<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_14_1932234</id>
	<title>Attacks Against Unpatched Microsoft Bug Multiply</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1247569140000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.computerworld.com/" rel="nofollow">CWmike</a> writes <i>"Attacks exploiting the latest Microsoft vulnerability are <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9135499">quickly ramping up in quantity and intensity</a>, several security companies warned today as they rang alarms about the developing threat. Symantec, Sunbelt Software, and SANS' Internet Storm Center bumped up their warnings yesterday after Microsoft announced that <a href="//it.slashdot.org/story/09/07/07/1254243">attackers were exploiting a bug in an ActiveX control</a> used by IE to display Excel spreadsheets. There is no patch for the vulnerability; Microsoft <a href="http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=3739">didn't release one</a> in today's Patch Tuesday. A temporary fix that sets the 'kill bits' of the ActiveX control is available, but experts believe it's likely most users won't take advantage of the protection. Symantec <a href="http://www.symantec.com/security\_response/threatconlearn.jsp">raised its ThreatCon ranking</a> to the second of four steps. "We're seeing it exploited, but currently on a limited scale," said Symantec's Ben Greenbaum. Sunbelt also <a href="http://sunbeltblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/threat-level-high-microsoft.html">bumped up its ranking, to high</a>."</i> Firefox users can't be too complacent; Secunia is warning of a <a href="http://secunia.com/advisories/35798/">0-day in version 3.5</a>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>CWmike writes " Attacks exploiting the latest Microsoft vulnerability are quickly ramping up in quantity and intensity , several security companies warned today as they rang alarms about the developing threat .
Symantec , Sunbelt Software , and SANS ' Internet Storm Center bumped up their warnings yesterday after Microsoft announced that attackers were exploiting a bug in an ActiveX control used by IE to display Excel spreadsheets .
There is no patch for the vulnerability ; Microsoft did n't release one in today 's Patch Tuesday .
A temporary fix that sets the 'kill bits ' of the ActiveX control is available , but experts believe it 's likely most users wo n't take advantage of the protection .
Symantec raised its ThreatCon ranking to the second of four steps .
" We 're seeing it exploited , but currently on a limited scale , " said Symantec 's Ben Greenbaum .
Sunbelt also bumped up its ranking , to high .
" Firefox users ca n't be too complacent ; Secunia is warning of a 0-day in version 3.5 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CWmike writes "Attacks exploiting the latest Microsoft vulnerability are quickly ramping up in quantity and intensity, several security companies warned today as they rang alarms about the developing threat.
Symantec, Sunbelt Software, and SANS' Internet Storm Center bumped up their warnings yesterday after Microsoft announced that attackers were exploiting a bug in an ActiveX control used by IE to display Excel spreadsheets.
There is no patch for the vulnerability; Microsoft didn't release one in today's Patch Tuesday.
A temporary fix that sets the 'kill bits' of the ActiveX control is available, but experts believe it's likely most users won't take advantage of the protection.
Symantec raised its ThreatCon ranking to the second of four steps.
"We're seeing it exploited, but currently on a limited scale," said Symantec's Ben Greenbaum.
Sunbelt also bumped up its ranking, to high.
" Firefox users can't be too complacent; Secunia is warning of a 0-day in version 3.5.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28697943</id>
	<title>Active X again?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247574600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With the number of ActiveX related security issues you would have thought they would simply drop it or at least sandbox it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With the number of ActiveX related security issues you would have thought they would simply drop it or at least sandbox it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With the number of ActiveX related security issues you would have thought they would simply drop it or at least sandbox it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28698451</id>
	<title>More than multiplying, I'm afraid</title>
	<author>Curate</author>
	<datestamp>1247578500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>These attacks are exploiting a flaw in an ActiveX control for displaying Excel worksheets.  Right now they are just multiplying.  You just know that they will eventually start adding.  What happens if they start subtracting?  Let's not even mention dividing at this point.  God help us all...</htmltext>
<tokenext>These attacks are exploiting a flaw in an ActiveX control for displaying Excel worksheets .
Right now they are just multiplying .
You just know that they will eventually start adding .
What happens if they start subtracting ?
Let 's not even mention dividing at this point .
God help us all.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These attacks are exploiting a flaw in an ActiveX control for displaying Excel worksheets.
Right now they are just multiplying.
You just know that they will eventually start adding.
What happens if they start subtracting?
Let's not even mention dividing at this point.
God help us all...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28697745</id>
	<title>server side scanning</title>
	<author>gad\_zuki!</author>
	<datestamp>1247573220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why dont web hosts scan for hosted vulnerabilities? I imagine a nightly clamav scan by web hosts would make all the difference in cases like these where there is no patch yet but there is an web-based exploit.  Heck, some users dont even patch, as was shown by Conficker, which was patched in October and spread like wildfire in January.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why dont web hosts scan for hosted vulnerabilities ?
I imagine a nightly clamav scan by web hosts would make all the difference in cases like these where there is no patch yet but there is an web-based exploit .
Heck , some users dont even patch , as was shown by Conficker , which was patched in October and spread like wildfire in January .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why dont web hosts scan for hosted vulnerabilities?
I imagine a nightly clamav scan by web hosts would make all the difference in cases like these where there is no patch yet but there is an web-based exploit.
Heck, some users dont even patch, as was shown by Conficker, which was patched in October and spread like wildfire in January.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28697933</id>
	<title>Only 9 posts?</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1247574540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Apparently everyone using IE or FF 3.5 is waiting for updates before posting.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apparently everyone using IE or FF 3.5 is waiting for updates before posting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apparently everyone using IE or FF 3.5 is waiting for updates before posting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28698903</id>
	<title>Re:My solution for ActiveX (no, not installing Lin</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247581920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>For all intents and purposes "intensive purposes" is a silly phrase.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For all intents and purposes " intensive purposes " is a silly phrase .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For all intents and purposes "intensive purposes" is a silly phrase.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28697899</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28697759</id>
	<title>Firefox 3.5?</title>
	<author>HTH NE1</author>
	<datestamp>1247573280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Firefox users can't be too complacent; Secunia is warning of a 0-day in version 3.5.</p></div><p>Well, I guess I'm safe. At my workplace, my Redhat 9 installation is incapable of running any version newer than Firefox 2.0.0.20.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefox users ca n't be too complacent ; Secunia is warning of a 0-day in version 3.5.Well , I guess I 'm safe .
At my workplace , my Redhat 9 installation is incapable of running any version newer than Firefox 2.0.0.20 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firefox users can't be too complacent; Secunia is warning of a 0-day in version 3.5.Well, I guess I'm safe.
At my workplace, my Redhat 9 installation is incapable of running any version newer than Firefox 2.0.0.20.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28698179</id>
	<title>Full disclosure or what?</title>
	<author>fedxone-v86</author>
	<datestamp>1247576340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why is Secunia (http://secunia.com/advisories/35798/2/) only featuring a link to the exploit of the ff3.5 0day but no link the Mozilla bugtracker?

</p><p>Don't want to sound trollish but I don't really know how this whole security business works. So can anyone please explain why there is no bug report for the open source browser?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is Secunia ( http : //secunia.com/advisories/35798/2/ ) only featuring a link to the exploit of the ff3.5 0day but no link the Mozilla bugtracker ?
Do n't want to sound trollish but I do n't really know how this whole security business works .
So can anyone please explain why there is no bug report for the open source browser ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is Secunia (http://secunia.com/advisories/35798/2/) only featuring a link to the exploit of the ff3.5 0day but no link the Mozilla bugtracker?
Don't want to sound trollish but I don't really know how this whole security business works.
So can anyone please explain why there is no bug report for the open source browser?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28697899</id>
	<title>My solution for ActiveX (no, not installing Linux)</title>
	<author>istartedi</author>
	<datestamp>1247574300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I use the IE security settings.  Yes.  It works.
The only real problem with it, is that they are a bit
convoluted for ActiveX.  I had to slow down and think
before I got what I wanted, which is essentially to have
any web site that wants to run ActiveX prompt me, and then
I can choose to accept (but virtually never do).</p><p>Notice to web developers:  If your site requires ActiveX,
and it's not an absolutely essential service from a company
that I can yell at, I will go someplace else.  IIRC, I have
one online financial service that fits that category.</p><p>Otherwise, I DON'T NEED ACTIVEX.  NOBODY REALLY DOES.
ANYTHING WORTH DOING CAN BE DONE WITHOUT IT.</p><p>And yes, that's shouting.  It needs to be shouted loud
enough for these people to hear it.  It needs to be shouted
again, and again.  ActiveX belongs with IE6.  Actually, it should
have been killed off many revs before that.  It should have been
shot down by somebody who countered the suggestion at the very
first meeting where it was discussed.  Maybe somebody had the
flu that day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I use the IE security settings .
Yes. It works .
The only real problem with it , is that they are a bit convoluted for ActiveX .
I had to slow down and think before I got what I wanted , which is essentially to have any web site that wants to run ActiveX prompt me , and then I can choose to accept ( but virtually never do ) .Notice to web developers : If your site requires ActiveX , and it 's not an absolutely essential service from a company that I can yell at , I will go someplace else .
IIRC , I have one online financial service that fits that category.Otherwise , I DO N'T NEED ACTIVEX .
NOBODY REALLY DOES .
ANYTHING WORTH DOING CAN BE DONE WITHOUT IT.And yes , that 's shouting .
It needs to be shouted loud enough for these people to hear it .
It needs to be shouted again , and again .
ActiveX belongs with IE6 .
Actually , it should have been killed off many revs before that .
It should have been shot down by somebody who countered the suggestion at the very first meeting where it was discussed .
Maybe somebody had the flu that day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use the IE security settings.
Yes.  It works.
The only real problem with it, is that they are a bit
convoluted for ActiveX.
I had to slow down and think
before I got what I wanted, which is essentially to have
any web site that wants to run ActiveX prompt me, and then
I can choose to accept (but virtually never do).Notice to web developers:  If your site requires ActiveX,
and it's not an absolutely essential service from a company
that I can yell at, I will go someplace else.
IIRC, I have
one online financial service that fits that category.Otherwise, I DON'T NEED ACTIVEX.
NOBODY REALLY DOES.
ANYTHING WORTH DOING CAN BE DONE WITHOUT IT.And yes, that's shouting.
It needs to be shouted loud
enough for these people to hear it.
It needs to be shouted
again, and again.
ActiveX belongs with IE6.
Actually, it should
have been killed off many revs before that.
It should have been
shot down by somebody who countered the suggestion at the very
first meeting where it was discussed.
Maybe somebody had the
flu that day.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28698757</id>
	<title>Re:server side scanning</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247580660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ClamAV has the worst detection rates of any of the available antivirus programs, whether free or pay. It certainly won't detect a 0-day vulnerability.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ClamAV has the worst detection rates of any of the available antivirus programs , whether free or pay .
It certainly wo n't detect a 0-day vulnerability .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ClamAV has the worst detection rates of any of the available antivirus programs, whether free or pay.
It certainly won't detect a 0-day vulnerability.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28697745</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28700421</id>
	<title>Re:server side scanning</title>
	<author>causality</author>
	<datestamp>1247596200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why dont web hosts scan for hosted vulnerabilities? I imagine a nightly clamav scan by web hosts would make all the difference in cases like these where there is no patch yet but there is an web-based exploit.  Heck, some users dont even patch, as was shown by Conficker, which was patched in October and spread like wildfire in January.</p></div><p>Perhaps they realize that doing so would be damage control, not security?  That's if you're using a malware scanner like clamav.
<br> <br>
If they were to scan with something, there are more useful ways.  They could scan their hosted systems with something like nessus.  That would stand a chance of finding vulnerabilities and identifying what is exploitable so that they may be fixed.  That actually would improve security, which is mostly prevention.  Then there would be fewer opportunities for malware to infect the machines in the first place.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why dont web hosts scan for hosted vulnerabilities ?
I imagine a nightly clamav scan by web hosts would make all the difference in cases like these where there is no patch yet but there is an web-based exploit .
Heck , some users dont even patch , as was shown by Conficker , which was patched in October and spread like wildfire in January.Perhaps they realize that doing so would be damage control , not security ?
That 's if you 're using a malware scanner like clamav .
If they were to scan with something , there are more useful ways .
They could scan their hosted systems with something like nessus .
That would stand a chance of finding vulnerabilities and identifying what is exploitable so that they may be fixed .
That actually would improve security , which is mostly prevention .
Then there would be fewer opportunities for malware to infect the machines in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why dont web hosts scan for hosted vulnerabilities?
I imagine a nightly clamav scan by web hosts would make all the difference in cases like these where there is no patch yet but there is an web-based exploit.
Heck, some users dont even patch, as was shown by Conficker, which was patched in October and spread like wildfire in January.Perhaps they realize that doing so would be damage control, not security?
That's if you're using a malware scanner like clamav.
If they were to scan with something, there are more useful ways.
They could scan their hosted systems with something like nessus.
That would stand a chance of finding vulnerabilities and identifying what is exploitable so that they may be fixed.
That actually would improve security, which is mostly prevention.
Then there would be fewer opportunities for malware to infect the machines in the first place.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28697745</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28697841</id>
	<title>It's about time...</title>
	<author>whowantscream</author>
	<datestamp>1247573880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Someone finally found a hole in a Microsoft application using a Microsoft framework opening a Microsoft application!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone finally found a hole in a Microsoft application using a Microsoft framework opening a Microsoft application !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone finally found a hole in a Microsoft application using a Microsoft framework opening a Microsoft application!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28698901</id>
	<title>I have a working patch.</title>
	<author>Repossessed</author>
	<datestamp>1247581920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a working patch for IE issues.</p><p>www.firefox.com</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a working patch for IE issues.www.firefox.com</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a working patch for IE issues.www.firefox.com</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28719361</id>
	<title>Re:My solution for ActiveX (no, not installing Lin</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247768700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know if this also applies to newer IEs but disabling ActiveX also disabled Flash. Oasis. Heaven. Sweet summer afternoon. I've recently switched to Iron and I had forgotten how annoying Flash was, that it can be suddenly unexpectedly noisy, and that it can bog up your machine real good, and I hope they will add a way to deactivate it soon. Mind you, uninstalling the plugin wouldn't work, because then you can't use it in the few sites that need it (YouTube and cohorts); just don't load the plugin until I click on it. Of course, strictly speaking YouTube doesn't really need it either, since you can get<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.flv playback in pretty much any media player nowadays, and playback is usually smoother and looks better than it does when you use Flash. So perhaps what we really need is a kind of Flash emulating plugin that pretends to be the Flash video towards the page and the server, but in reality doesn't have UI and solely exists to intercept the video stream and show it in your default media player.<br>Oh, one nitpick: ActiveX is not inherently more ore less secure than other plugin systems, so you should have said plugins instead of ActiveX.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know if this also applies to newer IEs but disabling ActiveX also disabled Flash .
Oasis. Heaven .
Sweet summer afternoon .
I 've recently switched to Iron and I had forgotten how annoying Flash was , that it can be suddenly unexpectedly noisy , and that it can bog up your machine real good , and I hope they will add a way to deactivate it soon .
Mind you , uninstalling the plugin would n't work , because then you ca n't use it in the few sites that need it ( YouTube and cohorts ) ; just do n't load the plugin until I click on it .
Of course , strictly speaking YouTube does n't really need it either , since you can get .flv playback in pretty much any media player nowadays , and playback is usually smoother and looks better than it does when you use Flash .
So perhaps what we really need is a kind of Flash emulating plugin that pretends to be the Flash video towards the page and the server , but in reality does n't have UI and solely exists to intercept the video stream and show it in your default media player.Oh , one nitpick : ActiveX is not inherently more ore less secure than other plugin systems , so you should have said plugins instead of ActiveX .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know if this also applies to newer IEs but disabling ActiveX also disabled Flash.
Oasis. Heaven.
Sweet summer afternoon.
I've recently switched to Iron and I had forgotten how annoying Flash was, that it can be suddenly unexpectedly noisy, and that it can bog up your machine real good, and I hope they will add a way to deactivate it soon.
Mind you, uninstalling the plugin wouldn't work, because then you can't use it in the few sites that need it (YouTube and cohorts); just don't load the plugin until I click on it.
Of course, strictly speaking YouTube doesn't really need it either, since you can get .flv playback in pretty much any media player nowadays, and playback is usually smoother and looks better than it does when you use Flash.
So perhaps what we really need is a kind of Flash emulating plugin that pretends to be the Flash video towards the page and the server, but in reality doesn't have UI and solely exists to intercept the video stream and show it in your default media player.Oh, one nitpick: ActiveX is not inherently more ore less secure than other plugin systems, so you should have said plugins instead of ActiveX.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28697899</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28699567</id>
	<title>I'm using Chrome!</title>
	<author>vrmlguy</author>
	<datestamp>1247587620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ha-ha, suckers!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ha-ha , suckers !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ha-ha, suckers!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28698227</id>
	<title>Re:Ohh noes....</title>
	<author>sc0ob5</author>
	<datestamp>1247576640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>You'd be surprised how many people do it. In fact so many people do it where I work that I put a reghack in the logon script to make it so that all XLS files are opened with excel and not IE.<p>"HKEY\_LOCAL\_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Classes\Excel.Sheet.8\BrowserFlags",00000008,"REG\_DWORD"</p><p>I didn't put it in place for this vulnerability though, just because a lot of people use macros and don't know how to save as.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 'd be surprised how many people do it .
In fact so many people do it where I work that I put a reghack in the logon script to make it so that all XLS files are opened with excel and not IE .
" HKEY \ _LOCAL \ _MACHINE \ SOFTWARE \ Classes \ Excel.Sheet.8 \ BrowserFlags " ,00000008 , " REG \ _DWORD " I did n't put it in place for this vulnerability though , just because a lot of people use macros and do n't know how to save as .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You'd be surprised how many people do it.
In fact so many people do it where I work that I put a reghack in the logon script to make it so that all XLS files are opened with excel and not IE.
"HKEY\_LOCAL\_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Classes\Excel.Sheet.8\BrowserFlags",00000008,"REG\_DWORD"I didn't put it in place for this vulnerability though, just because a lot of people use macros and don't know how to save as.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28697797</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28697815</id>
	<title>Microsoft is crap</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247573700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mod me up, cause I talked bad about Microsoft. It's the Slashdot way and you must stick with the Slashdot norms otherwise you'll look like a complete asshole.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod me up , cause I talked bad about Microsoft .
It 's the Slashdot way and you must stick with the Slashdot norms otherwise you 'll look like a complete asshole .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod me up, cause I talked bad about Microsoft.
It's the Slashdot way and you must stick with the Slashdot norms otherwise you'll look like a complete asshole.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28698667</id>
	<title>Re:server side scanning</title>
	<author>WheelDweller</author>
	<datestamp>1247579940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey, sure. We flush-n-fill workstations, planet wide in corporate offices.  Ya know, maybe we could make friends with aliens and have THEM also scan our computers.</p><p>OR WE COULD JUST USE SOMETHING LESS FRAGILE.</p><p>Look at the risk; we're always hearing of people losing thousands of dollars, spending most of a decade trying to get it back.  TWO MILLION active viruses and another 100,000 every month for the last decade.</p><p>Where else do you go buy a product, and then *immediately* buy someone else's product to ensure it makes it through the day?  Did you ever buy that thing again?</p><p>Yeah, all computers have expolits. Only one manufacturer is installing an express lane.</p><p>And no, when Linux machines get larger, they probably won't have viruses, because the people who program it won't abide their existence to sell support contracts.</p><p>And it won't take more installed systems- there have been more Linux machines than Macs for like, five years now. (Reported here, iirc)</p><p>It can't get much simpler; it can't get much stronger. Why on Earth would anyone presume it faulty, just because it's not identical?</p><p>Wake up, people!  How many stories like this do we have to read?!?!?!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , sure .
We flush-n-fill workstations , planet wide in corporate offices .
Ya know , maybe we could make friends with aliens and have THEM also scan our computers.OR WE COULD JUST USE SOMETHING LESS FRAGILE.Look at the risk ; we 're always hearing of people losing thousands of dollars , spending most of a decade trying to get it back .
TWO MILLION active viruses and another 100,000 every month for the last decade.Where else do you go buy a product , and then * immediately * buy someone else 's product to ensure it makes it through the day ?
Did you ever buy that thing again ? Yeah , all computers have expolits .
Only one manufacturer is installing an express lane.And no , when Linux machines get larger , they probably wo n't have viruses , because the people who program it wo n't abide their existence to sell support contracts.And it wo n't take more installed systems- there have been more Linux machines than Macs for like , five years now .
( Reported here , iirc ) It ca n't get much simpler ; it ca n't get much stronger .
Why on Earth would anyone presume it faulty , just because it 's not identical ? Wake up , people !
How many stories like this do we have to read ? ! ? ! ? !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, sure.
We flush-n-fill workstations, planet wide in corporate offices.
Ya know, maybe we could make friends with aliens and have THEM also scan our computers.OR WE COULD JUST USE SOMETHING LESS FRAGILE.Look at the risk; we're always hearing of people losing thousands of dollars, spending most of a decade trying to get it back.
TWO MILLION active viruses and another 100,000 every month for the last decade.Where else do you go buy a product, and then *immediately* buy someone else's product to ensure it makes it through the day?
Did you ever buy that thing again?Yeah, all computers have expolits.
Only one manufacturer is installing an express lane.And no, when Linux machines get larger, they probably won't have viruses, because the people who program it won't abide their existence to sell support contracts.And it won't take more installed systems- there have been more Linux machines than Macs for like, five years now.
(Reported here, iirc)It can't get much simpler; it can't get much stronger.
Why on Earth would anyone presume it faulty, just because it's not identical?Wake up, people!
How many stories like this do we have to read?!?!?!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28697745</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28698033</id>
	<title>Re:server side scanning</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247575320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why don't web sites stop intentionally hosted vulnerabilities? I imagine web hosts not run by scumbags would make all the difference in cases like theres where there is no patch yet but there is a web-based exploit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do n't web sites stop intentionally hosted vulnerabilities ?
I imagine web hosts not run by scumbags would make all the difference in cases like theres where there is no patch yet but there is a web-based exploit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why don't web sites stop intentionally hosted vulnerabilities?
I imagine web hosts not run by scumbags would make all the difference in cases like theres where there is no patch yet but there is a web-based exploit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28697745</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28698197</id>
	<title>Re:Active X again?</title>
	<author>Penguinshit</author>
	<datestamp>1247576400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sandbox?<br> <br>What ActiveX needs is a <b>pine box</b></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sandbox ?
What ActiveX needs is a pine box</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sandbox?
What ActiveX needs is a pine box</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28697943</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28700493</id>
	<title>Re:I have a working patch.</title>
	<author>TrancePhreak</author>
	<datestamp>1247597100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>RTFsummary.</htmltext>
<tokenext>RTFsummary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RTFsummary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28698901</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28710209</id>
	<title>Re:Exploit (FX3.5)</title>
	<author>cbhacking</author>
	<datestamp>1247661480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It probably means you have security features that Windows XP (what far too many people still mean when they say "Windows"... it's a fucking 8-year-old OS, stop using it as representative of the whole) lacks. Just like the way that this IE exploit doesn't work correctly on Vista/Server 2008/Win7 either... but nobody bothers to mention that because it works on an OS so outdated it doesn't even have a built-in instant search.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It probably means you have security features that Windows XP ( what far too many people still mean when they say " Windows " ... it 's a fucking 8-year-old OS , stop using it as representative of the whole ) lacks .
Just like the way that this IE exploit does n't work correctly on Vista/Server 2008/Win7 either... but nobody bothers to mention that because it works on an OS so outdated it does n't even have a built-in instant search .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It probably means you have security features that Windows XP (what far too many people still mean when they say "Windows"... it's a fucking 8-year-old OS, stop using it as representative of the whole) lacks.
Just like the way that this IE exploit doesn't work correctly on Vista/Server 2008/Win7 either... but nobody bothers to mention that because it works on an OS so outdated it doesn't even have a built-in instant search.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28699181</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28700073</id>
	<title>Re:Firefox 3.5?</title>
	<author>Vu1turEMaN</author>
	<datestamp>1247592360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're in luck!</p><p>Seeing as how its related to the font html tag, I bet its backwards compatible a few versions!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're in luck ! Seeing as how its related to the font html tag , I bet its backwards compatible a few versions !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're in luck!Seeing as how its related to the font html tag, I bet its backwards compatible a few versions!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28697759</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28698239</id>
	<title>Re:Firefox 3.5?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247576700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Firefox users can't be too complacent; Secunia is warning of a 0-day in version 3.5.</p></div><p>Well, I guess I'm safe. At my workplace, my Redhat 9 installation is incapable of running any version newer than Firefox 2.0.0.20.</p></div><p>That, and the fact that there are no exploits for the Firefox vulnerability in the wild.  The two pieces of news are hardly comparable.  Seriously, this is like reporting a string of car thefts exploiting a defect in Ford's keyless entry systems and ending the story by reminding Chevy drivers that their vehicles can be broken into with a sledgehammer.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefox users ca n't be too complacent ; Secunia is warning of a 0-day in version 3.5.Well , I guess I 'm safe .
At my workplace , my Redhat 9 installation is incapable of running any version newer than Firefox 2.0.0.20.That , and the fact that there are no exploits for the Firefox vulnerability in the wild .
The two pieces of news are hardly comparable .
Seriously , this is like reporting a string of car thefts exploiting a defect in Ford 's keyless entry systems and ending the story by reminding Chevy drivers that their vehicles can be broken into with a sledgehammer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firefox users can't be too complacent; Secunia is warning of a 0-day in version 3.5.Well, I guess I'm safe.
At my workplace, my Redhat 9 installation is incapable of running any version newer than Firefox 2.0.0.20.That, and the fact that there are no exploits for the Firefox vulnerability in the wild.
The two pieces of news are hardly comparable.
Seriously, this is like reporting a string of car thefts exploiting a defect in Ford's keyless entry systems and ending the story by reminding Chevy drivers that their vehicles can be broken into with a sledgehammer.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28697759</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28697685</id>
	<title>your mom</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247572800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>wait 'til your dad hears I zero day exploited your mom!</htmltext>
<tokenext>wait 'til your dad hears I zero day exploited your mom !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>wait 'til your dad hears I zero day exploited your mom!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28697849</id>
	<title>kill bits</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247574000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A temporary fix that sets the 'kill bits' of the ActiveX control is available, but experts believe it's likely most users won't take advantage of the protection.</p></div><p>Well, Computer World (and CWmike in particular), perhaps more users would take advantage of the protection if you would provide them a <a href="http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/973472" title="microsoft.com">link telling them <em>how</em> when you first mention it</a> [microsoft.com] rather than wait until the end of the article where they may not associate it as being the aforementioned solution.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A temporary fix that sets the 'kill bits ' of the ActiveX control is available , but experts believe it 's likely most users wo n't take advantage of the protection.Well , Computer World ( and CWmike in particular ) , perhaps more users would take advantage of the protection if you would provide them a link telling them how when you first mention it [ microsoft.com ] rather than wait until the end of the article where they may not associate it as being the aforementioned solution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A temporary fix that sets the 'kill bits' of the ActiveX control is available, but experts believe it's likely most users won't take advantage of the protection.Well, Computer World (and CWmike in particular), perhaps more users would take advantage of the protection if you would provide them a link telling them how when you first mention it [microsoft.com] rather than wait until the end of the article where they may not associate it as being the aforementioned solution.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28701479</id>
	<title>Re:server side scanning</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247657580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I probably shouldn't feed the troll,</i><nobr> <wbr></nobr>..says the bigger troll with a side of flamebait.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I probably should n't feed the troll , ..says the bigger troll with a side of flamebait .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I probably shouldn't feed the troll, ..says the bigger troll with a side of flamebait.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28700903</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28699123</id>
	<title>Disable JIT for Firefox 3.5 workaround</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247583960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>set javascript.options.jit.content to false.</p><p><a href="http://blog.mozilla.com/security/2009/07/14/critical-javascript-vulnerability-in-firefox-35/" title="mozilla.com" rel="nofollow">http://blog.mozilla.com/security/2009/07/14/critical-javascript-vulnerability-in-firefox-35/</a> [mozilla.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>set javascript.options.jit.content to false.http : //blog.mozilla.com/security/2009/07/14/critical-javascript-vulnerability-in-firefox-35/ [ mozilla.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>set javascript.options.jit.content to false.http://blog.mozilla.com/security/2009/07/14/critical-javascript-vulnerability-in-firefox-35/ [mozilla.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28698855</id>
	<title>Re:Firefox 3.5?</title>
	<author>recoiledsnake</author>
	<datestamp>1247581440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wrong. The details are public and exploits could be happening in the wild. How do you know they're not?</p><p>From <a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2009/07/stopgap\_fix\_for\_critical\_firef.html" title="washingtonpost.com">http://voices.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2009/07/stopgap\_fix\_for\_critical\_firef.html</a> [washingtonpost.com] </p><p><div class="quote"><p>Instructions showing hackers how to exploit an unpatched, critical security hole in Mozilla's new Firefox 3.5 Web browser have been posted online.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wrong .
The details are public and exploits could be happening in the wild .
How do you know they 're not ? From http : //voices.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2009/07/stopgap \ _fix \ _for \ _critical \ _firef.html [ washingtonpost.com ] Instructions showing hackers how to exploit an unpatched , critical security hole in Mozilla 's new Firefox 3.5 Web browser have been posted online .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wrong.
The details are public and exploits could be happening in the wild.
How do you know they're not?From http://voices.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2009/07/stopgap\_fix\_for\_critical\_firef.html [washingtonpost.com] Instructions showing hackers how to exploit an unpatched, critical security hole in Mozilla's new Firefox 3.5 Web browser have been posted online.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28698239</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28698605</id>
	<title>Re:Ohh noes....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247579460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's great (and makes it more functional) although your users shouldn't be running as admin like they have to be in order for that to work in a logon script (bad security idea giving everyone admin).<br>
&nbsp; <br>Anyway, that isn't the same thing as the Office Web Components which is the ActiveX control with the vulnerability. That browserflag setting will absolutely NOT protect folks from the vulnerability if they have the Office Web Components installed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's great ( and makes it more functional ) although your users should n't be running as admin like they have to be in order for that to work in a logon script ( bad security idea giving everyone admin ) .
  Anyway , that is n't the same thing as the Office Web Components which is the ActiveX control with the vulnerability .
That browserflag setting will absolutely NOT protect folks from the vulnerability if they have the Office Web Components installed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's great (and makes it more functional) although your users shouldn't be running as admin like they have to be in order for that to work in a logon script (bad security idea giving everyone admin).
  Anyway, that isn't the same thing as the Office Web Components which is the ActiveX control with the vulnerability.
That browserflag setting will absolutely NOT protect folks from the vulnerability if they have the Office Web Components installed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28698227</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28699181</id>
	<title>Exploit (FX3.5)</title>
	<author>t0y</author>
	<datestamp>1247584500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://milw0rm.com/exploits/9137" title="milw0rm.com" rel="nofollow">Here</a> [milw0rm.com]'s the exploit code for firefox.<br>
Apparently, it should crash and open up calc.exe. On my machine (win7 RC1) it crashes bringing up the error report thingy.<br>
No calc.exe for me.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(
<br> <br>
Does this mean I'm "safe"?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here [ milw0rm.com ] 's the exploit code for firefox .
Apparently , it should crash and open up calc.exe .
On my machine ( win7 RC1 ) it crashes bringing up the error report thingy .
No calc.exe for me .
: ( Does this mean I 'm " safe " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here [milw0rm.com]'s the exploit code for firefox.
Apparently, it should crash and open up calc.exe.
On my machine (win7 RC1) it crashes bringing up the error report thingy.
No calc.exe for me.
:(
 
Does this mean I'm "safe"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28697797</id>
	<title>Ohh noes....</title>
	<author>Kral\_Blbec</author>
	<datestamp>1247573580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A vulnerability to opening an Excel sheet in IE? How many people do that on a regular basis? How many EVER do it? I dont think I can remember having ever tried to nor needing to. How is this newsworthy?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A vulnerability to opening an Excel sheet in IE ?
How many people do that on a regular basis ?
How many EVER do it ?
I dont think I can remember having ever tried to nor needing to .
How is this newsworthy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A vulnerability to opening an Excel sheet in IE?
How many people do that on a regular basis?
How many EVER do it?
I dont think I can remember having ever tried to nor needing to.
How is this newsworthy?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28703205</id>
	<title>Re:kill bits</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247671260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Much better fix: use "Administrator Approved Controls" to whitelist the ActiveX controls that can run in IE.  When yet another bug is found in some random ActiveX control (of which there are thousands in a typical Windows install) you can shrug your shoulders.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Much better fix : use " Administrator Approved Controls " to whitelist the ActiveX controls that can run in IE .
When yet another bug is found in some random ActiveX control ( of which there are thousands in a typical Windows install ) you can shrug your shoulders .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Much better fix: use "Administrator Approved Controls" to whitelist the ActiveX controls that can run in IE.
When yet another bug is found in some random ActiveX control (of which there are thousands in a typical Windows install) you can shrug your shoulders.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28697849</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28698015</id>
	<title>Re:Ohh noes....</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1247575140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A vulnerability to opening an Excel sheet in IE? How many people do that on a regular basis? How many EVER do it? I dont think I can remember having ever tried to nor needing to. How is this newsworthy?</p></div><p>All it takes is a link to <a href="http://example.com/NUDE\_PICS\_CELEBNAME.xls" title="example.com">http://example.com/NUDE\_PICS\_CELEBNAME.xls</a> [example.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A vulnerability to opening an Excel sheet in IE ?
How many people do that on a regular basis ?
How many EVER do it ?
I dont think I can remember having ever tried to nor needing to .
How is this newsworthy ? All it takes is a link to http : //example.com/NUDE \ _PICS \ _CELEBNAME.xls [ example.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A vulnerability to opening an Excel sheet in IE?
How many people do that on a regular basis?
How many EVER do it?
I dont think I can remember having ever tried to nor needing to.
How is this newsworthy?All it takes is a link to http://example.com/NUDE\_PICS\_CELEBNAME.xls [example.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28697797</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28698127</id>
	<title>They have</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247575980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you go read the notice, you find out that Vista and Server 2008 aren't affected. Reason is that IE has a sandbox mode on those OSes (Windows 7 too) for things like that. However, it relies on changes to the OS so it hasn't been backported to XP and I don't know that it could be easily.</p><p>So yes, they have sandboxed ActiveX, but it applies to newer versions of Windows only.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you go read the notice , you find out that Vista and Server 2008 are n't affected .
Reason is that IE has a sandbox mode on those OSes ( Windows 7 too ) for things like that .
However , it relies on changes to the OS so it has n't been backported to XP and I do n't know that it could be easily.So yes , they have sandboxed ActiveX , but it applies to newer versions of Windows only .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you go read the notice, you find out that Vista and Server 2008 aren't affected.
Reason is that IE has a sandbox mode on those OSes (Windows 7 too) for things like that.
However, it relies on changes to the OS so it hasn't been backported to XP and I don't know that it could be easily.So yes, they have sandboxed ActiveX, but it applies to newer versions of Windows only.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28697943</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28699753</id>
	<title>Re:Firefox 3.5?</title>
	<author>Kozz</author>
	<datestamp>1247589420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Firefox users can't be too complacent; Secunia is warning of a 0-day in version 3.5.</p></div><p>Well, I guess I'm safe. At my workplace, my Redhat 9 installation is incapable of running any version newer than Firefox 2.0.0.20.</p></div><p> <em>Redhat 9?</em>?  You're lucky...</p><p>[/mpython]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefox users ca n't be too complacent ; Secunia is warning of a 0-day in version 3.5.Well , I guess I 'm safe .
At my workplace , my Redhat 9 installation is incapable of running any version newer than Firefox 2.0.0.20 .
Redhat 9 ? ?
You 're lucky... [ /mpython ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firefox users can't be too complacent; Secunia is warning of a 0-day in version 3.5.Well, I guess I'm safe.
At my workplace, my Redhat 9 installation is incapable of running any version newer than Firefox 2.0.0.20.
Redhat 9??
You're lucky...[/mpython]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28697759</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28701549</id>
	<title>Re:Ohh noes....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247658660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>A vulnerability to opening an Excel sheet in IE? How many people do that on a regular basis? How many EVER do it? I dont think I can remember having ever tried to nor needing to. How is this newsworthy?</i></p><p>You've missed the point. Just because people don't do this normally/at all doesn't mean they can't be tricked into doing it easily in this case. Any link you click on can present itself (as far as most people who don't inspect the destination is concerned) as anything it wants. You could click on the dancing monkey or whatever and have it trigger the opening of a spreadsheet with this exploit in it. All you need is to have excel installed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A vulnerability to opening an Excel sheet in IE ?
How many people do that on a regular basis ?
How many EVER do it ?
I dont think I can remember having ever tried to nor needing to .
How is this newsworthy ? You 've missed the point .
Just because people do n't do this normally/at all does n't mean they ca n't be tricked into doing it easily in this case .
Any link you click on can present itself ( as far as most people who do n't inspect the destination is concerned ) as anything it wants .
You could click on the dancing monkey or whatever and have it trigger the opening of a spreadsheet with this exploit in it .
All you need is to have excel installed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A vulnerability to opening an Excel sheet in IE?
How many people do that on a regular basis?
How many EVER do it?
I dont think I can remember having ever tried to nor needing to.
How is this newsworthy?You've missed the point.
Just because people don't do this normally/at all doesn't mean they can't be tricked into doing it easily in this case.
Any link you click on can present itself (as far as most people who don't inspect the destination is concerned) as anything it wants.
You could click on the dancing monkey or whatever and have it trigger the opening of a spreadsheet with this exploit in it.
All you need is to have excel installed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28697797</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28700453</id>
	<title>Re:Ohh noes....</title>
	<author>IntlHarvester</author>
	<datestamp>1247596620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A vulnerability to opening an Excel sheet in IE? How many people do that on a regular basis? How many EVER do it? I dont think I can remember having ever tried to nor needing to. How is this newsworthy?</p></div><p>I think you missunderstand how this works. Hackers can craft a special page which calls the control, which means anyone with Office installed on their system is vulnerable.</p><p>Also as an AC pointed out, it's not really in "Excel", its in "Office Web Components" which are mini-applications specifically designed to be included in (intranet) web pages.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A vulnerability to opening an Excel sheet in IE ?
How many people do that on a regular basis ?
How many EVER do it ?
I dont think I can remember having ever tried to nor needing to .
How is this newsworthy ? I think you missunderstand how this works .
Hackers can craft a special page which calls the control , which means anyone with Office installed on their system is vulnerable.Also as an AC pointed out , it 's not really in " Excel " , its in " Office Web Components " which are mini-applications specifically designed to be included in ( intranet ) web pages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A vulnerability to opening an Excel sheet in IE?
How many people do that on a regular basis?
How many EVER do it?
I dont think I can remember having ever tried to nor needing to.
How is this newsworthy?I think you missunderstand how this works.
Hackers can craft a special page which calls the control, which means anyone with Office installed on their system is vulnerable.Also as an AC pointed out, it's not really in "Excel", its in "Office Web Components" which are mini-applications specifically designed to be included in (intranet) web pages.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28697797</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28699997</id>
	<title>Re:Ohh noes....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247591640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>A vulnerability to opening an Excel sheet in IE? How many people do that on a regular basis? How many EVER do it? I dont think I can remember having ever tried to nor needing to. How is this newsworthy?</i> </p><p>I saw a user do it the other day.  He had to close it out so we could open the file in Excel as was anticipated.  It came as a shock to myself (I don't recall the behavior from back in my Excel 97/IE2-6 days).  Now my ".xls" files on the web open in OpenOffice Spreadsheet.  It is just stupid MSFT doing stuff and integrating shit without a care in the world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A vulnerability to opening an Excel sheet in IE ?
How many people do that on a regular basis ?
How many EVER do it ?
I dont think I can remember having ever tried to nor needing to .
How is this newsworthy ?
I saw a user do it the other day .
He had to close it out so we could open the file in Excel as was anticipated .
It came as a shock to myself ( I do n't recall the behavior from back in my Excel 97/IE2-6 days ) .
Now my " .xls " files on the web open in OpenOffice Spreadsheet .
It is just stupid MSFT doing stuff and integrating shit without a care in the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A vulnerability to opening an Excel sheet in IE?
How many people do that on a regular basis?
How many EVER do it?
I dont think I can remember having ever tried to nor needing to.
How is this newsworthy?
I saw a user do it the other day.
He had to close it out so we could open the file in Excel as was anticipated.
It came as a shock to myself (I don't recall the behavior from back in my Excel 97/IE2-6 days).
Now my ".xls" files on the web open in OpenOffice Spreadsheet.
It is just stupid MSFT doing stuff and integrating shit without a care in the world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28697797</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28701497</id>
	<title>Re:server side scanning</title>
	<author>marsu\_k</author>
	<datestamp>1247657880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The reason MSFT knows own the Netbook market, with a decade old OS to your brand new Linux, isn't some plot and the sooner you accept it the better. It is because the GUI in 10 year old XP works better than the 2009 GUI in Linux.</p></div><p>To each his own I guess, this netbook came with XP preinstalled and I quickly replaced it with Eeebuntu; XP isn't really suited for small displays in my opinion. And the performance is much better, wifi was somehow really unstable under XP. And no, up to this point (and I recon I have done much more with this puter than the average user ever will) I've never done anything that couldn't have been done via the GUI; however CLI is much more convenient if you know how to use it. Actually an usable shell is one of the major things missing from XP.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason MSFT knows own the Netbook market , with a decade old OS to your brand new Linux , is n't some plot and the sooner you accept it the better .
It is because the GUI in 10 year old XP works better than the 2009 GUI in Linux.To each his own I guess , this netbook came with XP preinstalled and I quickly replaced it with Eeebuntu ; XP is n't really suited for small displays in my opinion .
And the performance is much better , wifi was somehow really unstable under XP .
And no , up to this point ( and I recon I have done much more with this puter than the average user ever will ) I 've never done anything that could n't have been done via the GUI ; however CLI is much more convenient if you know how to use it .
Actually an usable shell is one of the major things missing from XP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason MSFT knows own the Netbook market, with a decade old OS to your brand new Linux, isn't some plot and the sooner you accept it the better.
It is because the GUI in 10 year old XP works better than the 2009 GUI in Linux.To each his own I guess, this netbook came with XP preinstalled and I quickly replaced it with Eeebuntu; XP isn't really suited for small displays in my opinion.
And the performance is much better, wifi was somehow really unstable under XP.
And no, up to this point (and I recon I have done much more with this puter than the average user ever will) I've never done anything that couldn't have been done via the GUI; however CLI is much more convenient if you know how to use it.
Actually an usable shell is one of the major things missing from XP.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28700903</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28698895</id>
	<title>Windows itself</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247581860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is the un-patched bug.  Just patch with new windows 10.5.2. Awesomely stable, very user friendly, not to mention secure as a rock.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is the un-patched bug .
Just patch with new windows 10.5.2 .
Awesomely stable , very user friendly , not to mention secure as a rock .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is the un-patched bug.
Just patch with new windows 10.5.2.
Awesomely stable, very user friendly, not to mention secure as a rock.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28700923</id>
	<title>and the MS Plugins?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247690940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I recently disabled a couple of MS office plugins that had mysteriously registered themselves with firefox.  I'd already disabled the MS<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET addon and removed the UA string using about:config.  While Microsoft are not the only offender, these plugins were not required and increase the security exposure footprint of Mozilla's browser.  It's not acceptable that such things should be installed without explicit user consent.  Being aware of the heap spray vuln in firefox, I disabled the JIT until Mozilla can release a patch.  I'm not usually aware of vulnerabilities in 3rd party plugins that I had no idea were installed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I recently disabled a couple of MS office plugins that had mysteriously registered themselves with firefox .
I 'd already disabled the MS .NET addon and removed the UA string using about : config .
While Microsoft are not the only offender , these plugins were not required and increase the security exposure footprint of Mozilla 's browser .
It 's not acceptable that such things should be installed without explicit user consent .
Being aware of the heap spray vuln in firefox , I disabled the JIT until Mozilla can release a patch .
I 'm not usually aware of vulnerabilities in 3rd party plugins that I had no idea were installed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I recently disabled a couple of MS office plugins that had mysteriously registered themselves with firefox.
I'd already disabled the MS .NET addon and removed the UA string using about:config.
While Microsoft are not the only offender, these plugins were not required and increase the security exposure footprint of Mozilla's browser.
It's not acceptable that such things should be installed without explicit user consent.
Being aware of the heap spray vuln in firefox, I disabled the JIT until Mozilla can release a patch.
I'm not usually aware of vulnerabilities in 3rd party plugins that I had no idea were installed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28698367</id>
	<title>Re:kill bits</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247577540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually the workaround is released as a <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/ms09-032.mspx" title="microsoft.com" rel="nofollow"> security update </a> [microsoft.com] , and pushed via windows update</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually the workaround is released as a security update [ microsoft.com ] , and pushed via windows update</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually the workaround is released as a  security update  [microsoft.com] , and pushed via windows update</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28697849</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28700661</id>
	<title>What's IE again?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247599500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I mean, really...  How does this affect me?</p><p>"You keep using that word (security). I do not think it means what you think it means."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean , really... How does this affect me ?
" You keep using that word ( security ) .
I do not think it means what you think it means .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean, really...  How does this affect me?
"You keep using that word (security).
I do not think it means what you think it means.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28698639</id>
	<title>Firefox 3.5 0day fixed in nightlies</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247579760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm running the current nightly build of Shiretoko (Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.1pre) Gecko/20090714 Shiretoko/3.5.1pre) and this exploit is already fixed as far as I can tell. It does crash the stock Firefox 3.5.</p><p>I'd expect to see a patch for this out pretty quickly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm running the current nightly build of Shiretoko ( Mozilla/5.0 ( Windows ; U ; Windows NT 5.1 ; en-US ; rv : 1.9.1.1pre ) Gecko/20090714 Shiretoko/3.5.1pre ) and this exploit is already fixed as far as I can tell .
It does crash the stock Firefox 3.5.I 'd expect to see a patch for this out pretty quickly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm running the current nightly build of Shiretoko (Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.1pre) Gecko/20090714 Shiretoko/3.5.1pre) and this exploit is already fixed as far as I can tell.
It does crash the stock Firefox 3.5.I'd expect to see a patch for this out pretty quickly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28697783</id>
	<title>Firefox 3.5 is turning into a disaster</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247573520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>remote exploitable security problems, <a href="http://weblogs.asp.net/fbouma/archive/2009/07/09/the-firefox-3-5-fiasco.aspx" title="asp.net" rel="nofollow">very slow startup on windows</a> [asp.net], creating havoc with antiviruses, maxing out CPU problems</p><p>its a bad week for 3.5<br>3.11 is safe for now (ill take the mem leaks over exploits and a slow startup)</p><p>what happened ? did the Mozdev team rush it to satisfy the fanboys and bigger-version-number-must-be-better crowd ?</p><p>lets hope these problems get fixed ASAP because if cant recommend it to clients when they come back to me complaining with these problems (doesnt make us look good) whats left ?</p><p>A</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>remote exploitable security problems , very slow startup on windows [ asp.net ] , creating havoc with antiviruses , maxing out CPU problemsits a bad week for 3.53.11 is safe for now ( ill take the mem leaks over exploits and a slow startup ) what happened ?
did the Mozdev team rush it to satisfy the fanboys and bigger-version-number-must-be-better crowd ? lets hope these problems get fixed ASAP because if cant recommend it to clients when they come back to me complaining with these problems ( doesnt make us look good ) whats left ? A</tokentext>
<sentencetext>remote exploitable security problems, very slow startup on windows [asp.net], creating havoc with antiviruses, maxing out CPU problemsits a bad week for 3.53.11 is safe for now (ill take the mem leaks over exploits and a slow startup)what happened ?
did the Mozdev team rush it to satisfy the fanboys and bigger-version-number-must-be-better crowd ?lets hope these problems get fixed ASAP because if cant recommend it to clients when they come back to me complaining with these problems (doesnt make us look good) whats left ?A</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28700903</id>
	<title>Re:server side scanning</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247690580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I probably shouldn't feed the troll, and I'll probably get flamed, but what the hell I'm bored. You wanna know why Linux can be more secure than Fort Knox and nobody wants it? Do you really want to know? It is actually very simple-It is because Linux is a GIANT PITA and its UI SUCKS! That's why!</p><p>It doesn't matter how damned good your Linux security is if only geeks can use the damned thing. After all, I can lock a Windows box in a safe and bury it and it'll be safe too, it will be about as usable to home users as Linux is. I'm not trying to flame here, I personally hope someone will come along and do for Linux what Steve Jobs did with BSD, I just ain't seen it yet. example-I had someone here the other day actually seriously arguing that Sudo equaled "Runas" because Sudo 'lets you do things the GUI designers never thought of". Now honestly how many home users have sat there and thought "You know, i just need more power than these GUI designers gave me" Answer-NEVER!</p><p>It is really not that hard Linux guys, just repeat after me- Home users will NEVER EVER use CLI! Got that? It bears repeating so I will- Home users will NEVER EVER use CLI! in the fifteen years I've been working on Windows boxes I can count the # of times I have <em>had</em> to go CLI on one hands with fingers left over. When was the last time you opened Bash? probably this week if not this very day. Problem in Windows? GUI solution. Mac? GUI solution. Linux? "Open up bash and type" which you should follow with "you know what, get someone to put Windows on your machine because this OS sucks" because that is <em>exactly</em> what the home users are thinking!</p><p>

The reason MSFT knows own the Netbook market, with a decade old OS to your brand new Linux, isn't some plot and the sooner you accept it the better. It is because the GUI in 10 year old XP works better than the 2009 GUI in Linux. Why? Because the groups paying the big bucks for development, like Oracle and Red Hat only care about SERVERS, and servers are faster and easier to manage from CLI. Server guys like CLI, Geeks like CLI, Home users hate it with a passion, okay? Is that really so hard? I don't care if you think Bash is the second coming, until the Linux community accepts the fact that CLI MUST DIE, don't be surprised when people would rather deal with malware than your OS. i'm sorry, that is just the way things are.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I probably should n't feed the troll , and I 'll probably get flamed , but what the hell I 'm bored .
You wan na know why Linux can be more secure than Fort Knox and nobody wants it ?
Do you really want to know ?
It is actually very simple-It is because Linux is a GIANT PITA and its UI SUCKS !
That 's why ! It does n't matter how damned good your Linux security is if only geeks can use the damned thing .
After all , I can lock a Windows box in a safe and bury it and it 'll be safe too , it will be about as usable to home users as Linux is .
I 'm not trying to flame here , I personally hope someone will come along and do for Linux what Steve Jobs did with BSD , I just ai n't seen it yet .
example-I had someone here the other day actually seriously arguing that Sudo equaled " Runas " because Sudo 'lets you do things the GUI designers never thought of " .
Now honestly how many home users have sat there and thought " You know , i just need more power than these GUI designers gave me " Answer-NEVER ! It is really not that hard Linux guys , just repeat after me- Home users will NEVER EVER use CLI !
Got that ?
It bears repeating so I will- Home users will NEVER EVER use CLI !
in the fifteen years I 've been working on Windows boxes I can count the # of times I have had to go CLI on one hands with fingers left over .
When was the last time you opened Bash ?
probably this week if not this very day .
Problem in Windows ?
GUI solution .
Mac ? GUI solution .
Linux ? " Open up bash and type " which you should follow with " you know what , get someone to put Windows on your machine because this OS sucks " because that is exactly what the home users are thinking !
The reason MSFT knows own the Netbook market , with a decade old OS to your brand new Linux , is n't some plot and the sooner you accept it the better .
It is because the GUI in 10 year old XP works better than the 2009 GUI in Linux .
Why ? Because the groups paying the big bucks for development , like Oracle and Red Hat only care about SERVERS , and servers are faster and easier to manage from CLI .
Server guys like CLI , Geeks like CLI , Home users hate it with a passion , okay ?
Is that really so hard ?
I do n't care if you think Bash is the second coming , until the Linux community accepts the fact that CLI MUST DIE , do n't be surprised when people would rather deal with malware than your OS .
i 'm sorry , that is just the way things are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I probably shouldn't feed the troll, and I'll probably get flamed, but what the hell I'm bored.
You wanna know why Linux can be more secure than Fort Knox and nobody wants it?
Do you really want to know?
It is actually very simple-It is because Linux is a GIANT PITA and its UI SUCKS!
That's why!It doesn't matter how damned good your Linux security is if only geeks can use the damned thing.
After all, I can lock a Windows box in a safe and bury it and it'll be safe too, it will be about as usable to home users as Linux is.
I'm not trying to flame here, I personally hope someone will come along and do for Linux what Steve Jobs did with BSD, I just ain't seen it yet.
example-I had someone here the other day actually seriously arguing that Sudo equaled "Runas" because Sudo 'lets you do things the GUI designers never thought of".
Now honestly how many home users have sat there and thought "You know, i just need more power than these GUI designers gave me" Answer-NEVER!It is really not that hard Linux guys, just repeat after me- Home users will NEVER EVER use CLI!
Got that?
It bears repeating so I will- Home users will NEVER EVER use CLI!
in the fifteen years I've been working on Windows boxes I can count the # of times I have had to go CLI on one hands with fingers left over.
When was the last time you opened Bash?
probably this week if not this very day.
Problem in Windows?
GUI solution.
Mac? GUI solution.
Linux? "Open up bash and type" which you should follow with "you know what, get someone to put Windows on your machine because this OS sucks" because that is exactly what the home users are thinking!
The reason MSFT knows own the Netbook market, with a decade old OS to your brand new Linux, isn't some plot and the sooner you accept it the better.
It is because the GUI in 10 year old XP works better than the 2009 GUI in Linux.
Why? Because the groups paying the big bucks for development, like Oracle and Red Hat only care about SERVERS, and servers are faster and easier to manage from CLI.
Server guys like CLI, Geeks like CLI, Home users hate it with a passion, okay?
Is that really so hard?
I don't care if you think Bash is the second coming, until the Linux community accepts the fact that CLI MUST DIE, don't be surprised when people would rather deal with malware than your OS.
i'm sorry, that is just the way things are.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28698667</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28705521</id>
	<title>Re:Firefox 3.5?</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1247682600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><strong>That's unpossible!</strong></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's unpossible !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's unpossible!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28703567</id>
	<title>Virus, malware, what is that?</title>
	<author>cenc</author>
	<datestamp>1247673180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't understand what the problem is with this. Someone please explain. ( Typing on his linux workstation, to connect to his linux server, in an all linux office).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand what the problem is with this .
Someone please explain .
( Typing on his linux workstation , to connect to his linux server , in an all linux office ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't understand what the problem is with this.
Someone please explain.
( Typing on his linux workstation, to connect to his linux server, in an all linux office).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28701053</id>
	<title>Re:My solution for ActiveX (no, not installing Lin</title>
	<author>Inda</author>
	<datestamp>1247650260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Shout louder!<br><br>I see at the top of this page:<br><br>"Your security settings do not allow Web sites to use ActiveX controls installed on your computer. This page may not display correctly. Click here for options..."<br><br>Well smack my forehead.<br><br>(no, this is not my PC, behave yourself)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Shout louder ! I see at the top of this page : " Your security settings do not allow Web sites to use ActiveX controls installed on your computer .
This page may not display correctly .
Click here for options... " Well smack my forehead .
( no , this is not my PC , behave yourself )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shout louder!I see at the top of this page:"Your security settings do not allow Web sites to use ActiveX controls installed on your computer.
This page may not display correctly.
Click here for options..."Well smack my forehead.
(no, this is not my PC, behave yourself)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28697899</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28702529</id>
	<title>built in VM within browser</title>
	<author>kai6novice</author>
	<datestamp>1247667540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's all kind of problem in browsers. I think the only safe way to browse the web is to create a virtual machine, then run the browser within the virtual machine, so if anything bad happens, just replace the virtual machine, then you're good again. Why can't someone think of a way to built a tiny virtual machine within browser, The virtual machine should only apply functionality that a browser ever needed. Then if anything bad happens, just roll back to the original backup of the virtual machine. It's a like a browser contains a virtual machine that run the browser which contains it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's all kind of problem in browsers .
I think the only safe way to browse the web is to create a virtual machine , then run the browser within the virtual machine , so if anything bad happens , just replace the virtual machine , then you 're good again .
Why ca n't someone think of a way to built a tiny virtual machine within browser , The virtual machine should only apply functionality that a browser ever needed .
Then if anything bad happens , just roll back to the original backup of the virtual machine .
It 's a like a browser contains a virtual machine that run the browser which contains it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's all kind of problem in browsers.
I think the only safe way to browse the web is to create a virtual machine, then run the browser within the virtual machine, so if anything bad happens, just replace the virtual machine, then you're good again.
Why can't someone think of a way to built a tiny virtual machine within browser, The virtual machine should only apply functionality that a browser ever needed.
Then if anything bad happens, just roll back to the original backup of the virtual machine.
It's a like a browser contains a virtual machine that run the browser which contains it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28699683</id>
	<title>Posted using telnet to port 80</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247588820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>because im scared my interwebrowser will get exploited.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... i would have had first post too, if it wasn't for all this pesky web2.0 ajax crap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>because im scared my interwebrowser will get exploited .
... i would have had first post too , if it was n't for all this pesky web2.0 ajax crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>because im scared my interwebrowser will get exploited.
... i would have had first post too, if it wasn't for all this pesky web2.0 ajax crap.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28699465</id>
	<title>Re:server side scanning</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247586840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, shouldn't we expect M$ to produce reliable and safe software to start with?<br>Looks like M$ is making a very good case for the whole world to move to OpenOffice....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , should n't we expect M $ to produce reliable and safe software to start with ? Looks like M $ is making a very good case for the whole world to move to OpenOffice... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, shouldn't we expect M$ to produce reliable and safe software to start with?Looks like M$ is making a very good case for the whole world to move to OpenOffice....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28697745</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28703533</id>
	<title>Re:Firefox 3.5?</title>
	<author>CompMD</author>
	<datestamp>1247672880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sweet.  I'm rocking out with Firefox 2.0.0.14 on my FC8 box right now. At least flash doesn't crash it, which really annoys the "gotta have the latest" version fanbois. I can leave Pandora running in one window, and have another open with a whole bunch of tabs, watch YouTube, and never worry about it crashing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sweet .
I 'm rocking out with Firefox 2.0.0.14 on my FC8 box right now .
At least flash does n't crash it , which really annoys the " got ta have the latest " version fanbois .
I can leave Pandora running in one window , and have another open with a whole bunch of tabs , watch YouTube , and never worry about it crashing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sweet.
I'm rocking out with Firefox 2.0.0.14 on my FC8 box right now.
At least flash doesn't crash it, which really annoys the "gotta have the latest" version fanbois.
I can leave Pandora running in one window, and have another open with a whole bunch of tabs, watch YouTube, and never worry about it crashing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28697759</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28697967</id>
	<title>Re: Microsoft Readies a Rival To Spotify</title>
	<author>dvh.tosomja</author>
	<datestamp>1247574720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Somehow, I cannot post comment to <a href="http://slashdot.org/story/09/07/14/2113256/Microsoft-Readies-a-Rival-To-Spotify?from=rss" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://slashdot.org/story/09/07/14/2113256/Microsoft-Readies-a-Rival-To-Spotify?from=rss</a> [slashdot.org] but it would be a shame to waste opportunity, so here it go:</p><p>&gt; allows users to stream music for free in return for listening to around a minute's worth of advertisements every half hour</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; while true; do mute; sleep 1m; mute; sleep 29m; done</p><p>Here, fixed that for ya</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Somehow , I can not post comment to http : //slashdot.org/story/09/07/14/2113256/Microsoft-Readies-a-Rival-To-Spotify ? from = rss [ slashdot.org ] but it would be a shame to waste opportunity , so here it go : &gt; allows users to stream music for free in return for listening to around a minute 's worth of advertisements every half hour     while true ; do mute ; sleep 1m ; mute ; sleep 29m ; doneHere , fixed that for ya</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Somehow, I cannot post comment to http://slashdot.org/story/09/07/14/2113256/Microsoft-Readies-a-Rival-To-Spotify?from=rss [slashdot.org] but it would be a shame to waste opportunity, so here it go:&gt; allows users to stream music for free in return for listening to around a minute's worth of advertisements every half hour
    while true; do mute; sleep 1m; mute; sleep 29m; doneHere, fixed that for ya</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1932234_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28703205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28697849
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1932234_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28698127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28697943
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1932234_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28700421
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28697745
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1932234_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28701053
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28697899
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1932234_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28698903
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28697899
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1932234_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28710209
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28699181
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1932234_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28699997
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28697797
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1932234_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28698015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28697797
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1932234_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28698367
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28697849
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1932234_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28698605
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28698227
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28697797
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1932234_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28700453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28697797
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1932234_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28719361
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28697899
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1932234_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28698197
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28697943
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1932234_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28701497
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28700903
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28698667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28697745
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1932234_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28698757
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28697745
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1932234_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28699753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28697759
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1932234_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28701549
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28697797
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1932234_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28701479
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28700903
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28698667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28697745
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1932234_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28703533
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28697759
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1932234_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28699465
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28697745
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1932234_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28698033
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28697745
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1932234_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28700493
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28698901
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1932234_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28700073
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28697759
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1932234_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28698855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28698239
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28697759
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1932234.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28698901
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28700493
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1932234.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28699181
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28710209
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1932234.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28697943
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28698127
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28698197
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1932234.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28700923
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1932234.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28698179
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1932234.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28697899
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28698903
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28701053
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28719361
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1932234.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28697685
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1932234.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28697815
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1932234.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28697745
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28698757
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28698667
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28700903
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28701497
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28701479
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28700421
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28698033
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28699465
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1932234.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28698451
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1932234.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28697783
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1932234.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28697797
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28701549
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28699997
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28698227
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28698605
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28698015
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28700453
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1932234.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28697841
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1932234.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28697849
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28703205
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28698367
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1932234.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28697759
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28698239
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28698855
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28699753
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28703533
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1932234.28700073
</commentlist>
</conversation>
