 were listed critical.
There were a total of 9 updates and some of those were for hardware.Reading the article does not offer clarity but I suspect that this includes updates for different OS'es, different versions of Office and different versions of IE.
The sentence "work everywhere, servers and workstations, and even Macs" implies that these were updates involving every category of software Microsoft makes.While even 5 critical updates are too many, I really wish the article had touched on how many critical updates would be required for Vista, with IE 8 and Office 2007 (the newest version).
Although I am sure greed is the larger reason, Microsoft has been trying to stop selling XP for about 2 years now but still continue to update it (and will be for some time I am sure).
When talking about security my expectation is that you will be using the laterst versions of Linux (pick your vendor), Windows, Apple software or even BSD.
If you aren't, you wear some of the burden of responsibility as well as the OS when problems arise.I distrust MS as much as the next guy (as I said, I manually do my windows updates BUT set the updates to run automatically in Ubuntu), but I really wish people didn't go out of the way to make MS look bad when they do a fine job of that on their own.
I have it when MS spouts Linux FUD too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274819</id>
	<title>Futile Comparison</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244565000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It always amuses me when people see M$ patching a bunch of vulns, and then make a comment like 'But Umbuntu (sic) is much worserer! It patched ( m$\_vulns + 10 ) this month!'... or vice versa.</p><p>With Linux distos, you can pretty much count on the count being pretty much accurate, due to the defacto auditing that occurs as a function of the open source methodology.</p><p>In comparison, M$'s counts are basically meaningless, unless you are one of those gullible fanbois who believe M$ would never lie. Ever.</p><p>It's all about disclosure. Disclosure in open source is real, disclosure by the likes of M$ and Apple is pretty much based on what makes them look the best in the marketplace.<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It always amuses me when people see M $ patching a bunch of vulns , and then make a comment like 'But Umbuntu ( sic ) is much worserer !
It patched ( m $ \ _vulns + 10 ) this month ! '.. .
or vice versa.With Linux distos , you can pretty much count on the count being pretty much accurate , due to the defacto auditing that occurs as a function of the open source methodology.In comparison , M $ 's counts are basically meaningless , unless you are one of those gullible fanbois who believe M $ would never lie .
Ever.It 's all about disclosure .
Disclosure in open source is real , disclosure by the likes of M $ and Apple is pretty much based on what makes them look the best in the marketplace .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>It always amuses me when people see M$ patching a bunch of vulns, and then make a comment like 'But Umbuntu (sic) is much worserer!
It patched ( m$\_vulns + 10 ) this month!'...
or vice versa.With Linux distos, you can pretty much count on the count being pretty much accurate, due to the defacto auditing that occurs as a function of the open source methodology.In comparison, M$'s counts are basically meaningless, unless you are one of those gullible fanbois who believe M$ would never lie.
Ever.It's all about disclosure.
Disclosure in open source is real, disclosure by the likes of M$ and Apple is pretty much based on what makes them look the best in the marketplace.
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28275003</id>
	<title>Re:I'm sure they could do better</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1244566800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Next tuesday they could double that amount with the right attitude...</p></div><p>They couldn't, but you can. Time to blow the dust off your father's trusted debugger!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Next tuesday they could double that amount with the right attitude...They could n't , but you can .
Time to blow the dust off your father 's trusted debugger !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Next tuesday they could double that amount with the right attitude...They couldn't, but you can.
Time to blow the dust off your father's trusted debugger!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274273</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274385</id>
	<title>How many, really.</title>
	<author>bertoelcon</author>
	<datestamp>1244561160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>- It's not getting any better, the number of vulnerabilities [Microsoft discloses] continues to grow.

Meaning the ones they don't disclose grows until something like this looks like a bunch were found and fixed at once.</htmltext>
<tokenext>- It 's not getting any better , the number of vulnerabilities [ Microsoft discloses ] continues to grow .
Meaning the ones they do n't disclose grows until something like this looks like a bunch were found and fixed at once .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>- It's not getting any better, the number of vulnerabilities [Microsoft discloses] continues to grow.
Meaning the ones they don't disclose grows until something like this looks like a bunch were found and fixed at once.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274595</id>
	<title>Re:M-M-M-M-M-onster Patch! (n/t)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244563020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was working on the PC late one night<br>When my eyes beheld an eerie sight<br>For bug on windows began to rise<br>And suddenly to my surprise</p><p>THEY DID THE PATCH<br>They did the monster patch<br>THE MONSTER PATCH<br>It was a vulnerability smash<br>THEY DID THE PATCH<br>They caught them in a flash<br>THEY DID THE PATCH<br>They did the monster patch</p><p>From my computer seat in the office east<br>To the master Ballmer where the vampires feast<br>The faults all came from their humble abodes<br>To get a jolt from my electrodes</p><p>THEY DID THE PATCH<br>They did the monster patch<br>THE MONSTER PATCH<br>It was a vulnerability smash<br>THEY DID THE PATCH<br>They caught them in a flash<br>THEY DID THE PATCH<br>They did the monster patch<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...and so on. I only really wanted to say that your comment made me sing that song, but really it is way longer than I care to do a half-assed parody.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was working on the PC late one nightWhen my eyes beheld an eerie sightFor bug on windows began to riseAnd suddenly to my surpriseTHEY DID THE PATCHThey did the monster patchTHE MONSTER PATCHIt was a vulnerability smashTHEY DID THE PATCHThey caught them in a flashTHEY DID THE PATCHThey did the monster patchFrom my computer seat in the office eastTo the master Ballmer where the vampires feastThe faults all came from their humble abodesTo get a jolt from my electrodesTHEY DID THE PATCHThey did the monster patchTHE MONSTER PATCHIt was a vulnerability smashTHEY DID THE PATCHThey caught them in a flashTHEY DID THE PATCHThey did the monster patch ...and so on .
I only really wanted to say that your comment made me sing that song , but really it is way longer than I care to do a half-assed parody .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was working on the PC late one nightWhen my eyes beheld an eerie sightFor bug on windows began to riseAnd suddenly to my surpriseTHEY DID THE PATCHThey did the monster patchTHE MONSTER PATCHIt was a vulnerability smashTHEY DID THE PATCHThey caught them in a flashTHEY DID THE PATCHThey did the monster patchFrom my computer seat in the office eastTo the master Ballmer where the vampires feastThe faults all came from their humble abodesTo get a jolt from my electrodesTHEY DID THE PATCHThey did the monster patchTHE MONSTER PATCHIt was a vulnerability smashTHEY DID THE PATCHThey caught them in a flashTHEY DID THE PATCHThey did the monster patch ...and so on.
I only really wanted to say that your comment made me sing that song, but really it is way longer than I care to do a half-assed parody.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274323</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274753</id>
	<title>Why is this news again?</title>
	<author>Jamie's Nightmare</author>
	<datestamp>1244564340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The 2nd largest software company in the world with more installed software on personal computers than anyone else on the planet.  More software, more to patch and update.  Sweet, simple logic that anyone who has ever really <b>worked</b> with computers understands.  Still, this is a good opportunity for jealous Linux children to point and laugh while their software, which some have dedicated their lives to, goes largely unnoticed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The 2nd largest software company in the world with more installed software on personal computers than anyone else on the planet .
More software , more to patch and update .
Sweet , simple logic that anyone who has ever really worked with computers understands .
Still , this is a good opportunity for jealous Linux children to point and laugh while their software , which some have dedicated their lives to , goes largely unnoticed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The 2nd largest software company in the world with more installed software on personal computers than anyone else on the planet.
More software, more to patch and update.
Sweet, simple logic that anyone who has ever really worked with computers understands.
Still, this is a good opportunity for jealous Linux children to point and laugh while their software, which some have dedicated their lives to, goes largely unnoticed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28279083</id>
	<title>Re:M-M-M-M-M-onster Patch! (n/t)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244646480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Haha -- I dont know if you made this up, but its pretty funny.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Haha -- I dont know if you made this up , but its pretty funny .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Haha -- I dont know if you made this up, but its pretty funny.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274595</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28288233</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft is too big to fail</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244645220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And my netbook. It's the last one apparently running Linux.</p><p>I think it's overblown. if there's a GDI patch, then WSUS counts it for each supported OS version. So that fix would count as six patches.</p><p>Honestly, it seemed like a light month, especially after worrying about conficker last month.</p><p>patch your workstations, have a good firewall, watch your virus scanner logs, implement an IPS and a good up to date proxy. If all else fails, make sure you have a good automated reimaging process.</p><p>Welcome to running an enterprise in the 2000's.</p><p>Course, the security team's running on macs, and the IDS's are all unix running snort.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And my netbook .
It 's the last one apparently running Linux.I think it 's overblown .
if there 's a GDI patch , then WSUS counts it for each supported OS version .
So that fix would count as six patches.Honestly , it seemed like a light month , especially after worrying about conficker last month.patch your workstations , have a good firewall , watch your virus scanner logs , implement an IPS and a good up to date proxy .
If all else fails , make sure you have a good automated reimaging process.Welcome to running an enterprise in the 2000 's.Course , the security team 's running on macs , and the IDS 's are all unix running snort .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And my netbook.
It's the last one apparently running Linux.I think it's overblown.
if there's a GDI patch, then WSUS counts it for each supported OS version.
So that fix would count as six patches.Honestly, it seemed like a light month, especially after worrying about conficker last month.patch your workstations, have a good firewall, watch your virus scanner logs, implement an IPS and a good up to date proxy.
If all else fails, make sure you have a good automated reimaging process.Welcome to running an enterprise in the 2000's.Course, the security team's running on macs, and the IDS's are all unix running snort.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274423</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28275457</id>
	<title>Re:Oh joy!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244570340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't forget the meaningless eye candy!</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft\_Bob" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft\_Bob</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't forget the meaningless eye candy ! http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft \ _Bob [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't forget the meaningless eye candy!http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft\_Bob [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274885</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28277881</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft is too big to fail</title>
	<author>Shrike82</author>
	<datestamp>1244639760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Massive monoculture is always dangerous. The dinosaurs seemed incredibly successful, too, but too many of them were too similar--and look what happened. In diversity there is strength.</p></div><p>I think you might have chosen a bad analogy - I'm fairly sure that the diversification (or not) of computer operating systems will have no effect on meteors impacting the Earth.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Massive monoculture is always dangerous .
The dinosaurs seemed incredibly successful , too , but too many of them were too similar--and look what happened .
In diversity there is strength.I think you might have chosen a bad analogy - I 'm fairly sure that the diversification ( or not ) of computer operating systems will have no effect on meteors impacting the Earth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Massive monoculture is always dangerous.
The dinosaurs seemed incredibly successful, too, but too many of them were too similar--and look what happened.
In diversity there is strength.I think you might have chosen a bad analogy - I'm fairly sure that the diversification (or not) of computer operating systems will have no effect on meteors impacting the Earth.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274341</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274417</id>
	<title>MS planting crippleware?</title>
	<author>dan of the north</author>
	<datestamp>1244561460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Doesn't MS have a long and (not so) glorious history of planting 'features' into their end-of-life code?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't MS have a long and ( not so ) glorious history of planting 'features ' into their end-of-life code ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't MS have a long and (not so) glorious history of planting 'features' into their end-of-life code?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28275625</id>
	<title>Re:This is a good thing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244571540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To support that statement, in the decade or so that I've been doing this in enterprise-level engagements I've never seen anything break with any M$ patches except service packs (we all remember NT4's SP5, right?). That being said, you get the choice: a) test first; b) provide yourself some sort of rollback (VM's, blades, etc); c) scramble to fix it when it does break.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To support that statement , in the decade or so that I 've been doing this in enterprise-level engagements I 've never seen anything break with any M $ patches except service packs ( we all remember NT4 's SP5 , right ? ) .
That being said , you get the choice : a ) test first ; b ) provide yourself some sort of rollback ( VM 's , blades , etc ) ; c ) scramble to fix it when it does break .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To support that statement, in the decade or so that I've been doing this in enterprise-level engagements I've never seen anything break with any M$ patches except service packs (we all remember NT4's SP5, right?).
That being said, you get the choice: a) test first; b) provide yourself some sort of rollback (VM's, blades, etc); c) scramble to fix it when it does break.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274869</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28276407</id>
	<title>Re:M-M-M-M-M-onster Patch! (n/t)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244665980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Smash" and "flash" do not rhyme with "patch".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Smash " and " flash " do not rhyme with " patch " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Smash" and "flash" do not rhyme with "patch".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274595</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28276051</id>
	<title>Re:Vulnerabilities?</title>
	<author>mpe</author>
	<datestamp>1244575740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>A bug is something not working as intended. Slashdot's rendering on standards compliant browsers for example.</i> <br> <br>Bugs can be anything from trivially annoying to "show stopper".<br> <br> <i>
A vulnerability is something that can be exploited by a third party for example to crash, hang or invade your machine.</i> <br> <br>This "third party" can include the end user. In the case of servers or where it is possible to elevate privileges of a thread/process/etc.<br> <br> <i>That in itself doesn't really tell you much, is it locally or remotely exploitable, do you need valid logins, user action etc. which means it can range from trivial to critical.</i> <br> <br>The severity can depend very much on the context. e.g. crashing a terminal server is likely to be a rather bigger issue than crashing an individual workstation. Even if exactly the same bug is involved.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A bug is something not working as intended .
Slashdot 's rendering on standards compliant browsers for example .
Bugs can be anything from trivially annoying to " show stopper " .
A vulnerability is something that can be exploited by a third party for example to crash , hang or invade your machine .
This " third party " can include the end user .
In the case of servers or where it is possible to elevate privileges of a thread/process/etc .
That in itself does n't really tell you much , is it locally or remotely exploitable , do you need valid logins , user action etc .
which means it can range from trivial to critical .
The severity can depend very much on the context .
e.g. crashing a terminal server is likely to be a rather bigger issue than crashing an individual workstation .
Even if exactly the same bug is involved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A bug is something not working as intended.
Slashdot's rendering on standards compliant browsers for example.
Bugs can be anything from trivially annoying to "show stopper".
A vulnerability is something that can be exploited by a third party for example to crash, hang or invade your machine.
This "third party" can include the end user.
In the case of servers or where it is possible to elevate privileges of a thread/process/etc.
That in itself doesn't really tell you much, is it locally or remotely exploitable, do you need valid logins, user action etc.
which means it can range from trivial to critical.
The severity can depend very much on the context.
e.g. crashing a terminal server is likely to be a rather bigger issue than crashing an individual workstation.
Even if exactly the same bug is involved.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274995</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28275021</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft is too big to fail</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244566920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You saying Microsoft = Ma Bell?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You saying Microsoft = Ma Bell ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You saying Microsoft = Ma Bell?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274341</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274249</id>
	<title>Scary Good or Scary Bad?</title>
	<author>Nefarious Wheel</author>
	<datestamp>1244560080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That number of bugs rather scares me.  I depend on Windows for playing WoW at home and writing documents at work.  Will this kill it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>That number of bugs rather scares me .
I depend on Windows for playing WoW at home and writing documents at work .
Will this kill it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That number of bugs rather scares me.
I depend on Windows for playing WoW at home and writing documents at work.
Will this kill it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274799</id>
	<title>Play Nice /.</title>
	<author>rxan</author>
	<datestamp>1244564760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's not getting any better, the number of vulnerabilities [Microsoft discloses] continues to grow.</p></div><p>That's quite the underhanded comment there. Insulting Microsoft while showing that they are improving their software at the same time. Nice!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not getting any better , the number of vulnerabilities [ Microsoft discloses ] continues to grow.That 's quite the underhanded comment there .
Insulting Microsoft while showing that they are improving their software at the same time .
Nice !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not getting any better, the number of vulnerabilities [Microsoft discloses] continues to grow.That's quite the underhanded comment there.
Insulting Microsoft while showing that they are improving their software at the same time.
Nice!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28277993</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft is too big to fail</title>
	<author>johneee</author>
	<datestamp>1244640480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And after millions (billions?) of dollars spent by the government and by us, and a whole lot of confusion, ten years later there would be just one again because they'd merged/failed or bought each other.  In fact, the only people that would really do well would be the major shareholders of the companies who would of course (as always) make off like bandits.  Just like Bell.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And after millions ( billions ?
) of dollars spent by the government and by us , and a whole lot of confusion , ten years later there would be just one again because they 'd merged/failed or bought each other .
In fact , the only people that would really do well would be the major shareholders of the companies who would of course ( as always ) make off like bandits .
Just like Bell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And after millions (billions?
) of dollars spent by the government and by us, and a whole lot of confusion, ten years later there would be just one again because they'd merged/failed or bought each other.
In fact, the only people that would really do well would be the major shareholders of the companies who would of course (as always) make off like bandits.
Just like Bell.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274341</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274383</id>
	<title>The positive side of the Borg icon</title>
	<author>petrus4</author>
	<datestamp>1244561160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Squashing 31 vulnerabilities in a single patch, is, in a word, efficient.  "Embrace and extend," might be a negative part of the Borg ethos, but I give Microsoft credit for displaying the positive side of it, as well.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Squashing 31 vulnerabilities in a single patch , is , in a word , efficient .
" Embrace and extend , " might be a negative part of the Borg ethos , but I give Microsoft credit for displaying the positive side of it , as well .
; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Squashing 31 vulnerabilities in a single patch, is, in a word, efficient.
"Embrace and extend," might be a negative part of the Borg ethos, but I give Microsoft credit for displaying the positive side of it, as well.
;-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28277737</id>
	<title>Hmm...</title>
	<author>malus314</author>
	<datestamp>1244638440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bug, Vulnerabilities, Critical Updates, Oh, My!

I don't know about anyone else, but I tend to think that the longer a list of fixes is, the better. All software has bugs, one of the main differences between OSes is how the developer handles them. I like Linux because Linux doesn't like bugs and the community hunts them down with a vengeance. MS rarely seems to care.So this (hopefully) means that MS is starting to do a better job of maintaining its products.
I, for one, would like to see more bug fixes every month. It seems kind of strange that MS going on a bug killing spree is something that we should spin as a bad thing.

Don't get me wrong, I hate 'doze as much as the next guy and I'm quite content to stay on Debian to do everything I need, but as one of the guys who gets called when the sh*t hits the fan with a 'doze box, anything that makes the Windows OS look more like an OS as opposed to Swiss cheese is a fantastic thing. Now, this list of fixes barely does anything to make Windows a better OS, but if MS hunted bugs (or better yet, actually tried to weed a good many out before a release as opposed to saying "Ok, usable enough" and pushing it out the door) like the *nix community does Windows could actually look like something other than dairy products from the alps.
Sure, I'd make less because I'd do less cleaning of fecal matter from walls, but I'd gladly trade that for just doing upgrades or replacing a part every now and then. If anything it would make my job quieter and more enjoyable...

But, whatever, may as well go with the crowd...
"BOO, MICROSOFT!!! TO HELL WITH YOU AND YOUR OBSCENELY LONG LIST OF BUG FIXES!!!"</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bug , Vulnerabilities , Critical Updates , Oh , My !
I do n't know about anyone else , but I tend to think that the longer a list of fixes is , the better .
All software has bugs , one of the main differences between OSes is how the developer handles them .
I like Linux because Linux does n't like bugs and the community hunts them down with a vengeance .
MS rarely seems to care.So this ( hopefully ) means that MS is starting to do a better job of maintaining its products .
I , for one , would like to see more bug fixes every month .
It seems kind of strange that MS going on a bug killing spree is something that we should spin as a bad thing .
Do n't get me wrong , I hate 'doze as much as the next guy and I 'm quite content to stay on Debian to do everything I need , but as one of the guys who gets called when the sh * t hits the fan with a 'doze box , anything that makes the Windows OS look more like an OS as opposed to Swiss cheese is a fantastic thing .
Now , this list of fixes barely does anything to make Windows a better OS , but if MS hunted bugs ( or better yet , actually tried to weed a good many out before a release as opposed to saying " Ok , usable enough " and pushing it out the door ) like the * nix community does Windows could actually look like something other than dairy products from the alps .
Sure , I 'd make less because I 'd do less cleaning of fecal matter from walls , but I 'd gladly trade that for just doing upgrades or replacing a part every now and then .
If anything it would make my job quieter and more enjoyable.. . But , whatever , may as well go with the crowd.. . " BOO , MICROSOFT ! ! !
TO HELL WITH YOU AND YOUR OBSCENELY LONG LIST OF BUG FIXES ! ! !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bug, Vulnerabilities, Critical Updates, Oh, My!
I don't know about anyone else, but I tend to think that the longer a list of fixes is, the better.
All software has bugs, one of the main differences between OSes is how the developer handles them.
I like Linux because Linux doesn't like bugs and the community hunts them down with a vengeance.
MS rarely seems to care.So this (hopefully) means that MS is starting to do a better job of maintaining its products.
I, for one, would like to see more bug fixes every month.
It seems kind of strange that MS going on a bug killing spree is something that we should spin as a bad thing.
Don't get me wrong, I hate 'doze as much as the next guy and I'm quite content to stay on Debian to do everything I need, but as one of the guys who gets called when the sh*t hits the fan with a 'doze box, anything that makes the Windows OS look more like an OS as opposed to Swiss cheese is a fantastic thing.
Now, this list of fixes barely does anything to make Windows a better OS, but if MS hunted bugs (or better yet, actually tried to weed a good many out before a release as opposed to saying "Ok, usable enough" and pushing it out the door) like the *nix community does Windows could actually look like something other than dairy products from the alps.
Sure, I'd make less because I'd do less cleaning of fecal matter from walls, but I'd gladly trade that for just doing upgrades or replacing a part every now and then.
If anything it would make my job quieter and more enjoyable...

But, whatever, may as well go with the crowd...
"BOO, MICROSOFT!!!
TO HELL WITH YOU AND YOUR OBSCENELY LONG LIST OF BUG FIXES!!!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28275015</id>
	<title>unethical technology</title>
	<author>Horar</author>
	<datestamp>1244566860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A computer consultant advocating Windows is like a doctor prescribing cigarettes. It creates a lot of extra work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A computer consultant advocating Windows is like a doctor prescribing cigarettes .
It creates a lot of extra work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A computer consultant advocating Windows is like a doctor prescribing cigarettes.
It creates a lot of extra work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274323</id>
	<title>M-M-M-M-M-onster Patch!  (n/t)</title>
	<author>asifyoucare</author>
	<datestamp>1244560620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apparently I need to have some text in the comment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apparently I need to have some text in the comment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apparently I need to have some text in the comment.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28281567</id>
	<title>Re:I'm sure they could do better</title>
	<author>Spud Zeppelin</author>
	<datestamp>1244656620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This may be the best snark in history...!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This may be the best snark in history... !
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This may be the best snark in history...!
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274273</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274505</id>
	<title>This is a good thing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244562240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We already know Windows has vulnerabilities and that there are exploits in the wild. The design isn't going to magically change. So the fact that we're getting more patches is a good thing. We can't whine when we don't get patches then whine when we do! My only question is do these patches break any existing functionality, and if so is this clearly documented?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We already know Windows has vulnerabilities and that there are exploits in the wild .
The design is n't going to magically change .
So the fact that we 're getting more patches is a good thing .
We ca n't whine when we do n't get patches then whine when we do !
My only question is do these patches break any existing functionality , and if so is this clearly documented ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We already know Windows has vulnerabilities and that there are exploits in the wild.
The design isn't going to magically change.
So the fact that we're getting more patches is a good thing.
We can't whine when we don't get patches then whine when we do!
My only question is do these patches break any existing functionality, and if so is this clearly documented?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28275441</id>
	<title>Re:pan-MS patch</title>
	<author>Celeste R</author>
	<datestamp>1244570220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lies.  Try updating Gentoo.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lies .
Try updating Gentoo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lies.
Try updating Gentoo.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274801</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28292349</id>
	<title>Re:This is a good thing</title>
	<author>Ol Olsoc</author>
	<datestamp>1244730120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Can I print and give your post to the boss? For some reason he doesn't look at it that way, and maybe he'll feel better about his computer not working.<p>

Problem is, patches DO break functionality.</p><p>
I don't care whether they are proper or not - ground truth is that they do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can I print and give your post to the boss ?
For some reason he does n't look at it that way , and maybe he 'll feel better about his computer not working .
Problem is , patches DO break functionality .
I do n't care whether they are proper or not - ground truth is that they do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can I print and give your post to the boss?
For some reason he doesn't look at it that way, and maybe he'll feel better about his computer not working.
Problem is, patches DO break functionality.
I don't care whether they are proper or not - ground truth is that they do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274869</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274995</id>
	<title>Re:Vulnerabilities?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244566680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A bug is something not working as intended. Slashdot's rendering on standards compliant browsers for example.<br>A vulnerability is something that can be exploited by a third party for example to crash, hang or invade your machine.</p><p>That in itself doesn't really tell you much, is it locally or remotely exploitable, do you need valid logins, user action etc. which means it can range from trivial to critical. If you want the details, you need to read the details... that is to say MS security bulletins.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A bug is something not working as intended .
Slashdot 's rendering on standards compliant browsers for example.A vulnerability is something that can be exploited by a third party for example to crash , hang or invade your machine.That in itself does n't really tell you much , is it locally or remotely exploitable , do you need valid logins , user action etc .
which means it can range from trivial to critical .
If you want the details , you need to read the details... that is to say MS security bulletins .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A bug is something not working as intended.
Slashdot's rendering on standards compliant browsers for example.A vulnerability is something that can be exploited by a third party for example to crash, hang or invade your machine.That in itself doesn't really tell you much, is it locally or remotely exploitable, do you need valid logins, user action etc.
which means it can range from trivial to critical.
If you want the details, you need to read the details... that is to say MS security bulletins.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274433</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28283111</id>
	<title>Printing Problems</title>
	<author>thittesd0375</author>
	<datestamp>1244662800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Has anyone else had problems with the print spooler service quitting after this update.  Almost all of our lan computer are having the printers disappear and are requiring reboots.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Has anyone else had problems with the print spooler service quitting after this update .
Almost all of our lan computer are having the printers disappear and are requiring reboots .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has anyone else had problems with the print spooler service quitting after this update.
Almost all of our lan computer are having the printers disappear and are requiring reboots.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274659</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft is too big to fail</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244563620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Massive monoculture is always dangerous. The dinosaurs seemed incredibly successful, too, but too many of them were too similar--and look what happened. In diversity there is strength.</p></div><p>In numbers there is strength as well. There is quite some evidence that birds are the living direct descendants of the dinosaurs - and in a way I have always been puzzled on how it would be possible that all dinosaurs would become extinct but other types of animals (mammals, crocodiles) not. Dinosaurs were often huge animals, so relative few numbers before the earth is full. That is more likely to have been their undoing. When 90\% gets killed, finding a mate becomes really hard due to the huge distance between individuals.
</p><p>Windows is so huge in numbers that it is almost impossible to extinct. Almost always there will be some Windows computers surviving somewhere, forgotten on grandma's table, not connected to the Internet even maybe and happily moving on alone. It is impossible to wipe them all out, there are too many of them.
</p><p>OS/2 is virtually extinct - some installations hanging on for dear life but there were so few of them... BeOS saw the same fate... and so there are more. Dead branches on the tree of evolution, they could not multiply sufficiently to weather the competition.
</p><p>Windows is of course at risk of disease: all individuals are so similar they can easily infect one another. Some have better immune systems (firewalls, more patches installed) and may survive longer - they may even survive the main onslaught and survive the virus which itself may die out due to not enough hosts left to infect. That is after all what happened to the Spanish Flue: this strain disappeared because in the end all hosts were either immune or had died. There were virtually no fresh hosts available for the virus to survive.
</p><p>Linux is reaching sufficient numbers now to also be impossible to become extinct, and add to that the large diversity in systems giving the species great immunity. Yes some groups may be vulnerable to a certain virus, others will be immune and sit out the disease. Then the ones killed by the virus will be replaced by new, immune systems and the species as a whole becomes stronger.
</p><p>At the moment actually I can not think of other operating systems that are as diverse as the Linux platform. BSD is a candidate but only three major flavours available. Windows certainly is no candidate, it's all the same.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Massive monoculture is always dangerous .
The dinosaurs seemed incredibly successful , too , but too many of them were too similar--and look what happened .
In diversity there is strength.In numbers there is strength as well .
There is quite some evidence that birds are the living direct descendants of the dinosaurs - and in a way I have always been puzzled on how it would be possible that all dinosaurs would become extinct but other types of animals ( mammals , crocodiles ) not .
Dinosaurs were often huge animals , so relative few numbers before the earth is full .
That is more likely to have been their undoing .
When 90 \ % gets killed , finding a mate becomes really hard due to the huge distance between individuals .
Windows is so huge in numbers that it is almost impossible to extinct .
Almost always there will be some Windows computers surviving somewhere , forgotten on grandma 's table , not connected to the Internet even maybe and happily moving on alone .
It is impossible to wipe them all out , there are too many of them .
OS/2 is virtually extinct - some installations hanging on for dear life but there were so few of them... BeOS saw the same fate... and so there are more .
Dead branches on the tree of evolution , they could not multiply sufficiently to weather the competition .
Windows is of course at risk of disease : all individuals are so similar they can easily infect one another .
Some have better immune systems ( firewalls , more patches installed ) and may survive longer - they may even survive the main onslaught and survive the virus which itself may die out due to not enough hosts left to infect .
That is after all what happened to the Spanish Flue : this strain disappeared because in the end all hosts were either immune or had died .
There were virtually no fresh hosts available for the virus to survive .
Linux is reaching sufficient numbers now to also be impossible to become extinct , and add to that the large diversity in systems giving the species great immunity .
Yes some groups may be vulnerable to a certain virus , others will be immune and sit out the disease .
Then the ones killed by the virus will be replaced by new , immune systems and the species as a whole becomes stronger .
At the moment actually I can not think of other operating systems that are as diverse as the Linux platform .
BSD is a candidate but only three major flavours available .
Windows certainly is no candidate , it 's all the same .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Massive monoculture is always dangerous.
The dinosaurs seemed incredibly successful, too, but too many of them were too similar--and look what happened.
In diversity there is strength.In numbers there is strength as well.
There is quite some evidence that birds are the living direct descendants of the dinosaurs - and in a way I have always been puzzled on how it would be possible that all dinosaurs would become extinct but other types of animals (mammals, crocodiles) not.
Dinosaurs were often huge animals, so relative few numbers before the earth is full.
That is more likely to have been their undoing.
When 90\% gets killed, finding a mate becomes really hard due to the huge distance between individuals.
Windows is so huge in numbers that it is almost impossible to extinct.
Almost always there will be some Windows computers surviving somewhere, forgotten on grandma's table, not connected to the Internet even maybe and happily moving on alone.
It is impossible to wipe them all out, there are too many of them.
OS/2 is virtually extinct - some installations hanging on for dear life but there were so few of them... BeOS saw the same fate... and so there are more.
Dead branches on the tree of evolution, they could not multiply sufficiently to weather the competition.
Windows is of course at risk of disease: all individuals are so similar they can easily infect one another.
Some have better immune systems (firewalls, more patches installed) and may survive longer - they may even survive the main onslaught and survive the virus which itself may die out due to not enough hosts left to infect.
That is after all what happened to the Spanish Flue: this strain disappeared because in the end all hosts were either immune or had died.
There were virtually no fresh hosts available for the virus to survive.
Linux is reaching sufficient numbers now to also be impossible to become extinct, and add to that the large diversity in systems giving the species great immunity.
Yes some groups may be vulnerable to a certain virus, others will be immune and sit out the disease.
Then the ones killed by the virus will be replaced by new, immune systems and the species as a whole becomes stronger.
At the moment actually I can not think of other operating systems that are as diverse as the Linux platform.
BSD is a candidate but only three major flavours available.
Windows certainly is no candidate, it's all the same.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274341</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28276671</id>
	<title>Re:Apple Safari Jumbo Patch 50+ Vulnerabilities Fi</title>
	<author>MrMr</author>
	<datestamp>1244625960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>You are aware that these patches are for the beta release of a major upgrade?<br>
Of course you are; You just like to use the word hypocrite a lot, to divert attention.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are aware that these patches are for the beta release of a major upgrade ?
Of course you are ; You just like to use the word hypocrite a lot , to divert attention .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are aware that these patches are for the beta release of a major upgrade?
Of course you are; You just like to use the word hypocrite a lot, to divert attention.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274661</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274415</id>
	<title>Re:Scary Good or Scary Bad?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244561460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That number of bugs rather scares me. I depend on Windows for playing WoW at home and writing documents at work. Will this kill it?</p></div><p>There is no need for that.  I run WoW in Wine on FreeBSD, and it runs much faster and more smoothly there than it does natively in Windows.</p><p>Granted, customising FreeBSD is perhaps a little above the bullet-dodging capabilities of the average FOSS user, but <a href="http://www.ubuntu.com/" title="ubuntu.com">Ubuntu</a> [ubuntu.com] will still run WoW very agreeably.  I'd recommend Kubuntu; I'm a KDE man in terms of the "big two," desktop environments, myself.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That number of bugs rather scares me .
I depend on Windows for playing WoW at home and writing documents at work .
Will this kill it ? There is no need for that .
I run WoW in Wine on FreeBSD , and it runs much faster and more smoothly there than it does natively in Windows.Granted , customising FreeBSD is perhaps a little above the bullet-dodging capabilities of the average FOSS user , but Ubuntu [ ubuntu.com ] will still run WoW very agreeably .
I 'd recommend Kubuntu ; I 'm a KDE man in terms of the " big two , " desktop environments , myself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That number of bugs rather scares me.
I depend on Windows for playing WoW at home and writing documents at work.
Will this kill it?There is no need for that.
I run WoW in Wine on FreeBSD, and it runs much faster and more smoothly there than it does natively in Windows.Granted, customising FreeBSD is perhaps a little above the bullet-dodging capabilities of the average FOSS user, but Ubuntu [ubuntu.com] will still run WoW very agreeably.
I'd recommend Kubuntu; I'm a KDE man in terms of the "big two," desktop environments, myself.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274249</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274279</id>
	<title>at least...</title>
	<author>inode\_buddha</author>
	<datestamp>1244560380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, at least they *are* disclosing and patching. But then again, I switched to linux back during Win98.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , at least they * are * disclosing and patching .
But then again , I switched to linux back during Win98 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, at least they *are* disclosing and patching.
But then again, I switched to linux back during Win98.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28276441</id>
	<title>Re:This explains the update warning at work</title>
	<author>drsmithy</author>
	<datestamp>1244666340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Obviously it was never meant for my department, but given the breadth of fixes, I'm wondering what kind of hell IT will catch if the Sales or Admin departments get updated and find applications broken.</i>
</p><p>As much as they deserve for putting their users in a position where they \_can\_ install the patches.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obviously it was never meant for my department , but given the breadth of fixes , I 'm wondering what kind of hell IT will catch if the Sales or Admin departments get updated and find applications broken .
As much as they deserve for putting their users in a position where they \ _can \ _ install the patches .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Obviously it was never meant for my department, but given the breadth of fixes, I'm wondering what kind of hell IT will catch if the Sales or Admin departments get updated and find applications broken.
As much as they deserve for putting their users in a position where they \_can\_ install the patches.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274459</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274369</id>
	<title>Even Macs?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244561040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"You've got to work everywhere, servers and workstations, and even Macs if you have them."</p><p>I don't have Microsoft Office on my Mac.</p><p>Fuck you and your dumbass comment that tries to make Mac OS X look as insecure as Windows.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" You 've got to work everywhere , servers and workstations , and even Macs if you have them .
" I do n't have Microsoft Office on my Mac.Fuck you and your dumbass comment that tries to make Mac OS X look as insecure as Windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"You've got to work everywhere, servers and workstations, and even Macs if you have them.
"I don't have Microsoft Office on my Mac.Fuck you and your dumbass comment that tries to make Mac OS X look as insecure as Windows.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274661</id>
	<title>Apple Safari Jumbo Patch 50+ Vulnerabilities Fixed</title>
	<author>BSDetector</author>
	<datestamp>1244563680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>So where is the Slashdot article on the following?  It's as current as the Microsoft article from ZDNet!  I guess as long as it puts Apple in a bad light - it gets ignored or even censored.  But if it can be interpreted as Microsoft=BAD then let's up the font size and BOLD the headers!<br> <br>
"Apple Safari Jumbo Patch 50+ Vulnerabilities Fixed" - <a href="http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=3541/" title="zdnet.com" rel="nofollow">http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=3541/</a> [zdnet.com]
<br> <br>
Hypocrites!</htmltext>
<tokenext>So where is the Slashdot article on the following ?
It 's as current as the Microsoft article from ZDNet !
I guess as long as it puts Apple in a bad light - it gets ignored or even censored .
But if it can be interpreted as Microsoft = BAD then let 's up the font size and BOLD the headers !
" Apple Safari Jumbo Patch 50 + Vulnerabilities Fixed " - http : //blogs.zdnet.com/security/ ? p = 3541/ [ zdnet.com ] Hypocrites !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So where is the Slashdot article on the following?
It's as current as the Microsoft article from ZDNet!
I guess as long as it puts Apple in a bad light - it gets ignored or even censored.
But if it can be interpreted as Microsoft=BAD then let's up the font size and BOLD the headers!
"Apple Safari Jumbo Patch 50+ Vulnerabilities Fixed" - http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=3541/ [zdnet.com]
 
Hypocrites!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274247</id>
	<title>That's a lot of patches</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244560020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>but at least I got first post.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>but at least I got first post .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but at least I got first post.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274607</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft is too big to fail</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244563080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, fortunately this has only been done to Unix so far (Morris worm).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , fortunately this has only been done to Unix so far ( Morris worm ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, fortunately this has only been done to Unix so far (Morris worm).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274341</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274869</id>
	<title>Re:This is a good thing</title>
	<author>wvmarle</author>
	<datestamp>1244565420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A proper patch would imho only be able to break existing functionality if:
</p><ul> <li>it changes the behaviour of a publicly documented API (it shouldn't but it can be documented),</li>
<li>the software providing the functionality uses an undocumented API or uses a bug workaround, the first it shouldn't do in the first place and the second is up for debate whether it's good to do or not.</li>
</ul><p>Changing a documented API should happen only between OS version changes, the second is more likely. And considering the number of bugs and undocumented API calls included in Windows that may well be a serious issue. Documenting the patch will never warn one of these issues: the undocumented API calls are, well, undocumented so technically they do not exist, and it is impossible to know beforehand which bug workarounds there are in software, if any.
</p><p>So assuming MS writes their patches properly, no documented functionality will change. It may change to what the documents say it does, it may internally change giving the same end result - so no matter the documentation, testing would be the only way to make sure that your specific set of third-party or in-house software still works.
</p><p>And I'm sure the above accounts for open source software as much as it does for closed source.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A proper patch would imho only be able to break existing functionality if : it changes the behaviour of a publicly documented API ( it should n't but it can be documented ) , the software providing the functionality uses an undocumented API or uses a bug workaround , the first it should n't do in the first place and the second is up for debate whether it 's good to do or not .
Changing a documented API should happen only between OS version changes , the second is more likely .
And considering the number of bugs and undocumented API calls included in Windows that may well be a serious issue .
Documenting the patch will never warn one of these issues : the undocumented API calls are , well , undocumented so technically they do not exist , and it is impossible to know beforehand which bug workarounds there are in software , if any .
So assuming MS writes their patches properly , no documented functionality will change .
It may change to what the documents say it does , it may internally change giving the same end result - so no matter the documentation , testing would be the only way to make sure that your specific set of third-party or in-house software still works .
And I 'm sure the above accounts for open source software as much as it does for closed source .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A proper patch would imho only be able to break existing functionality if:
 it changes the behaviour of a publicly documented API (it shouldn't but it can be documented),
the software providing the functionality uses an undocumented API or uses a bug workaround, the first it shouldn't do in the first place and the second is up for debate whether it's good to do or not.
Changing a documented API should happen only between OS version changes, the second is more likely.
And considering the number of bugs and undocumented API calls included in Windows that may well be a serious issue.
Documenting the patch will never warn one of these issues: the undocumented API calls are, well, undocumented so technically they do not exist, and it is impossible to know beforehand which bug workarounds there are in software, if any.
So assuming MS writes their patches properly, no documented functionality will change.
It may change to what the documents say it does, it may internally change giving the same end result - so no matter the documentation, testing would be the only way to make sure that your specific set of third-party or in-house software still works.
And I'm sure the above accounts for open source software as much as it does for closed source.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274505</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28278467</id>
	<title>Monster Patch</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1244643720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So is this Monster Patch gold-plated and guaranteed to improve the sharpness of pixels on screen??</htmltext>
<tokenext>So is this Monster Patch gold-plated and guaranteed to improve the sharpness of pixels on screen ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So is this Monster Patch gold-plated and guaranteed to improve the sharpness of pixels on screen?
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28276971</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft is too big to fail</title>
	<author>Bert64</author>
	<datestamp>1244629260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Consider that most of the people running that network infrastructure and even many unix systems perform their administrative functions from windows workstations...<br>Also IIS has about 1/3 of the web market, so 1/3 of websites would go offline...<br>A serious Windows failure would screw up a lot of things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Consider that most of the people running that network infrastructure and even many unix systems perform their administrative functions from windows workstations...Also IIS has about 1/3 of the web market , so 1/3 of websites would go offline...A serious Windows failure would screw up a lot of things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Consider that most of the people running that network infrastructure and even many unix systems perform their administrative functions from windows workstations...Also IIS has about 1/3 of the web market, so 1/3 of websites would go offline...A serious Windows failure would screw up a lot of things.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274423</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28275417</id>
	<title>Re:5 critical updates for me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244570100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've just checked out my Vista machine at work and it lists 16 updates, none of which is critical.  I've got Vista SP2, IE8, Office 2007 SP2.  I suspect that if you use the up-to-date versions of MS software then you will get far fewer critical updates.</p><p>I know that it's not fashionable to give MS any credit but my experience tells me that the quality and security of MS software are much improved from the bad old days.  I think any reasonable scientific measure of critical vulnerabilities would regard Windows Vista desktops as being more secure than OS X and Linux desktops.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've just checked out my Vista machine at work and it lists 16 updates , none of which is critical .
I 've got Vista SP2 , IE8 , Office 2007 SP2 .
I suspect that if you use the up-to-date versions of MS software then you will get far fewer critical updates.I know that it 's not fashionable to give MS any credit but my experience tells me that the quality and security of MS software are much improved from the bad old days .
I think any reasonable scientific measure of critical vulnerabilities would regard Windows Vista desktops as being more secure than OS X and Linux desktops .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've just checked out my Vista machine at work and it lists 16 updates, none of which is critical.
I've got Vista SP2, IE8, Office 2007 SP2.
I suspect that if you use the up-to-date versions of MS software then you will get far fewer critical updates.I know that it's not fashionable to give MS any credit but my experience tells me that the quality and security of MS software are much improved from the bad old days.
I think any reasonable scientific measure of critical vulnerabilities would regard Windows Vista desktops as being more secure than OS X and Linux desktops.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274741</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28279319</id>
	<title>Re:This explains the update warning at work</title>
	<author>Sporkinum</author>
	<datestamp>1244647380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Has anyone had anything break from this update, or has it been smooth sailing?</p></div><p>I'm not sure as I didn't hang around to see it finish. I did notice that it stuck the IE8 install back in after I had hid it when it showed up the first time. I hid it again, and won't let it install until I know for sure it won't break anything. My Windows box is my DVR and i don't want it to hose my ability to record and stream shows.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Has anyone had anything break from this update , or has it been smooth sailing ? I 'm not sure as I did n't hang around to see it finish .
I did notice that it stuck the IE8 install back in after I had hid it when it showed up the first time .
I hid it again , and wo n't let it install until I know for sure it wo n't break anything .
My Windows box is my DVR and i do n't want it to hose my ability to record and stream shows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has anyone had anything break from this update, or has it been smooth sailing?I'm not sure as I didn't hang around to see it finish.
I did notice that it stuck the IE8 install back in after I had hid it when it showed up the first time.
I hid it again, and won't let it install until I know for sure it won't break anything.
My Windows box is my DVR and i don't want it to hose my ability to record and stream shows.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274459</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28276819</id>
	<title>Don't sell yourself short</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244627580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That was a completely-assed parody!</p><p>(nah, it was a great spontaneous work, I just always wonder what the *half* of half-assed meant and whether fully-assed would be better or worse).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That was a completely-assed parody !
( nah , it was a great spontaneous work , I just always wonder what the * half * of half-assed meant and whether fully-assed would be better or worse ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That was a completely-assed parody!
(nah, it was a great spontaneous work, I just always wonder what the *half* of half-assed meant and whether fully-assed would be better or worse).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274595</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28290615</id>
	<title>Re:M-M-M-M-M-onster Patch! (n/t)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244712660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I was working on the PC late one night<br>When my eyes beheld an eerie sight<br>For bug on windows began to rise<br>And suddenly to my surprise</p><p>THEY DID THE PATCH<br>They did the monster patch<br>THE MONSTER PATCH<br>It was a vulnerability smash<br>THEY DID THE PATCH<br>They caught them in a flash<br>THEY DID THE PATCH<br>They did the monster patch</p><p>From my computer seat in the office east<br>To the master Ballmer where the vampires feast<br>The faults all came from their humble abodes<br>To get a jolt from my electrodes</p><p>THEY DID THE PATCH<br>They did the monster patch<br>THE MONSTER PATCH<br>It was a vulnerability smash<br>THEY DID THE PATCH<br>They caught them in a flash<br>THEY DID THE PATCH<br>They did the monster patch<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...and so on. I only really wanted to say that your comment made me sing that song, but really it is way longer than I care to do a half-assed parody.</p></div><p>Booyaka Booyaka</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was working on the PC late one nightWhen my eyes beheld an eerie sightFor bug on windows began to riseAnd suddenly to my surpriseTHEY DID THE PATCHThey did the monster patchTHE MONSTER PATCHIt was a vulnerability smashTHEY DID THE PATCHThey caught them in a flashTHEY DID THE PATCHThey did the monster patchFrom my computer seat in the office eastTo the master Ballmer where the vampires feastThe faults all came from their humble abodesTo get a jolt from my electrodesTHEY DID THE PATCHThey did the monster patchTHE MONSTER PATCHIt was a vulnerability smashTHEY DID THE PATCHThey caught them in a flashTHEY DID THE PATCHThey did the monster patch ...and so on .
I only really wanted to say that your comment made me sing that song , but really it is way longer than I care to do a half-assed parody.Booyaka Booyaka</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was working on the PC late one nightWhen my eyes beheld an eerie sightFor bug on windows began to riseAnd suddenly to my surpriseTHEY DID THE PATCHThey did the monster patchTHE MONSTER PATCHIt was a vulnerability smashTHEY DID THE PATCHThey caught them in a flashTHEY DID THE PATCHThey did the monster patchFrom my computer seat in the office eastTo the master Ballmer where the vampires feastThe faults all came from their humble abodesTo get a jolt from my electrodesTHEY DID THE PATCHThey did the monster patchTHE MONSTER PATCHIt was a vulnerability smashTHEY DID THE PATCHThey caught them in a flashTHEY DID THE PATCHThey did the monster patch ...and so on.
I only really wanted to say that your comment made me sing that song, but really it is way longer than I care to do a half-assed parody.Booyaka Booyaka
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274595</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28277833</id>
	<title>Re:Oh joy!</title>
	<author>lzdt</author>
	<datestamp>1244639340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>*quickly gets the popcorn and F5's the comments*</p><p>*munch munch*</p></div><p>Uughh.. Moooom!?? Would you buy another keyboard please?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>* quickly gets the popcorn and F5 's the comments * * munch munch * Uughh. .
Moooom ! ? ? Would you buy another keyboard please ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>*quickly gets the popcorn and F5's the comments**munch munch*Uughh..
Moooom!?? Would you buy another keyboard please?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274885</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274801</id>
	<title>pan-MS patch</title>
	<author>Gothmolly</author>
	<datestamp>1244564820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Before you fanboys and trollboys come out of the woodwork, realize that this is across ALL the stuff - your precious Ubuntu or BSD would never have this many, simply because a distro is not also a browser, office suite, etc.  It certainly isn't controlled and managed by the same group.</p><p>btw posting this from an Ubuntu machine, which just pulled down 10 updates.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Before you fanboys and trollboys come out of the woodwork , realize that this is across ALL the stuff - your precious Ubuntu or BSD would never have this many , simply because a distro is not also a browser , office suite , etc .
It certainly is n't controlled and managed by the same group.btw posting this from an Ubuntu machine , which just pulled down 10 updates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Before you fanboys and trollboys come out of the woodwork, realize that this is across ALL the stuff - your precious Ubuntu or BSD would never have this many, simply because a distro is not also a browser, office suite, etc.
It certainly isn't controlled and managed by the same group.btw posting this from an Ubuntu machine, which just pulled down 10 updates.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28278877</id>
	<title>Re:M-M-M-M-M-onster Patch! (n/t)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244645580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whatever happened to the Redmond Twist?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whatever happened to the Redmond Twist ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whatever happened to the Redmond Twist?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274595</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28276175</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft is too big to fail</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244577180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>While I agree that the Windows monocultire is a bad thing, I think it's important to remember that you could kill every single Windows machine in the world and most of the infrastructure than runs the internet would keep humming along quite happily.  What's at risk is primarily desktops and corporate (intranet) servers.  Losing these machines would be bad, but "brings the entire Internet to its knees" is an exaggeration.  Admins would just cut off the infected machines and keep going.</p></div><p>I'm confused. Your low UID seems to indicate that you've been on the Internet for a while. Have you seriously never tried to use the 'net during a serious worm outbreak? These sorts of things slow everything to a crawl and can definitely affect connectibility. Now, they don't happen often, but it happens.</p><p>The problem isn't the Windows machines going down, it's the explosion that they emit as they try to take everything else with them. "just cutting off the affected machines" brings thousands of people into work for extremely stressful emergency shifts trying to stem the crapflood.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>While I agree that the Windows monocultire is a bad thing , I think it 's important to remember that you could kill every single Windows machine in the world and most of the infrastructure than runs the internet would keep humming along quite happily .
What 's at risk is primarily desktops and corporate ( intranet ) servers .
Losing these machines would be bad , but " brings the entire Internet to its knees " is an exaggeration .
Admins would just cut off the infected machines and keep going.I 'm confused .
Your low UID seems to indicate that you 've been on the Internet for a while .
Have you seriously never tried to use the 'net during a serious worm outbreak ?
These sorts of things slow everything to a crawl and can definitely affect connectibility .
Now , they do n't happen often , but it happens.The problem is n't the Windows machines going down , it 's the explosion that they emit as they try to take everything else with them .
" just cutting off the affected machines " brings thousands of people into work for extremely stressful emergency shifts trying to stem the crapflood .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I agree that the Windows monocultire is a bad thing, I think it's important to remember that you could kill every single Windows machine in the world and most of the infrastructure than runs the internet would keep humming along quite happily.
What's at risk is primarily desktops and corporate (intranet) servers.
Losing these machines would be bad, but "brings the entire Internet to its knees" is an exaggeration.
Admins would just cut off the infected machines and keep going.I'm confused.
Your low UID seems to indicate that you've been on the Internet for a while.
Have you seriously never tried to use the 'net during a serious worm outbreak?
These sorts of things slow everything to a crawl and can definitely affect connectibility.
Now, they don't happen often, but it happens.The problem isn't the Windows machines going down, it's the explosion that they emit as they try to take everything else with them.
"just cutting off the affected machines" brings thousands of people into work for extremely stressful emergency shifts trying to stem the crapflood.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274423</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28275575</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft is too big to fail</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244571120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In numbers there is strength as well. There is quite some evidence that birds are the living direct descendants of the dinosaurs -</p></div><p>Windows is a little tweeting bird chirping in a meadow. Windows is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell BAD. Are you sure your circuits are functioning correctly? Your ears are green.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In numbers there is strength as well .
There is quite some evidence that birds are the living direct descendants of the dinosaurs -Windows is a little tweeting bird chirping in a meadow .
Windows is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell BAD .
Are you sure your circuits are functioning correctly ?
Your ears are green .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In numbers there is strength as well.
There is quite some evidence that birds are the living direct descendants of the dinosaurs -Windows is a little tweeting bird chirping in a meadow.
Windows is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell BAD.
Are you sure your circuits are functioning correctly?
Your ears are green.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274659</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2243247_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28292349
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274869
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274505
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2243247_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28278173
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274801
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2243247_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28276819
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274595
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274323
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2243247_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28275441
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274801
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2243247_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28289715
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274921
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274341
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2243247_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28276671
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274661
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2243247_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28290615
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274595
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274323
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2243247_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28281455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274341
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2243247_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28277881
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274341
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2243247_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28275071
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274457
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274341
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2243247_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28276255
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28275003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274273
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2243247_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28281567
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274273
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2243247_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28279319
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274459
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2243247_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28279083
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274595
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274323
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2243247_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28278877
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274595
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274323
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2243247_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28276441
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274459
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2243247_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28275575
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274341
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2243247_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28276433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274369
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2243247_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28276175
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274423
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274341
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2243247_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28275643
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274595
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274323
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2243247_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274757
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274423
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274341
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2243247_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28275457
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274885
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2243247_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28289445
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274433
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2243247_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28275123
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274423
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274341
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2243247_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274669
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274273
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2243247_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28275625
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274869
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274505
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2243247_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28277287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28275015
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2243247_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28297267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274249
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2243247_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28277993
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274341
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2243247_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274629
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274323
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2243247_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28276407
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274595
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274323
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2243247_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28275629
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274741
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2243247_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28275837
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274383
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2243247_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28276571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274423
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274341
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2243247_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28275161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274383
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2243247_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28288233
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274423
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274341
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2243247_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28276971
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274423
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274341
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2243247_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28275021
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274341
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2243247_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28275417
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274741
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2243247_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28277997
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274423
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274341
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2243247_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28277833
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274885
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2243247_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28278691
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274459
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2243247_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28277233
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274995
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274433
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2243247_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274791
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274457
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274341
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2243247_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28276051
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274995
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274433
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2243247_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28280437
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274341
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2243247_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274459
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2243247_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274607
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274341
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_2243247.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274341
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28277881
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274607
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28281455
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274659
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28280437
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28275575
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274457
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28275071
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274791
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274921
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28289715
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28277993
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28275021
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274423
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28277997
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28276571
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28288233
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28276175
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28275123
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28276971
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274757
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_2243247.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274661
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28276671
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_2243247.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274433
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274995
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28277233
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28276051
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28289445
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_2243247.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28275015
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28277287
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_2243247.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274247
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_2243247.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274459
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28276441
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274651
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28278691
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28279319
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_2243247.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274799
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_2243247.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274383
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28275837
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28275161
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_2243247.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274249
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274415
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28297267
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_2243247.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274819
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_2243247.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274369
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28276433
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_2243247.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274741
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28275417
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28275629
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_2243247.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274505
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274869
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28292349
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28275625
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_2243247.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274801
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28275441
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28278173
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_2243247.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274273
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28281567
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28275003
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28276255
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274669
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_2243247.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274323
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274595
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28276407
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28278877
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28275643
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28290615
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28276819
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28279083
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274629
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_2243247.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28274885
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28277833
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2243247.28275457
</commentlist>
</conversation>
