<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_12_2144243</id>
	<title>The Birth and Battle of Conficker</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1244812320000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>NewScientist has an interesting look back at the <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227121.500-the-inside-story-of-the-conficker-worm.html?page=1">birth of the Conficker worm</a> and how this sophisticated monster quickly grew to such power and infamy.  <i>"Since that flurry of activity in early April, all has been uneasily quiet on the Conficker front. In some senses, that marks a victory for the criminals. The zombie network is now established and being used for its intended purpose: to make money. Through its peer-to-peer capabilities, the worm can be updated on the infected network at any time.  It is not an unprecedented situation. There are several other large networks of machines infected with malicious software. Conficker has simply joined the list. The security community will continue to fight them, but as long as the worm remains embedded in any computer there can be no quick fixes."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>NewScientist has an interesting look back at the birth of the Conficker worm and how this sophisticated monster quickly grew to such power and infamy .
" Since that flurry of activity in early April , all has been uneasily quiet on the Conficker front .
In some senses , that marks a victory for the criminals .
The zombie network is now established and being used for its intended purpose : to make money .
Through its peer-to-peer capabilities , the worm can be updated on the infected network at any time .
It is not an unprecedented situation .
There are several other large networks of machines infected with malicious software .
Conficker has simply joined the list .
The security community will continue to fight them , but as long as the worm remains embedded in any computer there can be no quick fixes .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NewScientist has an interesting look back at the birth of the Conficker worm and how this sophisticated monster quickly grew to such power and infamy.
"Since that flurry of activity in early April, all has been uneasily quiet on the Conficker front.
In some senses, that marks a victory for the criminals.
The zombie network is now established and being used for its intended purpose: to make money.
Through its peer-to-peer capabilities, the worm can be updated on the infected network at any time.
It is not an unprecedented situation.
There are several other large networks of machines infected with malicious software.
Conficker has simply joined the list.
The security community will continue to fight them, but as long as the worm remains embedded in any computer there can be no quick fixes.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28317655</id>
	<title>greed</title>
	<author>Horar</author>
	<datestamp>1244832120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</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_12_2144243.28316343</id>
	<title>Correction</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244816280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>The security community will continue to fight them, but as long as the worm remains embedded in any <b>Windows</b> computer there can be no quick fixes.</i>

</p><p>Fixed that for ya.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The security community will continue to fight them , but as long as the worm remains embedded in any Windows computer there can be no quick fixes .
Fixed that for ya .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The security community will continue to fight them, but as long as the worm remains embedded in any Windows computer there can be no quick fixes.
Fixed that for ya.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28319899</id>
	<title>looks like governement black-ops</title>
	<author>LorenzoV</author>
	<datestamp>1244908800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OK, just speculating. Tin-foil hat firmly in place.</p><p>I wonder if Conficker is a government (which government?) black-ops project disguised to look like organized crime?</p><p>The technology looks pretty sharp to me. Not to discount the skills and ability of any competent software developers, but<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... I smell a rat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OK , just speculating .
Tin-foil hat firmly in place.I wonder if Conficker is a government ( which government ?
) black-ops project disguised to look like organized crime ? The technology looks pretty sharp to me .
Not to discount the skills and ability of any competent software developers , but ... I smell a rat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK, just speculating.
Tin-foil hat firmly in place.I wonder if Conficker is a government (which government?
) black-ops project disguised to look like organized crime?The technology looks pretty sharp to me.
Not to discount the skills and ability of any competent software developers, but ... I smell a rat.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28317109</id>
	<title>Re:"Watch me" service</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244824500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I ran an ISP only a few years ago. The number one source of identifying hacked PC's was abuse messages coming to our admin accounts. It didn't take our support staff long to lock out and call the customer. Many would say, "yes, the computer has been running slow lately", and thanked us for fixing their virus.</p><p>We also monitored our MRTG graphs. If we noticed strange spikes in traffic, our network people would investigate. One time we had to shut down a chess server at a high school. I will say this was in a rural area where just getting ADSL in at all was difficult. We didn't have enough bandwidth back to MAE East to allow it on a multi-point circuit with many other oversubscribed customers. But, more often than not, it would be a hacked machine. We would cut it off and everyone else would get fast Internet back.</p><p>Of course much is changing. Where it used to be Internet servers with root-kits, now its at the user end. An IDS should be part of any Internetwork. Even allowing the millions of spam hitting can kill the most robust SMTP system. As for Conflicker, blocking and monitoring its known ports doesn't require any "Bush era type" spying. It is just good networking. A good ISP will protect its address space from being put in a db. Of course, when it does happen, going to the db usually outs the hacked address space. For many years, colleges were the worst offenders. But it could be one customer on a dial up line that pings you.</p><p>The part that really gets me today is that most Wintel users don't have a DART (ERD) disk since they ain't MSCE'ed. I've quickly fixed many a PC with them. While the public is better educated when opening email, many still don't protect their browsers. I'm glad to see Win7 will be browser neutral in Europe. I would like to see Mozilla put up a list of recommended plug-ins on installation to at least get NoScript to more Firefox users. For you finger pointers out there, Java/Flash run on all the major web servers (and can be platform independent servers themselves).</p><p>Combating hackers goes back to the pre-browser days (yes children, we used to gopher). Much of the early hacking led us to an open Internet (yes, it used to be a closed university/military network). Much of the early hacking was for chat, games, and Usenet. Today it is organized crime. Hacker ISP's run a lot of this business. I was glad to see one closed down recently, but there are many more still running. Add to that the server farms with many hacked servers, and we are here today. Powerful bot-nets controlled by the highest bidder. Some day, some stupid "green card spam" will crash everything again (yes, that is when we lost Usenet). Every ISP and server farm should be responsible and not be part of the problem.<br>-John Clark</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ran an ISP only a few years ago .
The number one source of identifying hacked PC 's was abuse messages coming to our admin accounts .
It did n't take our support staff long to lock out and call the customer .
Many would say , " yes , the computer has been running slow lately " , and thanked us for fixing their virus.We also monitored our MRTG graphs .
If we noticed strange spikes in traffic , our network people would investigate .
One time we had to shut down a chess server at a high school .
I will say this was in a rural area where just getting ADSL in at all was difficult .
We did n't have enough bandwidth back to MAE East to allow it on a multi-point circuit with many other oversubscribed customers .
But , more often than not , it would be a hacked machine .
We would cut it off and everyone else would get fast Internet back.Of course much is changing .
Where it used to be Internet servers with root-kits , now its at the user end .
An IDS should be part of any Internetwork .
Even allowing the millions of spam hitting can kill the most robust SMTP system .
As for Conflicker , blocking and monitoring its known ports does n't require any " Bush era type " spying .
It is just good networking .
A good ISP will protect its address space from being put in a db .
Of course , when it does happen , going to the db usually outs the hacked address space .
For many years , colleges were the worst offenders .
But it could be one customer on a dial up line that pings you.The part that really gets me today is that most Wintel users do n't have a DART ( ERD ) disk since they ai n't MSCE'ed .
I 've quickly fixed many a PC with them .
While the public is better educated when opening email , many still do n't protect their browsers .
I 'm glad to see Win7 will be browser neutral in Europe .
I would like to see Mozilla put up a list of recommended plug-ins on installation to at least get NoScript to more Firefox users .
For you finger pointers out there , Java/Flash run on all the major web servers ( and can be platform independent servers themselves ) .Combating hackers goes back to the pre-browser days ( yes children , we used to gopher ) .
Much of the early hacking led us to an open Internet ( yes , it used to be a closed university/military network ) .
Much of the early hacking was for chat , games , and Usenet .
Today it is organized crime .
Hacker ISP 's run a lot of this business .
I was glad to see one closed down recently , but there are many more still running .
Add to that the server farms with many hacked servers , and we are here today .
Powerful bot-nets controlled by the highest bidder .
Some day , some stupid " green card spam " will crash everything again ( yes , that is when we lost Usenet ) .
Every ISP and server farm should be responsible and not be part of the problem.-John Clark</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I ran an ISP only a few years ago.
The number one source of identifying hacked PC's was abuse messages coming to our admin accounts.
It didn't take our support staff long to lock out and call the customer.
Many would say, "yes, the computer has been running slow lately", and thanked us for fixing their virus.We also monitored our MRTG graphs.
If we noticed strange spikes in traffic, our network people would investigate.
One time we had to shut down a chess server at a high school.
I will say this was in a rural area where just getting ADSL in at all was difficult.
We didn't have enough bandwidth back to MAE East to allow it on a multi-point circuit with many other oversubscribed customers.
But, more often than not, it would be a hacked machine.
We would cut it off and everyone else would get fast Internet back.Of course much is changing.
Where it used to be Internet servers with root-kits, now its at the user end.
An IDS should be part of any Internetwork.
Even allowing the millions of spam hitting can kill the most robust SMTP system.
As for Conflicker, blocking and monitoring its known ports doesn't require any "Bush era type" spying.
It is just good networking.
A good ISP will protect its address space from being put in a db.
Of course, when it does happen, going to the db usually outs the hacked address space.
For many years, colleges were the worst offenders.
But it could be one customer on a dial up line that pings you.The part that really gets me today is that most Wintel users don't have a DART (ERD) disk since they ain't MSCE'ed.
I've quickly fixed many a PC with them.
While the public is better educated when opening email, many still don't protect their browsers.
I'm glad to see Win7 will be browser neutral in Europe.
I would like to see Mozilla put up a list of recommended plug-ins on installation to at least get NoScript to more Firefox users.
For you finger pointers out there, Java/Flash run on all the major web servers (and can be platform independent servers themselves).Combating hackers goes back to the pre-browser days (yes children, we used to gopher).
Much of the early hacking led us to an open Internet (yes, it used to be a closed university/military network).
Much of the early hacking was for chat, games, and Usenet.
Today it is organized crime.
Hacker ISP's run a lot of this business.
I was glad to see one closed down recently, but there are many more still running.
Add to that the server farms with many hacked servers, and we are here today.
Powerful bot-nets controlled by the highest bidder.
Some day, some stupid "green card spam" will crash everything again (yes, that is when we lost Usenet).
Every ISP and server farm should be responsible and not be part of the problem.-John Clark</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28316429</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28317531</id>
	<title>Re:"Watch me" service</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244830140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Comcast sent an email to my boss stating he was infected with no opt-in. But we know where they stand on privacy issues.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Comcast sent an email to my boss stating he was infected with no opt-in .
But we know where they stand on privacy issues .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Comcast sent an email to my boss stating he was infected with no opt-in.
But we know where they stand on privacy issues.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28316429</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28319565</id>
	<title>Re:If we look carefully at these Windows worms...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244905320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are only two things that are infinite...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are only two things that are infinite.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are only two things that are infinite...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28316847</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28317059</id>
	<title>We ALL know the words to this one by now!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244823660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Botnets, worldwide botnets.<br>What kind of boxes are on botnets?</p><p>Compaq, H.P., Dell and Sony, true!<br>Gateway, Packard Bell, maybe even Asus, too!</p><p>Are boxes, found on botnets,<br>All running Windows! Foo!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Botnets , worldwide botnets.What kind of boxes are on botnets ? Compaq , H.P. , Dell and Sony , true ! Gateway , Packard Bell , maybe even Asus , too ! Are boxes , found on botnets,All running Windows !
Foo !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Botnets, worldwide botnets.What kind of boxes are on botnets?Compaq, H.P., Dell and Sony, true!Gateway, Packard Bell, maybe even Asus, too!Are boxes, found on botnets,All running Windows!
Foo!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28317643</id>
	<title>WHO says:</title>
	<author>assert(0)</author>
	<datestamp>1244832000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Conficker has reached level 6. It's pandemic now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Conficker has reached level 6 .
It 's pandemic now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Conficker has reached level 6.
It's pandemic now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28318505</id>
	<title>Viruses will always exist</title>
	<author>Turzyx</author>
	<datestamp>1244889600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Every trojan relies on a single component core to each and every desktop, laptop and server in existence. The user.
<br> <br>
Tragically, as long as humans are allowed the use of these systems there will always be viruses. People should not allow pretentious Linux admins to tell them any different.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Every trojan relies on a single component core to each and every desktop , laptop and server in existence .
The user .
Tragically , as long as humans are allowed the use of these systems there will always be viruses .
People should not allow pretentious Linux admins to tell them any different .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every trojan relies on a single component core to each and every desktop, laptop and server in existence.
The user.
Tragically, as long as humans are allowed the use of these systems there will always be viruses.
People should not allow pretentious Linux admins to tell them any different.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28316429</id>
	<title>"Watch me" service</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244817120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If your ISP provided a free service where it would text or phone you and offer to help clean up your systems if it detected malware-ish behavior coming from your computer or network, would you sign up?</p><p>The only gotcha is that you would be inviting the ISP to watch your traffic.</p><p>OK, this is slashdot, so most people would say "no," but how many regular people would say "yes" and would that make much of a difference?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If your ISP provided a free service where it would text or phone you and offer to help clean up your systems if it detected malware-ish behavior coming from your computer or network , would you sign up ? The only gotcha is that you would be inviting the ISP to watch your traffic.OK , this is slashdot , so most people would say " no , " but how many regular people would say " yes " and would that make much of a difference ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If your ISP provided a free service where it would text or phone you and offer to help clean up your systems if it detected malware-ish behavior coming from your computer or network, would you sign up?The only gotcha is that you would be inviting the ISP to watch your traffic.OK, this is slashdot, so most people would say "no," but how many regular people would say "yes" and would that make much of a difference?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28317133</id>
	<title>Re:Why can't we remove it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244824740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft did protect it's users. With an update to windows (http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/MS08-067.mspx) that fixed this vulnerability. Before Conflicker came out.</p><p>Users who refuse to keep their computer up to date are a problem that Microsoft can do VERY little about (at least without forcing Windows Update, which would pretty much piss everyone off, especially whenever it broke something)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft did protect it 's users .
With an update to windows ( http : //www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/MS08-067.mspx ) that fixed this vulnerability .
Before Conflicker came out.Users who refuse to keep their computer up to date are a problem that Microsoft can do VERY little about ( at least without forcing Windows Update , which would pretty much piss everyone off , especially whenever it broke something )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft did protect it's users.
With an update to windows (http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/MS08-067.mspx) that fixed this vulnerability.
Before Conflicker came out.Users who refuse to keep their computer up to date are a problem that Microsoft can do VERY little about (at least without forcing Windows Update, which would pretty much piss everyone off, especially whenever it broke something)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28317053</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28320017</id>
	<title>Re:If we look carefully at these Windows worms...</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1244910180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If only we consider more thoroughly what single thing they [Windows malware] all have in common, we might be able to find a cure.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>Hmmm, they're all in x86 code? I dunno, I'm stumped.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If only we consider more thoroughly what single thing they [ Windows malware ] all have in common , we might be able to find a cure .
Hmmm , they 're all in x86 code ?
I dunno , I 'm stumped .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If only we consider more thoroughly what single thing they [Windows malware] all have in common, we might be able to find a cure.
Hmmm, they're all in x86 code?
I dunno, I'm stumped.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28316847</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28317047</id>
	<title>Sure..</title>
	<author>msimm</author>
	<datestamp>1244823420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just make it opt-out and the 10\% of us (or whatever) that might not be comfortable can continue to use the service happily.
<br> <br>
The problem with bot-nets is not that people don't care (exactly) but that they are ignorant, literally, they don't know. Everyone wouldn't fix it or know how or who to turn to but the net result would still be X percentage less infected computers. Probably even an X percent increase in awareness/interest (personal information accessible/business information-secrets accessible/illicit information accessible/etc). And of course importantly an X percent decrease in profitability for operators (or at least their end-users).
<br> <br>
Kill the market.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just make it opt-out and the 10 \ % of us ( or whatever ) that might not be comfortable can continue to use the service happily .
The problem with bot-nets is not that people do n't care ( exactly ) but that they are ignorant , literally , they do n't know .
Everyone would n't fix it or know how or who to turn to but the net result would still be X percentage less infected computers .
Probably even an X percent increase in awareness/interest ( personal information accessible/business information-secrets accessible/illicit information accessible/etc ) .
And of course importantly an X percent decrease in profitability for operators ( or at least their end-users ) .
Kill the market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just make it opt-out and the 10\% of us (or whatever) that might not be comfortable can continue to use the service happily.
The problem with bot-nets is not that people don't care (exactly) but that they are ignorant, literally, they don't know.
Everyone wouldn't fix it or know how or who to turn to but the net result would still be X percentage less infected computers.
Probably even an X percent increase in awareness/interest (personal information accessible/business information-secrets accessible/illicit information accessible/etc).
And of course importantly an X percent decrease in profitability for operators (or at least their end-users).
Kill the market.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28316429</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28317129</id>
	<title>Re:"Watch me" service</title>
	<author>Mistlefoot</author>
	<datestamp>1244824680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Then most, if not all,  ISP's could use this strategy too.  Seeing as to how a very high percentage of users (my guess) would use the automatically obtained dns servers (from their ISP).  And it would be just as "non-intrusive, transparent to the end-user, and quite effective."<br><br>The ISP where I live - Shaw - offers free Anti-Virus based upon F-Secure.  Based upon this link it does protect against Cornficker and tools are provided to remove it.<br>http://www.f-secure.com/v-descs/worm\_w32\_downadup\_gen.shtml  (non clicky on purpose)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Then most , if not all , ISP 's could use this strategy too .
Seeing as to how a very high percentage of users ( my guess ) would use the automatically obtained dns servers ( from their ISP ) .
And it would be just as " non-intrusive , transparent to the end-user , and quite effective .
" The ISP where I live - Shaw - offers free Anti-Virus based upon F-Secure .
Based upon this link it does protect against Cornficker and tools are provided to remove it.http : //www.f-secure.com/v-descs/worm \ _w32 \ _downadup \ _gen.shtml ( non clicky on purpose )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then most, if not all,  ISP's could use this strategy too.
Seeing as to how a very high percentage of users (my guess) would use the automatically obtained dns servers (from their ISP).
And it would be just as "non-intrusive, transparent to the end-user, and quite effective.
"The ISP where I live - Shaw - offers free Anti-Virus based upon F-Secure.
Based upon this link it does protect against Cornficker and tools are provided to remove it.http://www.f-secure.com/v-descs/worm\_w32\_downadup\_gen.shtml  (non clicky on purpose)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28316545</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28317267</id>
	<title>Re:"Watch me" service</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244826360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The only gotcha is that you would be inviting the ISP to watch your traffic.</p></div></blockquote><p>But that's a gotcha for ISPs too. A lot of them want to continue being neutral access providers. They do not want to be aware -- and thus liable -- for what is passing through their tubes.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only gotcha is that you would be inviting the ISP to watch your traffic.But that 's a gotcha for ISPs too .
A lot of them want to continue being neutral access providers .
They do not want to be aware -- and thus liable -- for what is passing through their tubes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only gotcha is that you would be inviting the ISP to watch your traffic.But that's a gotcha for ISPs too.
A lot of them want to continue being neutral access providers.
They do not want to be aware -- and thus liable -- for what is passing through their tubes.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28316429</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28318129</id>
	<title>Re:"Watch me" service</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1244926080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure! I'm in the EU, they're watching my traffic already anyway, mandated by law. They could at least use that privacy invasion for some good, too, for a change.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure !
I 'm in the EU , they 're watching my traffic already anyway , mandated by law .
They could at least use that privacy invasion for some good , too , for a change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure!
I'm in the EU, they're watching my traffic already anyway, mandated by law.
They could at least use that privacy invasion for some good, too, for a change.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28316429</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28317031</id>
	<title>Re:If we look carefully at these Windows worms...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244823120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As usual, life rarely has one single element at play</p><p>Item 1: Lack of firewall.  A workign hardware or software firewall prevents all network infections.</p><p>Item 2: Lack up updates.  Machines that did not recieve security updates did not get the patch that fixed this issue <b>prior</b> to the apperance of Conficker.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As usual , life rarely has one single element at playItem 1 : Lack of firewall .
A workign hardware or software firewall prevents all network infections.Item 2 : Lack up updates .
Machines that did not recieve security updates did not get the patch that fixed this issue prior to the apperance of Conficker .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As usual, life rarely has one single element at playItem 1: Lack of firewall.
A workign hardware or software firewall prevents all network infections.Item 2: Lack up updates.
Machines that did not recieve security updates did not get the patch that fixed this issue prior to the apperance of Conficker.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28316847</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28318509</id>
	<title>Virus devastates millions of complacent idiots</title>
	<author>David Gerard</author>
	<datestamp>1244889600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A computer worm that spreads through low security networks, memory sticks, and PCs without the latest security updates is posing a growing threat to users <a href="http://notnews.today.com/2009/01/18/yet-another-windows-virus-devastates-millions-of-complacent-idiots/" title="today.com">blitheringly stupid</a> [today.com] enough to still think Windows is not ridiculously and unfixably insecure by design.

</p><p>Despite many years' warnings that Microsoft regards security as a marketing problem and has only ever done the absolute minimum it can get away with, millions of users who click on any rubbish they see in the hope of pictures of female tennis stars having wardrobe malfunctions still fail to believe that taking Windows out on the Internet is like standing bent over in the street in downtown Gomorrah, naked, arse greased up and carrying a flashing neon sign saying "COME AND GET IT."

</p><p>Microsoft cannot believe people have not applied the patch for the problem, just because they keep trying to use Windows Genuine Advantage to break legally-bought systems."Don't they trust us?" asked marketing marketer Steve Ballmer.

</p><p>Millions of smug Mac users and the four hundred smug Linux users pointed and laughed, having long given up trying to convince their Windows-using friends to see sense. "There's a reason the Unix system on Mac OS X is called <i>Darwin</i>," said appallingly smug Mac user Arty Phagge.

</p><p>"It can't be stupid if everyone else runs it," said Windows user Joe Beleaguered, who had lost all his email, business files, MP3s and porn <i>again</i>. "Macs cost more than Windows PCs."

</p><p>"Yes," said Phagge. "Yes, they do."

</p><p>Ubuntu Linux developer Hiram Nerdboy frantically tried to get our attention about something or other, but we can't say we care.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A computer worm that spreads through low security networks , memory sticks , and PCs without the latest security updates is posing a growing threat to users blitheringly stupid [ today.com ] enough to still think Windows is not ridiculously and unfixably insecure by design .
Despite many years ' warnings that Microsoft regards security as a marketing problem and has only ever done the absolute minimum it can get away with , millions of users who click on any rubbish they see in the hope of pictures of female tennis stars having wardrobe malfunctions still fail to believe that taking Windows out on the Internet is like standing bent over in the street in downtown Gomorrah , naked , arse greased up and carrying a flashing neon sign saying " COME AND GET IT .
" Microsoft can not believe people have not applied the patch for the problem , just because they keep trying to use Windows Genuine Advantage to break legally-bought systems .
" Do n't they trust us ?
" asked marketing marketer Steve Ballmer .
Millions of smug Mac users and the four hundred smug Linux users pointed and laughed , having long given up trying to convince their Windows-using friends to see sense .
" There 's a reason the Unix system on Mac OS X is called Darwin , " said appallingly smug Mac user Arty Phagge .
" It ca n't be stupid if everyone else runs it , " said Windows user Joe Beleaguered , who had lost all his email , business files , MP3s and porn again .
" Macs cost more than Windows PCs .
" " Yes , " said Phagge .
" Yes , they do .
" Ubuntu Linux developer Hiram Nerdboy frantically tried to get our attention about something or other , but we ca n't say we care .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A computer worm that spreads through low security networks, memory sticks, and PCs without the latest security updates is posing a growing threat to users blitheringly stupid [today.com] enough to still think Windows is not ridiculously and unfixably insecure by design.
Despite many years' warnings that Microsoft regards security as a marketing problem and has only ever done the absolute minimum it can get away with, millions of users who click on any rubbish they see in the hope of pictures of female tennis stars having wardrobe malfunctions still fail to believe that taking Windows out on the Internet is like standing bent over in the street in downtown Gomorrah, naked, arse greased up and carrying a flashing neon sign saying "COME AND GET IT.
"

Microsoft cannot believe people have not applied the patch for the problem, just because they keep trying to use Windows Genuine Advantage to break legally-bought systems.
"Don't they trust us?
" asked marketing marketer Steve Ballmer.
Millions of smug Mac users and the four hundred smug Linux users pointed and laughed, having long given up trying to convince their Windows-using friends to see sense.
"There's a reason the Unix system on Mac OS X is called Darwin," said appallingly smug Mac user Arty Phagge.
"It can't be stupid if everyone else runs it," said Windows user Joe Beleaguered, who had lost all his email, business files, MP3s and porn again.
"Macs cost more than Windows PCs.
"

"Yes," said Phagge.
"Yes, they do.
"

Ubuntu Linux developer Hiram Nerdboy frantically tried to get our attention about something or other, but we can't say we care.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28316577</id>
	<title>Re:Correction</title>
	<author>timmarhy</author>
	<datestamp>1244818380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>hasn't there been multiple worms for openssl and apache?</p><p>i'm suprised i have to make this point yet again, but there are more machines infected than the whole linux marketshare. until linux is really in the hands of the common newb you won't have an apples and apples comparison.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>has n't there been multiple worms for openssl and apache ? i 'm suprised i have to make this point yet again , but there are more machines infected than the whole linux marketshare .
until linux is really in the hands of the common newb you wo n't have an apples and apples comparison .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>hasn't there been multiple worms for openssl and apache?i'm suprised i have to make this point yet again, but there are more machines infected than the whole linux marketshare.
until linux is really in the hands of the common newb you won't have an apples and apples comparison.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28316343</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28322175</id>
	<title>Re:Why can't we remove it?</title>
	<author>g-san</author>
	<datestamp>1244885100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; We now have Windows Defender... What is so special about Conficker..</p><p>For one, conficker kills Windows Defender and keeps it from starting up on reboot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; We now have Windows Defender... What is so special about Conficker..For one , conficker kills Windows Defender and keeps it from starting up on reboot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; We now have Windows Defender... What is so special about Conficker..For one, conficker kills Windows Defender and keeps it from starting up on reboot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28317053</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28316545</id>
	<title>Re:"Watch me" service</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244818020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OpenDNS already have a system set up where, if you use their DNS servers, it will tell you if it detects any Confiker-type activity on your network. Non-intrusive, transparent to the end-user, and quite effective.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OpenDNS already have a system set up where , if you use their DNS servers , it will tell you if it detects any Confiker-type activity on your network .
Non-intrusive , transparent to the end-user , and quite effective .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OpenDNS already have a system set up where, if you use their DNS servers, it will tell you if it detects any Confiker-type activity on your network.
Non-intrusive, transparent to the end-user, and quite effective.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28316429</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28316827</id>
	<title>More in depth netcast on Conficker</title>
	<author>From\_the\_Lou</author>
	<datestamp>1244820720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No affiliation here to the website, just a really good podcast/netcast.

<a href="http://twit.tv/sn193" title="twit.tv" rel="nofollow">http://twit.tv/sn193</a> [twit.tv]</htmltext>
<tokenext>No affiliation here to the website , just a really good podcast/netcast .
http : //twit.tv/sn193 [ twit.tv ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No affiliation here to the website, just a really good podcast/netcast.
http://twit.tv/sn193 [twit.tv]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28317715</id>
	<title>Re:"Watch me" service</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1244833020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>If your ISP provided a free service where it would text or phone you and offer to help clean up your systems if it detected malware-ish behavior coming from your computer or network, would you sign up?</i> </p><p>I'll take the odds that your cable ISP has a free Internet security bundle for Windows.</p><p> <a href="http://www.rr.com/security" title="rr.com">Security Center</a> [rr.com] </p><p><i>OK, this is slashdot, so most people would say "no," but how many regular people would say "yes" and would that make much of a difference?</i> </p><p>The uncomfortable truth about privacy is that is you are most likely to have it when you don't want it. But that is a lesson lost on the young.</p><p>Your Bell Telephone service was monitored for quality control for one hundred years. For most of those years, the phone was your lifeline.</p><p>Securing the network was in everyone's best interest.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If your ISP provided a free service where it would text or phone you and offer to help clean up your systems if it detected malware-ish behavior coming from your computer or network , would you sign up ?
I 'll take the odds that your cable ISP has a free Internet security bundle for Windows .
Security Center [ rr.com ] OK , this is slashdot , so most people would say " no , " but how many regular people would say " yes " and would that make much of a difference ?
The uncomfortable truth about privacy is that is you are most likely to have it when you do n't want it .
But that is a lesson lost on the young.Your Bell Telephone service was monitored for quality control for one hundred years .
For most of those years , the phone was your lifeline.Securing the network was in everyone 's best interest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If your ISP provided a free service where it would text or phone you and offer to help clean up your systems if it detected malware-ish behavior coming from your computer or network, would you sign up?
I'll take the odds that your cable ISP has a free Internet security bundle for Windows.
Security Center [rr.com] OK, this is slashdot, so most people would say "no," but how many regular people would say "yes" and would that make much of a difference?
The uncomfortable truth about privacy is that is you are most likely to have it when you don't want it.
But that is a lesson lost on the young.Your Bell Telephone service was monitored for quality control for one hundred years.
For most of those years, the phone was your lifeline.Securing the network was in everyone's best interest.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28316429</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28317009</id>
	<title>This started with ANOTHER WIndows "massfix"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244822880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Am I the only one who thinks it strange that M$ has just announced yet another 31 "security holes" in their software?</p><p>I have to wonder if there is something out there that makes Confliker look like a practice run!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Am I the only one who thinks it strange that M $ has just announced yet another 31 " security holes " in their software ? I have to wonder if there is something out there that makes Confliker look like a practice run !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Am I the only one who thinks it strange that M$ has just announced yet another 31 "security holes" in their software?I have to wonder if there is something out there that makes Confliker look like a practice run!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28317053</id>
	<title>Why can't we remove it?</title>
	<author>fermion</author>
	<datestamp>1244823480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We now have Windows Defender.  MS should know every nook and cranny in MS Window.  What is so special about Conficker that the best software company in the world can't protect it's user against a well known and defined threat.  I realize that dumb users will often just go back and reinfect the computer, but then we would expect defender to block the reinstall.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We now have Windows Defender .
MS should know every nook and cranny in MS Window .
What is so special about Conficker that the best software company in the world ca n't protect it 's user against a well known and defined threat .
I realize that dumb users will often just go back and reinfect the computer , but then we would expect defender to block the reinstall .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We now have Windows Defender.
MS should know every nook and cranny in MS Window.
What is so special about Conficker that the best software company in the world can't protect it's user against a well known and defined threat.
I realize that dumb users will often just go back and reinfect the computer, but then we would expect defender to block the reinstall.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28316323</id>
	<title>Hate to say it...</title>
	<author>Tyrun</author>
	<datestamp>1244816040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>But I think we all saw that one coming.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But I think we all saw that one coming .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But I think we all saw that one coming.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28317359</id>
	<title>Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?</title>
	<author>symbolset</author>
	<datestamp>1244827560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Um, no.  Unless you made it mandatory for everyone in the world this is not going to solve this problem.  Probably not even then.
</p><p>Credible network admins are having trouble getting rid of this thing, and they have Group Policy and Remote Admin access.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Um , no .
Unless you made it mandatory for everyone in the world this is not going to solve this problem .
Probably not even then .
Credible network admins are having trouble getting rid of this thing , and they have Group Policy and Remote Admin access .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um, no.
Unless you made it mandatory for everyone in the world this is not going to solve this problem.
Probably not even then.
Credible network admins are having trouble getting rid of this thing, and they have Group Policy and Remote Admin access.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28316429</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28319465</id>
	<title>'computer' worm</title>
	<author>viralMeme</author>
	<datestamp>1244904300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>'The dry, technical language of Microsoft's October update did not indicate anything particularly untoward. A security flaw in a port that Windows-based PCs use to send and receive network signals, it said, might be used to create a "wormable exploit"'<br> <br>

Don't they mean a BUG in the Operating System and defects in the Memory Management unit lead to the worst <a href="http://mtc.sri.com/Conficker/addendumC/" title="sri.com">virus/worm</a> [sri.com] infestation in years.<br> <br>

'One major implication from the Conficker B and C variants, as well as other now recently emerging malware families, is the sophistication with which they are able to terminate, disable, reconfigure, or blackhole native operating system (OS) and <a href="http://mtc.sri.com/Conficker/addendumC/" title="sri.com">third-party security services</a> [sri.com]'</htmltext>
<tokenext>'The dry , technical language of Microsoft 's October update did not indicate anything particularly untoward .
A security flaw in a port that Windows-based PCs use to send and receive network signals , it said , might be used to create a " wormable exploit " ' Do n't they mean a BUG in the Operating System and defects in the Memory Management unit lead to the worst virus/worm [ sri.com ] infestation in years .
'One major implication from the Conficker B and C variants , as well as other now recently emerging malware families , is the sophistication with which they are able to terminate , disable , reconfigure , or blackhole native operating system ( OS ) and third-party security services [ sri.com ] '</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'The dry, technical language of Microsoft's October update did not indicate anything particularly untoward.
A security flaw in a port that Windows-based PCs use to send and receive network signals, it said, might be used to create a "wormable exploit"' 

Don't they mean a BUG in the Operating System and defects in the Memory Management unit lead to the worst virus/worm [sri.com] infestation in years.
'One major implication from the Conficker B and C variants, as well as other now recently emerging malware families, is the sophistication with which they are able to terminate, disable, reconfigure, or blackhole native operating system (OS) and third-party security services [sri.com]'</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28318995</id>
	<title>Any zombie networks running on Linux ...</title>
	<author>jopet</author>
	<datestamp>1244898480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>or on some other non-Windows OS? This is a serious question<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... what is the amount of exploits and similar with regard to non Windows computers. Is it known?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>or on some other non-Windows OS ?
This is a serious question ... what is the amount of exploits and similar with regard to non Windows computers .
Is it known ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>or on some other non-Windows OS?
This is a serious question ... what is the amount of exploits and similar with regard to non Windows computers.
Is it known?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28317203</id>
	<title>Internet Telescope</title>
	<author>thejapanesegeek</author>
	<datestamp>1244825460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>What I thought was interesting was the <a href="http://www.caida.org/research/security/telescope/" title="caida.org" rel="nofollow">internet telescope</a> [caida.org] mentioned in the article. No wonder we're running out of IPv4 addresses, someone's wasting millions of them!</htmltext>
<tokenext>What I thought was interesting was the internet telescope [ caida.org ] mentioned in the article .
No wonder we 're running out of IPv4 addresses , someone 's wasting millions of them !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I thought was interesting was the internet telescope [caida.org] mentioned in the article.
No wonder we're running out of IPv4 addresses, someone's wasting millions of them!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28317605</id>
	<title>User education!</title>
	<author>oljanx</author>
	<datestamp>1244831520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I routinely encounter people who have disabled windows update because they believe Microsoft is out to get them.  They worry that the updates their computer nags them about are filled with unnecessary crap.  Crap that will spy on them, display advertisements, install toolbars and hijack their machine.  I think this is largely due to some weird cultural concept that Windows is both evil and necessary.  In truth, it's neither.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I routinely encounter people who have disabled windows update because they believe Microsoft is out to get them .
They worry that the updates their computer nags them about are filled with unnecessary crap .
Crap that will spy on them , display advertisements , install toolbars and hijack their machine .
I think this is largely due to some weird cultural concept that Windows is both evil and necessary .
In truth , it 's neither .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I routinely encounter people who have disabled windows update because they believe Microsoft is out to get them.
They worry that the updates their computer nags them about are filled with unnecessary crap.
Crap that will spy on them, display advertisements, install toolbars and hijack their machine.
I think this is largely due to some weird cultural concept that Windows is both evil and necessary.
In truth, it's neither.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28318407</id>
	<title>Re:User education!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244887980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm exactly who you are referring to. I disabled Windows automatic updates after it added the WGA installer, which nags me every day about wanting to install unnecessary crap. Even after disabling the automatic updates, I'm still searching for a way to stop the daily nagging of the WGA installer. (Note: this is at work. At home I do have the Ubuntu automatic update enabled)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm exactly who you are referring to .
I disabled Windows automatic updates after it added the WGA installer , which nags me every day about wanting to install unnecessary crap .
Even after disabling the automatic updates , I 'm still searching for a way to stop the daily nagging of the WGA installer .
( Note : this is at work .
At home I do have the Ubuntu automatic update enabled )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm exactly who you are referring to.
I disabled Windows automatic updates after it added the WGA installer, which nags me every day about wanting to install unnecessary crap.
Even after disabling the automatic updates, I'm still searching for a way to stop the daily nagging of the WGA installer.
(Note: this is at work.
At home I do have the Ubuntu automatic update enabled)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28317605</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28326065</id>
	<title>Re:User education!</title>
	<author>Chemisor</author>
	<datestamp>1244988780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So let's give the users an education. Instead of trying to block all these botnets, hack them! They are designed to distribute malicious software, so use that capability! Write a payload that would erase the hard drive on every infected machine and send it out there. I guarantee you that in a few weeks the users will be educated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So let 's give the users an education .
Instead of trying to block all these botnets , hack them !
They are designed to distribute malicious software , so use that capability !
Write a payload that would erase the hard drive on every infected machine and send it out there .
I guarantee you that in a few weeks the users will be educated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So let's give the users an education.
Instead of trying to block all these botnets, hack them!
They are designed to distribute malicious software, so use that capability!
Write a payload that would erase the hard drive on every infected machine and send it out there.
I guarantee you that in a few weeks the users will be educated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28317605</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28316847</id>
	<title>If we look carefully at these Windows worms...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244820900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If only we consider more thoroughly what single thing they all have in common, we might be able to find a cure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If only we consider more thoroughly what single thing they all have in common , we might be able to find a cure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If only we consider more thoroughly what single thing they all have in common, we might be able to find a cure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28316429</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28317435</id>
	<title>d\%i3k</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244828880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">pleAse moderate</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>pleAse moderate [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>pleAse moderate [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2144243_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28317133
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28317053
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2144243_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28322175
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28317053
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2144243_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28318407
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28317605
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2144243_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28317531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28316429
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2144243_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28317129
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28316545
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28316429
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2144243_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28317031
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28316847
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28316429
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2144243_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28317359
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28316429
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2144243_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28317047
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28316429
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2144243_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28318129
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28316429
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2144243_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28316577
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28316343
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2144243_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28320017
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28316847
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28316429
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2144243_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28319565
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28316847
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28316429
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2144243_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28326065
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28317605
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2144243_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28317715
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28316429
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2144243_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28317109
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28316429
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2144243_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28317267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28316429
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_2144243.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28316343
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28316577
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_2144243.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28317059
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_2144243.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28317643
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_2144243.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28317655
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_2144243.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28316429
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28317531
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28317267
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28316847
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28319565
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28317031
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28320017
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28317715
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28317359
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28318129
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28317047
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28317109
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28316545
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28317129
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_2144243.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28317605
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28326065
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28318407
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_2144243.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28317053
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28322175
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2144243.28317133
</commentlist>
</conversation>
