<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_16_1346243</id>
	<title>Firefox 3.5's First Vulnerability "Self-Inflicted"</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1247754300000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.computerworld.com/" rel="nofollow">CWmike</a> writes <i>"Mozilla has confirmed the <a href="http://computerworld.com/s/article/9135549">first security vulnerability in Firefox 3.5</a>, saying that the bug could be used to hijack a machine running the company's newest browser. A noted Firefox contributor called the situation '<a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show\_bug.cgi?id=503286">self-inflicted</a>' and said it was likely that the hacker who posted public exploit code Monday became aware of the flaw by rooting through Bugzilla, Mozilla's bug- and change-tracking database. The vulnerability is in the TraceMonkey JavaScript engine that debuted with Firefox 3.5, said Mozilla. '[It] can be exploited by an attacker who tricks a victim into viewing a malicious Web page containing the exploit code,' <a href="http://blog.mozilla.com/security/2009/07/14/critical-javascript-vulnerability-in-firefox-35/">Mozilla's security blog reported</a> Tuesday."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>CWmike writes " Mozilla has confirmed the first security vulnerability in Firefox 3.5 , saying that the bug could be used to hijack a machine running the company 's newest browser .
A noted Firefox contributor called the situation 'self-inflicted ' and said it was likely that the hacker who posted public exploit code Monday became aware of the flaw by rooting through Bugzilla , Mozilla 's bug- and change-tracking database .
The vulnerability is in the TraceMonkey JavaScript engine that debuted with Firefox 3.5 , said Mozilla .
' [ It ] can be exploited by an attacker who tricks a victim into viewing a malicious Web page containing the exploit code, ' Mozilla 's security blog reported Tuesday .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CWmike writes "Mozilla has confirmed the first security vulnerability in Firefox 3.5, saying that the bug could be used to hijack a machine running the company's newest browser.
A noted Firefox contributor called the situation 'self-inflicted' and said it was likely that the hacker who posted public exploit code Monday became aware of the flaw by rooting through Bugzilla, Mozilla's bug- and change-tracking database.
The vulnerability is in the TraceMonkey JavaScript engine that debuted with Firefox 3.5, said Mozilla.
'[It] can be exploited by an attacker who tricks a victim into viewing a malicious Web page containing the exploit code,' Mozilla's security blog reported Tuesday.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28717219</id>
	<title>This is why NoScript should be a core feature</title>
	<author>metamatic</author>
	<datestamp>1247760840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course, Mozilla won't add a NoScript-like UI to Firefox, as it would make it convenient to block scripting, and hence annoy advertisers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , Mozilla wo n't add a NoScript-like UI to Firefox , as it would make it convenient to block scripting , and hence annoy advertisers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, Mozilla won't add a NoScript-like UI to Firefox, as it would make it convenient to block scripting, and hence annoy advertisers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716783</id>
	<title>Whew!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247759220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Good thing I'm using Internet Explorer!<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/advisory/973472.mspx" title="microsoft.com" rel="nofollow">Oh wait...</a> [microsoft.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Good thing I 'm using Internet Explorer !
Oh wait... [ microsoft.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good thing I'm using Internet Explorer!
Oh wait... [microsoft.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28719259</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft Caught This 0-day</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1247768340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>But if you really want to be safe you should be running noscript. It'll save you from running malicious code on sites you don't trust.</i></p><p>If only there was something that would save me from running malicious code on sites I do trust.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But if you really want to be safe you should be running noscript .
It 'll save you from running malicious code on sites you do n't trust.If only there was something that would save me from running malicious code on sites I do trust .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But if you really want to be safe you should be running noscript.
It'll save you from running malicious code on sites you don't trust.If only there was something that would save me from running malicious code on sites I do trust.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716689</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716507</id>
	<title>time to close Bugzilla to the public</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247758320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We tried to be cool, but you guys violated our trust and abused the database, and made us look like fools in the process.</p><p>Congratulations, hacker, you've ruined it for everybody.</p><p>The Bugzilla database will no longer be made available to the public, only the elite cadre of Firefox developers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We tried to be cool , but you guys violated our trust and abused the database , and made us look like fools in the process.Congratulations , hacker , you 've ruined it for everybody.The Bugzilla database will no longer be made available to the public , only the elite cadre of Firefox developers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We tried to be cool, but you guys violated our trust and abused the database, and made us look like fools in the process.Congratulations, hacker, you've ruined it for everybody.The Bugzilla database will no longer be made available to the public, only the elite cadre of Firefox developers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28719595</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe off topic but...</title>
	<author>indraneil</author>
	<datestamp>1247769540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the problem that you may be facing is due to firefox doing weird things to generate random numbers at start<br>See <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show\_bug.cgi?id=501605" title="mozilla.org">https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show\_bug.cgi?id=501605</a> [mozilla.org]<br>I see that the bug has since been fixed - but I guess it has not been distributed to the general public via upgrades.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the problem that you may be facing is due to firefox doing weird things to generate random numbers at startSee https : //bugzilla.mozilla.org/show \ _bug.cgi ? id = 501605 [ mozilla.org ] I see that the bug has since been fixed - but I guess it has not been distributed to the general public via upgrades .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the problem that you may be facing is due to firefox doing weird things to generate random numbers at startSee https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show\_bug.cgi?id=501605 [mozilla.org]I see that the bug has since been fixed - but I guess it has not been distributed to the general public via upgrades.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716525</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28720893</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe off topic but...</title>
	<author>gbarules2999</author>
	<datestamp>1247774400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716525</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28718291</id>
	<title>Re:Some Questions &amp; Comments About Firefox 3.5</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247764920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know why Firefox makes it so hard to hackily work-around the multiple window thing. How hard is it to have a global option to NOT do something? Why can't they at least do the sane opera-like thing and have "windows" open in tabs? Oh right, because of inane philosophical bullshit about magic window managers which don't actually exist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know why Firefox makes it so hard to hackily work-around the multiple window thing .
How hard is it to have a global option to NOT do something ?
Why ca n't they at least do the sane opera-like thing and have " windows " open in tabs ?
Oh right , because of inane philosophical bullshit about magic window managers which do n't actually exist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know why Firefox makes it so hard to hackily work-around the multiple window thing.
How hard is it to have a global option to NOT do something?
Why can't they at least do the sane opera-like thing and have "windows" open in tabs?
Oh right, because of inane philosophical bullshit about magic window managers which don't actually exist.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28717415</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716705</id>
	<title>forgive me</title>
	<author>neonprimetime</author>
	<datestamp>1247758980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>but isn't every application vulnerability self-inflicted?  unless perhaps somebody hacked in and wrote the code for you!</htmltext>
<tokenext>but is n't every application vulnerability self-inflicted ?
unless perhaps somebody hacked in and wrote the code for you !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but isn't every application vulnerability self-inflicted?
unless perhaps somebody hacked in and wrote the code for you!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28717073</id>
	<title>Granted bugs happen and is obviously nice exploit</title>
	<author>qurk</author>
	<datestamp>1247760240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Still it was fixed by the time I heard about it, yesterday.  I've become a recent Microsoft convert, but they tend to pretend this isn't happening, till they release a fix on their own good time.  And Apple just breaks everything for everyone else all the time so let's not go there.  I'll be the first ever person to ever say I bought Apple hardware just to find out that Apple broke it for me cause I wasn't just cool.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Still it was fixed by the time I heard about it , yesterday .
I 've become a recent Microsoft convert , but they tend to pretend this is n't happening , till they release a fix on their own good time .
And Apple just breaks everything for everyone else all the time so let 's not go there .
I 'll be the first ever person to ever say I bought Apple hardware just to find out that Apple broke it for me cause I was n't just cool .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Still it was fixed by the time I heard about it, yesterday.
I've become a recent Microsoft convert, but they tend to pretend this isn't happening, till they release a fix on their own good time.
And Apple just breaks everything for everyone else all the time so let's not go there.
I'll be the first ever person to ever say I bought Apple hardware just to find out that Apple broke it for me cause I wasn't just cool.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28717695</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe off topic but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247762700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah while clicking a link on the awesomebar, it was still thrashing through its buffer making my mouse click on the awesome bar turn into a click on the bookmark behind it.</p><p>And I still wonder why I prefer seamonkey despite this 'superior' browser that can pass the Acid tests but can't pass the interface tolerance tests...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah while clicking a link on the awesomebar , it was still thrashing through its buffer making my mouse click on the awesome bar turn into a click on the bookmark behind it.And I still wonder why I prefer seamonkey despite this 'superior ' browser that can pass the Acid tests but ca n't pass the interface tolerance tests.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah while clicking a link on the awesomebar, it was still thrashing through its buffer making my mouse click on the awesome bar turn into a click on the bookmark behind it.And I still wonder why I prefer seamonkey despite this 'superior' browser that can pass the Acid tests but can't pass the interface tolerance tests...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28717147</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28718025</id>
	<title>Glad I didn't rush to upgrade</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247763960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sometimes it's better to just hold back and wait until my distro decides it is time to update my versions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sometimes it 's better to just hold back and wait until my distro decides it is time to update my versions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sometimes it's better to just hold back and wait until my distro decides it is time to update my versions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28717415</id>
	<title>Re:Some Questions &amp; Comments About Firefox 3.5</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247761680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My only complaint on FF 3.5 at this time is the way it works with Gmail now.<p>
I have it set in FF, to open a new link in a new tab. This has worked beautifully till now. When I click a link in Gmail now, rather than open a new tab, it opens  the link in a new windown <b>without</b> any scroll bars!?!?!</p><p>
Now, if I want to open a link from Gmail, I have to rt. click and tell it to open in a new tab.</p><p>
This kinda sucks IMHO.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My only complaint on FF 3.5 at this time is the way it works with Gmail now .
I have it set in FF , to open a new link in a new tab .
This has worked beautifully till now .
When I click a link in Gmail now , rather than open a new tab , it opens the link in a new windown without any scroll bars ! ? ! ? !
Now , if I want to open a link from Gmail , I have to rt .
click and tell it to open in a new tab .
This kinda sucks IMHO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My only complaint on FF 3.5 at this time is the way it works with Gmail now.
I have it set in FF, to open a new link in a new tab.
This has worked beautifully till now.
When I click a link in Gmail now, rather than open a new tab, it opens  the link in a new windown without any scroll bars!?!?!
Now, if I want to open a link from Gmail, I have to rt.
click and tell it to open in a new tab.
This kinda sucks IMHO.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716505</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28717199</id>
	<title>Re:Whew!</title>
	<author>Gadget\_Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1247760720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you are worried about IE, why did you link to a bug in Office?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you are worried about IE , why did you link to a bug in Office ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you are worried about IE, why did you link to a bug in Office?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716783</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28717661</id>
	<title>Re:Foundation, Not a Company</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247762580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Geezus....I should probably stop reading this site, it seems that everyone is so sure of themselves and are ALWAYS in the right that you actually have time to quabble over insignificant details. yeah he may have been incorrect (doubtful!) but do really think that the point was lost to anyone that read it? or caused ANY confusion? Why bother then?</p><p>get over yourselves, we aren't all born perfect, and may make mistakes. There is absolutely no reason to jump all over somebody for such a piddly mistake, EXCEPT TO BOOST YOUR OWN EGO!</p><p>rant off....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Geezus....I should probably stop reading this site , it seems that everyone is so sure of themselves and are ALWAYS in the right that you actually have time to quabble over insignificant details .
yeah he may have been incorrect ( doubtful !
) but do really think that the point was lost to anyone that read it ?
or caused ANY confusion ?
Why bother then ? get over yourselves , we are n't all born perfect , and may make mistakes .
There is absolutely no reason to jump all over somebody for such a piddly mistake , EXCEPT TO BOOST YOUR OWN EGO ! rant off... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Geezus....I should probably stop reading this site, it seems that everyone is so sure of themselves and are ALWAYS in the right that you actually have time to quabble over insignificant details.
yeah he may have been incorrect (doubtful!
) but do really think that the point was lost to anyone that read it?
or caused ANY confusion?
Why bother then?get over yourselves, we aren't all born perfect, and may make mistakes.
There is absolutely no reason to jump all over somebody for such a piddly mistake, EXCEPT TO BOOST YOUR OWN EGO!rant off....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716445</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716511</id>
	<title>Nice test for the open source community</title>
	<author>Big Hairy Ian</author>
	<datestamp>1247758320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let's see how long it takes them to patch this<br> <br>Probably won't be too long</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's see how long it takes them to patch this Probably wo n't be too long</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's see how long it takes them to patch this Probably won't be too long</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28721765</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe off topic but...</title>
	<author>winkydink</author>
	<datestamp>1247777940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I can say that Firefox is quite fast on my i7 with 12GB RAM and an Intel X25 Extrem SSD<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</i></p><p>Sorry to hear that about your penis.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can say that Firefox is quite fast on my i7 with 12GB RAM and an Intel X25 Extrem SSD ; - ) Sorry to hear that about your penis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can say that Firefox is quite fast on my i7 with 12GB RAM and an Intel X25 Extrem SSD ;-)Sorry to hear that about your penis.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28717581</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28717147</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe off topic but...</title>
	<author>troylanes</author>
	<datestamp>1247760540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It certainly "feels" less responsive.  Particularly when scrolling through a page then subsequently stopping and clicking a link, etc.  A 3-5 second 'spinning ball of death' is not uncommon when traversing any given page.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It certainly " feels " less responsive .
Particularly when scrolling through a page then subsequently stopping and clicking a link , etc .
A 3-5 second 'spinning ball of death ' is not uncommon when traversing any given page .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It certainly "feels" less responsive.
Particularly when scrolling through a page then subsequently stopping and clicking a link, etc.
A 3-5 second 'spinning ball of death' is not uncommon when traversing any given page.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716525</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28717175</id>
	<title>Why didn't you post the (simple) fix???</title>
	<author>brunes69</author>
	<datestamp>1247760660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why not post in the summary the simple fix?</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; In lieu of a patch, users can protect themselves by disabling the "just-in-time" component of the TraceMonkey engine.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; To do that, users should enter "about:config" in Firefox's address bar, type "jit" in the filter box, then double-click<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; the "javascript.options.jit.content" entry to set the value to "false." The popular NoScript add-on will also ward off attacks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not post in the summary the simple fix ?
    In lieu of a patch , users can protect themselves by disabling the " just-in-time " component of the TraceMonkey engine .
    To do that , users should enter " about : config " in Firefox 's address bar , type " jit " in the filter box , then double-click     the " javascript.options.jit.content " entry to set the value to " false .
" The popular NoScript add-on will also ward off attacks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not post in the summary the simple fix?
    In lieu of a patch, users can protect themselves by disabling the "just-in-time" component of the TraceMonkey engine.
    To do that, users should enter "about:config" in Firefox's address bar, type "jit" in the filter box, then double-click
    the "javascript.options.jit.content" entry to set the value to "false.
" The popular NoScript add-on will also ward off attacks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28719041</id>
	<title>Re:Nice test for the open source community</title>
	<author>TheCycoONE</author>
	<datestamp>1247767500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>According to the mozilla wiki report of the weekly status meetings the patch will be out by the end of the week: <a href="https://wiki.mozilla.org/Firefox3.5/StatusMeetings/2009-07-15" title="mozilla.org">https://wiki.mozilla.org/Firefox3.5/StatusMeetings/2009-07-15</a> [mozilla.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>According to the mozilla wiki report of the weekly status meetings the patch will be out by the end of the week : https : //wiki.mozilla.org/Firefox3.5/StatusMeetings/2009-07-15 [ mozilla.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to the mozilla wiki report of the weekly status meetings the patch will be out by the end of the week: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Firefox3.5/StatusMeetings/2009-07-15 [mozilla.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716511</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716689</id>
	<title>Microsoft Caught This 0-day</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247758920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I had heard about this earlier in the week and decided to give the demo exploit (which executes calc.exe) a run. As soon as I tried to save the HTML to a file Microsoft's Forefront A/V popped up with an alert detecting the shellcode within the sample code. Not bad, MS.</p><p>But if you really want to be safe you should be running <a href="http://noscript.net/" title="noscript.net" rel="nofollow">noscript</a> [noscript.net]. It'll save you from running malicious code on sites you don't trust.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I had heard about this earlier in the week and decided to give the demo exploit ( which executes calc.exe ) a run .
As soon as I tried to save the HTML to a file Microsoft 's Forefront A/V popped up with an alert detecting the shellcode within the sample code .
Not bad , MS.But if you really want to be safe you should be running noscript [ noscript.net ] .
It 'll save you from running malicious code on sites you do n't trust .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had heard about this earlier in the week and decided to give the demo exploit (which executes calc.exe) a run.
As soon as I tried to save the HTML to a file Microsoft's Forefront A/V popped up with an alert detecting the shellcode within the sample code.
Not bad, MS.But if you really want to be safe you should be running noscript [noscript.net].
It'll save you from running malicious code on sites you don't trust.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28720811</id>
	<title>Re:This is why NoScript should be a core feature</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1247774040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course, NoScript can also be configured as opt out. It might make a lot of sense to incorporate it defaulted to opt-out and let the user make it opt-in if they like.</p><p>The browser's job is to do what the user wants it to do as it relates to browsing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , NoScript can also be configured as opt out .
It might make a lot of sense to incorporate it defaulted to opt-out and let the user make it opt-in if they like.The browser 's job is to do what the user wants it to do as it relates to browsing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, NoScript can also be configured as opt out.
It might make a lot of sense to incorporate it defaulted to opt-out and let the user make it opt-in if they like.The browser's job is to do what the user wants it to do as it relates to browsing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28718223</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716505</id>
	<title>Some Questions &amp; Comments About Firefox 3.5</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247758260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have to say that Firefox is getting a lot worse lately. The user experience is in serious need of improvement and development is the pits. I installed the latest "big deal" Firefox update on June 30th. (For some reason they skipped a full four secondary updates, but whatever.) Upon restarting, which took several minutes, I began using <a href="http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/3.5/releasenotes/" title="mozilla.com" rel="nofollow">Firefox 3.5</a> [mozilla.com].</p><p>At first, Firefox seemed strangely familiar. I thought they had changed very little unnecessarily until I visited the <a href="http://acid3.acidtests.org/" title="acidtests.org" rel="nofollow">Acid3</a> [acidtests.org] test. Lo and behold, I was still using Firefox 3.0.0.11. What the fuck? I manually invoked <i>Check for Updates</i> and repeated my first attempt only to find, upon restarting, the same thing.</p><p>Finally in desperation I downloaded the installer manually from <a href="http://www.mozilla.com/" title="mozilla.com" rel="nofollow">Mozilla</a> [mozilla.com]. The install ran surprisingly quickly and, after a few minutes, I was launched with the new version. I had to check, though, because again I thought it looked like very little had changed.</p><p>In fact, did Mozilla bother changing anything beside the JavaScript? The new TraceMonkey is great and all, but they could have at least made it <i>look</i> like they were working on something else. When the most noticeable improvement is the "Know Your Rights" button (which everyone ignores) one really starts to wonder what the fuss was all about.</p><p>Well, after the three tries it took to upgrade, I found my profile wouldn't migrate. This was a mess, but I was able to eventually retrieve my bookmarks from a long, arcane file path in a hidden directory. But then upon visiting my bookmarked sites I found that almost none of my add-ons are compatible with it. Therefore my browser is almost entirely functionless.</p><p>The bookmark tool itself could use a polishing. It's a mess and has been since version 1.0. If a browser is meant to render and organize content, Firefox surely falls down in this area. Why does it take me several minutes to slosh through the GUI just to make a new folder and alphabetize some bookmarks in it? Not to mention the damned Bookmarks toolbar, which takes up too much damn space and can't be turned off.</p><p>And speaking of the GUI, it's slow as Hell slowget rid of the proprietary XUL and just hardcode the damned interface already!</p><p>I also have to mention memory use. On my system, Firefox was swallowing an incredible 400 MB with only a simple HTML 4 table open. <i>400 MB?!</i> I blame this on the Firefox team's use of C++, where memory management is about as easy as herding cats. Likewise Firefox is a slow, bloated nightmare. (For a contrast, there's <a href="http://www.apple.com/safari/" title="apple.com" rel="nofollow">Safari</a> [apple.com], which is written in Objective C and is very small and efficient.)</p><p>Most of the time I have heavy JavaScript sites open. I shudder to think how much Firefox eats then, and I'll be sure to check in the future. No wonder my system tends to slow down when I've left Firefox open for days on end with dynamically updating pages and RSS feeds. Clearly, Firefox leaks memory like a cracked sieve in a waterfall.</p><p>With Firefox smelling more and more like crapware, I started to dig a little, first on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox/" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia</a> [wikipedia.org] and then on the <a href="http://www.mozilla.org/community/developer-forums.html" title="mozilla.org" rel="nofollow">Mozilla Development Forums</a> [mozilla.org]. It turns out that my observations are part of a larger pattern of Firefox quality issues and development customs. The Mozilla developers are a bunch of arrogant, abusive shitheads.</p><p>For starters, they're still running all tabs in the same process. This is something IE7 and Safari 3 have had right for years. So if a plugin crashes or a page takes forever to finish rendering, everything's stuck. You can't even switch tabs to another page! And Firefox 3.5 is a "milestone" release? Firefox 3.6 and 4 are milestones too, and process-per-tab isn't scheduled for either.</p><p>Developer interaction with Firefox users is stilted too. Sometimes</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to say that Firefox is getting a lot worse lately .
The user experience is in serious need of improvement and development is the pits .
I installed the latest " big deal " Firefox update on June 30th .
( For some reason they skipped a full four secondary updates , but whatever .
) Upon restarting , which took several minutes , I began using Firefox 3.5 [ mozilla.com ] .At first , Firefox seemed strangely familiar .
I thought they had changed very little unnecessarily until I visited the Acid3 [ acidtests.org ] test .
Lo and behold , I was still using Firefox 3.0.0.11 .
What the fuck ?
I manually invoked Check for Updates and repeated my first attempt only to find , upon restarting , the same thing.Finally in desperation I downloaded the installer manually from Mozilla [ mozilla.com ] .
The install ran surprisingly quickly and , after a few minutes , I was launched with the new version .
I had to check , though , because again I thought it looked like very little had changed.In fact , did Mozilla bother changing anything beside the JavaScript ?
The new TraceMonkey is great and all , but they could have at least made it look like they were working on something else .
When the most noticeable improvement is the " Know Your Rights " button ( which everyone ignores ) one really starts to wonder what the fuss was all about.Well , after the three tries it took to upgrade , I found my profile would n't migrate .
This was a mess , but I was able to eventually retrieve my bookmarks from a long , arcane file path in a hidden directory .
But then upon visiting my bookmarked sites I found that almost none of my add-ons are compatible with it .
Therefore my browser is almost entirely functionless.The bookmark tool itself could use a polishing .
It 's a mess and has been since version 1.0 .
If a browser is meant to render and organize content , Firefox surely falls down in this area .
Why does it take me several minutes to slosh through the GUI just to make a new folder and alphabetize some bookmarks in it ?
Not to mention the damned Bookmarks toolbar , which takes up too much damn space and ca n't be turned off.And speaking of the GUI , it 's slow as Hell slowget rid of the proprietary XUL and just hardcode the damned interface already ! I also have to mention memory use .
On my system , Firefox was swallowing an incredible 400 MB with only a simple HTML 4 table open .
400 MB ? !
I blame this on the Firefox team 's use of C + + , where memory management is about as easy as herding cats .
Likewise Firefox is a slow , bloated nightmare .
( For a contrast , there 's Safari [ apple.com ] , which is written in Objective C and is very small and efficient .
) Most of the time I have heavy JavaScript sites open .
I shudder to think how much Firefox eats then , and I 'll be sure to check in the future .
No wonder my system tends to slow down when I 've left Firefox open for days on end with dynamically updating pages and RSS feeds .
Clearly , Firefox leaks memory like a cracked sieve in a waterfall.With Firefox smelling more and more like crapware , I started to dig a little , first on Wikipedia [ wikipedia.org ] and then on the Mozilla Development Forums [ mozilla.org ] .
It turns out that my observations are part of a larger pattern of Firefox quality issues and development customs .
The Mozilla developers are a bunch of arrogant , abusive shitheads.For starters , they 're still running all tabs in the same process .
This is something IE7 and Safari 3 have had right for years .
So if a plugin crashes or a page takes forever to finish rendering , everything 's stuck .
You ca n't even switch tabs to another page !
And Firefox 3.5 is a " milestone " release ?
Firefox 3.6 and 4 are milestones too , and process-per-tab is n't scheduled for either.Developer interaction with Firefox users is stilted too .
Sometimes</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to say that Firefox is getting a lot worse lately.
The user experience is in serious need of improvement and development is the pits.
I installed the latest "big deal" Firefox update on June 30th.
(For some reason they skipped a full four secondary updates, but whatever.
) Upon restarting, which took several minutes, I began using Firefox 3.5 [mozilla.com].At first, Firefox seemed strangely familiar.
I thought they had changed very little unnecessarily until I visited the Acid3 [acidtests.org] test.
Lo and behold, I was still using Firefox 3.0.0.11.
What the fuck?
I manually invoked Check for Updates and repeated my first attempt only to find, upon restarting, the same thing.Finally in desperation I downloaded the installer manually from Mozilla [mozilla.com].
The install ran surprisingly quickly and, after a few minutes, I was launched with the new version.
I had to check, though, because again I thought it looked like very little had changed.In fact, did Mozilla bother changing anything beside the JavaScript?
The new TraceMonkey is great and all, but they could have at least made it look like they were working on something else.
When the most noticeable improvement is the "Know Your Rights" button (which everyone ignores) one really starts to wonder what the fuss was all about.Well, after the three tries it took to upgrade, I found my profile wouldn't migrate.
This was a mess, but I was able to eventually retrieve my bookmarks from a long, arcane file path in a hidden directory.
But then upon visiting my bookmarked sites I found that almost none of my add-ons are compatible with it.
Therefore my browser is almost entirely functionless.The bookmark tool itself could use a polishing.
It's a mess and has been since version 1.0.
If a browser is meant to render and organize content, Firefox surely falls down in this area.
Why does it take me several minutes to slosh through the GUI just to make a new folder and alphabetize some bookmarks in it?
Not to mention the damned Bookmarks toolbar, which takes up too much damn space and can't be turned off.And speaking of the GUI, it's slow as Hell slowget rid of the proprietary XUL and just hardcode the damned interface already!I also have to mention memory use.
On my system, Firefox was swallowing an incredible 400 MB with only a simple HTML 4 table open.
400 MB?!
I blame this on the Firefox team's use of C++, where memory management is about as easy as herding cats.
Likewise Firefox is a slow, bloated nightmare.
(For a contrast, there's Safari [apple.com], which is written in Objective C and is very small and efficient.
)Most of the time I have heavy JavaScript sites open.
I shudder to think how much Firefox eats then, and I'll be sure to check in the future.
No wonder my system tends to slow down when I've left Firefox open for days on end with dynamically updating pages and RSS feeds.
Clearly, Firefox leaks memory like a cracked sieve in a waterfall.With Firefox smelling more and more like crapware, I started to dig a little, first on Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] and then on the Mozilla Development Forums [mozilla.org].
It turns out that my observations are part of a larger pattern of Firefox quality issues and development customs.
The Mozilla developers are a bunch of arrogant, abusive shitheads.For starters, they're still running all tabs in the same process.
This is something IE7 and Safari 3 have had right for years.
So if a plugin crashes or a page takes forever to finish rendering, everything's stuck.
You can't even switch tabs to another page!
And Firefox 3.5 is a "milestone" release?
Firefox 3.6 and 4 are milestones too, and process-per-tab isn't scheduled for either.Developer interaction with Firefox users is stilted too.
Sometimes</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28720055</id>
	<title>that's funny...</title>
	<author>shentino</author>
	<datestamp>1247771280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I thought security bugs were supposed to be confidential.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought security bugs were supposed to be confidential .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought security bugs were supposed to be confidential.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28723821</id>
	<title>Re:Some Questions &amp; Comments About Firefox 3.5</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247743680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"a bunch of arrogant hacker hippies, user antagonism and sexism would never be acceptable"</p><p>We bust our asses trying to give people what they want, and this is the thanks we get?  We're supposed to cater to a bunch of no-balls whining crybaby snots?  You can't handle some friendly insults and ribbing?  Drop dead, you little cretin.  Sniveling pussies shouldn't even BE on the internet - they should be sitting around a campfire singing Kumbaya with some campfire girls.  Wait - my mistake - the campfire girls won't put up with your sniveling either.  Just drop dead.  But, do one thing right, before you do.  Dig your own grave, and save us the trouble of a funeral.  Some people would feel obligated to grieve your sorry ass, and THAT would be asking to much of the world.</p><p>P.S. How much did BallMore pay for you to write your editorial rant?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" a bunch of arrogant hacker hippies , user antagonism and sexism would never be acceptable " We bust our asses trying to give people what they want , and this is the thanks we get ?
We 're supposed to cater to a bunch of no-balls whining crybaby snots ?
You ca n't handle some friendly insults and ribbing ?
Drop dead , you little cretin .
Sniveling pussies should n't even BE on the internet - they should be sitting around a campfire singing Kumbaya with some campfire girls .
Wait - my mistake - the campfire girls wo n't put up with your sniveling either .
Just drop dead .
But , do one thing right , before you do .
Dig your own grave , and save us the trouble of a funeral .
Some people would feel obligated to grieve your sorry ass , and THAT would be asking to much of the world.P.S .
How much did BallMore pay for you to write your editorial rant ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"a bunch of arrogant hacker hippies, user antagonism and sexism would never be acceptable"We bust our asses trying to give people what they want, and this is the thanks we get?
We're supposed to cater to a bunch of no-balls whining crybaby snots?
You can't handle some friendly insults and ribbing?
Drop dead, you little cretin.
Sniveling pussies shouldn't even BE on the internet - they should be sitting around a campfire singing Kumbaya with some campfire girls.
Wait - my mistake - the campfire girls won't put up with your sniveling either.
Just drop dead.
But, do one thing right, before you do.
Dig your own grave, and save us the trouble of a funeral.
Some people would feel obligated to grieve your sorry ass, and THAT would be asking to much of the world.P.S.
How much did BallMore pay for you to write your editorial rant?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716505</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28734493</id>
	<title>Crappy moderators...</title>
	<author>nog\_lorp</author>
	<datestamp>1247822760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This post is lifted directly from trollaxor.</p><p><a href="http://www.trollaxor.com/2009/07/some-questions-comments-about-firefox.html" title="trollaxor.com">http://www.trollaxor.com/2009/07/some-questions-comments-about-firefox.html</a> [trollaxor.com]</p><p>Please, when a post is as obviously a troll as this, mod it fucking troll.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This post is lifted directly from trollaxor.http : //www.trollaxor.com/2009/07/some-questions-comments-about-firefox.html [ trollaxor.com ] Please , when a post is as obviously a troll as this , mod it fucking troll .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This post is lifted directly from trollaxor.http://www.trollaxor.com/2009/07/some-questions-comments-about-firefox.html [trollaxor.com]Please, when a post is as obviously a troll as this, mod it fucking troll.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716505</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28731185</id>
	<title>Re:Foundation, Not a Company</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1247851080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In addition, thinking that the company has no influence over the development done by the foundation is a bit naive...</htmltext>
<tokenext>In addition , thinking that the company has no influence over the development done by the foundation is a bit naive.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In addition, thinking that the company has no influence over the development done by the foundation is a bit naive...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716627</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716533</id>
	<title>You Do It To Yourself</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247758380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As the man sung:</p><p>You do it to yourself, you do<br>and that's what really hurts<br>Is that you do it to yourself<br>Just you, you and no-one else<br>You do it to yourself</p><p>But, then, isn't that how it always is?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As the man sung : You do it to yourself , you doand that 's what really hurtsIs that you do it to yourselfJust you , you and no-one elseYou do it to yourselfBut , then , is n't that how it always is ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As the man sung:You do it to yourself, you doand that's what really hurtsIs that you do it to yourselfJust you, you and no-one elseYou do it to yourselfBut, then, isn't that how it always is?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28717109</id>
	<title>bugzilla.</title>
	<author>leuk\_he</author>
	<datestamp>1247760360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey they allow links from slashdot again. that was blocked in the past.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey they allow links from slashdot again .
that was blocked in the past .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey they allow links from slashdot again.
that was blocked in the past.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28719687</id>
	<title>Re:Foundation, Not a Company</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247769780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Geezus....I should probably stop reading this site, it seems that everyone is so sure of themselves and are ALWAYS in the right that you actually have time to quabble over insignificant details. yeah he may have been incorrect (doubtful!) but do really think that the point was lost to anyone that read it? or caused ANY confusion? Why bother then?</p><p>get over yourselves, we aren't all born perfect, and may make mistakes. There is absolutely no reason to jump all over somebody for such a piddly mistake, EXCEPT TO BOOST YOUR OWN EGO!</p><p>rant off....</p></div><p>I said it was just a note and I tried to be as polite as possible about it.  But apparently you don't have a problem when confusion is spread about news.  I can't wait to read the story about the non-profit and its IE8 browser!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Geezus....I should probably stop reading this site , it seems that everyone is so sure of themselves and are ALWAYS in the right that you actually have time to quabble over insignificant details .
yeah he may have been incorrect ( doubtful !
) but do really think that the point was lost to anyone that read it ?
or caused ANY confusion ?
Why bother then ? get over yourselves , we are n't all born perfect , and may make mistakes .
There is absolutely no reason to jump all over somebody for such a piddly mistake , EXCEPT TO BOOST YOUR OWN EGO ! rant off....I said it was just a note and I tried to be as polite as possible about it .
But apparently you do n't have a problem when confusion is spread about news .
I ca n't wait to read the story about the non-profit and its IE8 browser !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Geezus....I should probably stop reading this site, it seems that everyone is so sure of themselves and are ALWAYS in the right that you actually have time to quabble over insignificant details.
yeah he may have been incorrect (doubtful!
) but do really think that the point was lost to anyone that read it?
or caused ANY confusion?
Why bother then?get over yourselves, we aren't all born perfect, and may make mistakes.
There is absolutely no reason to jump all over somebody for such a piddly mistake, EXCEPT TO BOOST YOUR OWN EGO!rant off....I said it was just a note and I tried to be as polite as possible about it.
But apparently you don't have a problem when confusion is spread about news.
I can't wait to read the story about the non-profit and its IE8 browser!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28717661</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716523</id>
	<title>By Vulnerability, you mean...</title>
	<author>Haffner</author>
	<datestamp>1247758380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've wondered: will having an up to date NoScript addon for firefox prevent these attacks? or will this bypass NoScript?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've wondered : will having an up to date NoScript addon for firefox prevent these attacks ?
or will this bypass NoScript ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've wondered: will having an up to date NoScript addon for firefox prevent these attacks?
or will this bypass NoScript?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28718499</id>
	<title>Re:Right! Quick!</title>
	<author>RiotingPacifist</author>
	<datestamp>1247765520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ended up going back to noscript recently but it really is an ugly solution, yesscript is only helps against tracking. What is really needed is a good guide for using controldescripts (or a similar extention) allowing all sites to access a list of known safe fucntions (to let you browse the web without it getting in the way), some to be blacklisted (to protect you from tracking), an easy GUI way to allow a greater subset of functions to be accessed (for trusted site) and an security workarounds to stop any vulnerabilities working in the wild.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ended up going back to noscript recently but it really is an ugly solution , yesscript is only helps against tracking .
What is really needed is a good guide for using controldescripts ( or a similar extention ) allowing all sites to access a list of known safe fucntions ( to let you browse the web without it getting in the way ) , some to be blacklisted ( to protect you from tracking ) , an easy GUI way to allow a greater subset of functions to be accessed ( for trusted site ) and an security workarounds to stop any vulnerabilities working in the wild .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ended up going back to noscript recently but it really is an ugly solution, yesscript is only helps against tracking.
What is really needed is a good guide for using controldescripts (or a similar extention) allowing all sites to access a list of known safe fucntions (to let you browse the web without it getting in the way), some to be blacklisted (to protect you from tracking), an easy GUI way to allow a greater subset of functions to be accessed (for trusted site) and an security workarounds to stop any vulnerabilities working in the wild.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716497</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716711</id>
	<title>Full disclosure</title>
	<author>fedxone-v86</author>
	<datestamp>1247758980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Go on and mod me troll but, IMNSHO, this is just a display of the expertise of the full disclosure movement: Just post a test-case from an open bugtracker as your own exploit and enjoy your 15 minutes of fame amongst all the other skript-kiddies.</p><p>Well done, hacker!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Go on and mod me troll but , IMNSHO , this is just a display of the expertise of the full disclosure movement : Just post a test-case from an open bugtracker as your own exploit and enjoy your 15 minutes of fame amongst all the other skript-kiddies.Well done , hacker !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Go on and mod me troll but, IMNSHO, this is just a display of the expertise of the full disclosure movement: Just post a test-case from an open bugtracker as your own exploit and enjoy your 15 minutes of fame amongst all the other skript-kiddies.Well done, hacker!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28717047</id>
	<title>the only browser with 0 vulnerabilities</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247760120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>is Google Chrome...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is Google Chrome.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is Google Chrome...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28718853</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe off topic but...</title>
	<author>Propaganda13</author>
	<datestamp>1247766780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I haven't noticed a problem except when I went into the history section and told it open all of yesterday's sites. It did warn me that opening 500+ tabs could cause performance issues.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have n't noticed a problem except when I went into the history section and told it open all of yesterday 's sites .
It did warn me that opening 500 + tabs could cause performance issues .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I haven't noticed a problem except when I went into the history section and told it open all of yesterday's sites.
It did warn me that opening 500+ tabs could cause performance issues.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716525</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716977</id>
	<title>Temporary fix</title>
	<author>AdmiralXyz</author>
	<datestamp>1247759880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>According to TFA, the temporary fix is to disable TraceMonkey (JavaScript will still work). Set 'javascript.options.jit.content' in about:config to false until the patch is released.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>According to TFA , the temporary fix is to disable TraceMonkey ( JavaScript will still work ) .
Set 'javascript.options.jit.content ' in about : config to false until the patch is released .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to TFA, the temporary fix is to disable TraceMonkey (JavaScript will still work).
Set 'javascript.options.jit.content' in about:config to false until the patch is released.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716709</id>
	<title>WTF</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247758980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Looking at the exploit code and our test cases, I think this is self-inflicted and <b>we should have hidden the bug earlier</b>"
<br> <br>
Nice attitude, guys...</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Looking at the exploit code and our test cases , I think this is self-inflicted and we should have hidden the bug earlier " Nice attitude , guys.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Looking at the exploit code and our test cases, I think this is self-inflicted and we should have hidden the bug earlier"
 
Nice attitude, guys...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28717107</id>
	<title>Re:Right! Quick!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247760360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why download confiremd spyware?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why download confiremd spyware ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why download confiremd spyware?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716497</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28726885</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe off topic but...</title>
	<author>Zancarius</author>
	<datestamp>1247863560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Has anyone notice performance degradation in 3.5? Opening a slew of bookmarked pages into tabs tends to make it feel like my internet connection has slowed down. Yet when all the tabs load, they all respond snappily.</p></div></blockquote><p>I have, especially with &gt; 200 tabs open at a time. But, that's more an artifact of my insanity and less a representation of a common use case among users. I know of others who tend to have in excess of 400 open, but I don't imagine they're more than 1\% of the user base.</p><p>I love my tabs.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Has anyone notice performance degradation in 3.5 ?
Opening a slew of bookmarked pages into tabs tends to make it feel like my internet connection has slowed down .
Yet when all the tabs load , they all respond snappily.I have , especially with &gt; 200 tabs open at a time .
But , that 's more an artifact of my insanity and less a representation of a common use case among users .
I know of others who tend to have in excess of 400 open , but I do n't imagine they 're more than 1 \ % of the user base.I love my tabs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has anyone notice performance degradation in 3.5?
Opening a slew of bookmarked pages into tabs tends to make it feel like my internet connection has slowed down.
Yet when all the tabs load, they all respond snappily.I have, especially with &gt; 200 tabs open at a time.
But, that's more an artifact of my insanity and less a representation of a common use case among users.
I know of others who tend to have in excess of 400 open, but I don't imagine they're more than 1\% of the user base.I love my tabs.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716525</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28717237</id>
	<title>Re:Nice test for the open source community</title>
	<author>Yvanhoe</author>
	<datestamp>1247760900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The first post is somehow a patch.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. community passes !</htmltext>
<tokenext>The first post is somehow a patch .
/. community passes !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The first post is somehow a patch.
/. community passes !</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716511</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716661</id>
	<title>Re:By Vulnerability, you mean...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247758860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, it won't.</p><p>It's a combination of a stack overflow and a return-to-enclosure-on-trap expection sitting between the parser and the image renderer.<br>All points to the line 465, in prasscall.cc</p><p>for(i=norb(j);pst();bnarf(), onWrote(a,j+2,refStr)-&gt;frtz(inp,hCall,grt), j-=exp(trh(sref,n)+sin(tptr+srand(5)))) if norb()== barf(sprt,j+15,nObj-&gt;ptrWin()) ytr(a,conObj-&gt;recall()) ;</p><p>Nothing is safe for now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , it wo n't.It 's a combination of a stack overflow and a return-to-enclosure-on-trap expection sitting between the parser and the image renderer.All points to the line 465 , in prasscall.ccfor ( i = norb ( j ) ; pst ( ) ; bnarf ( ) , onWrote ( a,j + 2,refStr ) - &gt; frtz ( inp,hCall,grt ) , j- = exp ( trh ( sref,n ) + sin ( tptr + srand ( 5 ) ) ) ) if norb ( ) = = barf ( sprt,j + 15,nObj- &gt; ptrWin ( ) ) ytr ( a,conObj- &gt; recall ( ) ) ; Nothing is safe for now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, it won't.It's a combination of a stack overflow and a return-to-enclosure-on-trap expection sitting between the parser and the image renderer.All points to the line 465, in prasscall.ccfor(i=norb(j);pst();bnarf(), onWrote(a,j+2,refStr)-&gt;frtz(inp,hCall,grt), j-=exp(trh(sref,n)+sin(tptr+srand(5)))) if norb()== barf(sprt,j+15,nObj-&gt;ptrWin()) ytr(a,conObj-&gt;recall()) ;Nothing is safe for now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716523</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716525</id>
	<title>Maybe off topic but...</title>
	<author>vertinox</author>
	<datestamp>1247758380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Has anyone notice performance degradation in 3.5? Opening a slew of bookmarked pages into tabs tends to make it feel like my internet connection has slowed down. Yet when all the tabs load, they all respond snappily.</p><p>And sometimes certain sites act sluggish when opening the same exact site works fine in Safari.</p><p>It wasn't like this in 3.01</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Has anyone notice performance degradation in 3.5 ?
Opening a slew of bookmarked pages into tabs tends to make it feel like my internet connection has slowed down .
Yet when all the tabs load , they all respond snappily.And sometimes certain sites act sluggish when opening the same exact site works fine in Safari.It was n't like this in 3.01</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has anyone notice performance degradation in 3.5?
Opening a slew of bookmarked pages into tabs tends to make it feel like my internet connection has slowed down.
Yet when all the tabs load, they all respond snappily.And sometimes certain sites act sluggish when opening the same exact site works fine in Safari.It wasn't like this in 3.01</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28726279</id>
	<title>Fix is out</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247767500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's been fixed I think. <a href="http://en-us.www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/3.5.1/releasenotes/" title="mozilla.com" rel="nofollow">Here is the link.</a> [mozilla.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's been fixed I think .
Here is the link .
[ mozilla.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's been fixed I think.
Here is the link.
[mozilla.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28723751</id>
	<title>Why do we trust Javascript all of a sudden</title>
	<author>onlyjoking</author>
	<datestamp>1247743320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is it just me who remembers the days when the only way to browse safely was to turn off Javascript? Now we're all drinking the web 2.0 kool aid it seems we've forgotten how many browser vulns are Javascript-related. Websites should never depend on Javascript to function properly but now we have point 'n click JQuery, Dojo etc. it seems websites are built on Javascript foundations with all the security issues that implies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it just me who remembers the days when the only way to browse safely was to turn off Javascript ?
Now we 're all drinking the web 2.0 kool aid it seems we 've forgotten how many browser vulns are Javascript-related .
Websites should never depend on Javascript to function properly but now we have point 'n click JQuery , Dojo etc .
it seems websites are built on Javascript foundations with all the security issues that implies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it just me who remembers the days when the only way to browse safely was to turn off Javascript?
Now we're all drinking the web 2.0 kool aid it seems we've forgotten how many browser vulns are Javascript-related.
Websites should never depend on Javascript to function properly but now we have point 'n click JQuery, Dojo etc.
it seems websites are built on Javascript foundations with all the security issues that implies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716881</id>
	<title>Re:Nice test for the open source community</title>
	<author>ioErr</author>
	<datestamp>1247759580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just remember to start counting from the day the bug was reported and not from today.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just remember to start counting from the day the bug was reported and not from today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just remember to start counting from the day the bug was reported and not from today.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716511</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28720251</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe off topic but...</title>
	<author>Landshark17</author>
	<datestamp>1247771940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have... Kinda. I got the newest update and things seemed fine, then I tried to access Pandora. I'd never used it before and thought I'd check it out. Big mistake. It crashed Firefox three attempts in a row, and I had no better luck with Opera. Ever since, anything I do in Firefox is painfully slow. Case and point, while typing this response, more than once I typed so fast that I had to wait for the letters on the screen to catch up with my typing to make sure I hadn't made an error. Also it takes me a few seconds to switch between tabs, and a second more to mouse-over something and have Firefox realize it was a link. I just assumed Pandora had somehow screwed up my computer, but now I'm considering using Opera and seeing if it's not just Firefox that's acting funny.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have... Kinda. I got the newest update and things seemed fine , then I tried to access Pandora .
I 'd never used it before and thought I 'd check it out .
Big mistake .
It crashed Firefox three attempts in a row , and I had no better luck with Opera .
Ever since , anything I do in Firefox is painfully slow .
Case and point , while typing this response , more than once I typed so fast that I had to wait for the letters on the screen to catch up with my typing to make sure I had n't made an error .
Also it takes me a few seconds to switch between tabs , and a second more to mouse-over something and have Firefox realize it was a link .
I just assumed Pandora had somehow screwed up my computer , but now I 'm considering using Opera and seeing if it 's not just Firefox that 's acting funny .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have... Kinda. I got the newest update and things seemed fine, then I tried to access Pandora.
I'd never used it before and thought I'd check it out.
Big mistake.
It crashed Firefox three attempts in a row, and I had no better luck with Opera.
Ever since, anything I do in Firefox is painfully slow.
Case and point, while typing this response, more than once I typed so fast that I had to wait for the letters on the screen to catch up with my typing to make sure I hadn't made an error.
Also it takes me a few seconds to switch between tabs, and a second more to mouse-over something and have Firefox realize it was a link.
I just assumed Pandora had somehow screwed up my computer, but now I'm considering using Opera and seeing if it's not just Firefox that's acting funny.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716525</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28717779</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah, right</title>
	<author>RichardJenkins</author>
	<datestamp>1247763120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How about <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;q=www.mozilla.com&amp;btnI=I'm+Feeling+Lucky&amp;meta=" title="google.com">this one</a> [google.com]? Looks like it goes to Google, right?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about this one [ google.com ] ?
Looks like it goes to Google , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about this one [google.com]?
Looks like it goes to Google, right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716607</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28718131</id>
	<title>Actually, patch in progress was abused by a lamer</title>
	<author>Ilgaz</author>
	<datestamp>1247764320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>milw0rm who can be easily put to definition of "script kiddie lamer" spied bugzilla bug reporting system which should  not be open regarding security issues and posted a quick exploit code to a bug which its was already in progress of fixing.</p><p>So, open source system was abused in some form. It was error on mozilla's part though, security issues of open source apps shouldn't be discussed in public along with crashers etc.</p><p>Not a surprise. These people subscribe to all update/security mailing lists and grab couple of issues and claim they hacked OS X.</p><p>On the other hand, Mozilla should be glad that he picked it. If it was a real black hat professional, he wouldn't be stupid enough to publicly disclose it and milk it as long as possible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>milw0rm who can be easily put to definition of " script kiddie lamer " spied bugzilla bug reporting system which should not be open regarding security issues and posted a quick exploit code to a bug which its was already in progress of fixing.So , open source system was abused in some form .
It was error on mozilla 's part though , security issues of open source apps should n't be discussed in public along with crashers etc.Not a surprise .
These people subscribe to all update/security mailing lists and grab couple of issues and claim they hacked OS X.On the other hand , Mozilla should be glad that he picked it .
If it was a real black hat professional , he would n't be stupid enough to publicly disclose it and milk it as long as possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>milw0rm who can be easily put to definition of "script kiddie lamer" spied bugzilla bug reporting system which should  not be open regarding security issues and posted a quick exploit code to a bug which its was already in progress of fixing.So, open source system was abused in some form.
It was error on mozilla's part though, security issues of open source apps shouldn't be discussed in public along with crashers etc.Not a surprise.
These people subscribe to all update/security mailing lists and grab couple of issues and claim they hacked OS X.On the other hand, Mozilla should be glad that he picked it.
If it was a real black hat professional, he wouldn't be stupid enough to publicly disclose it and milk it as long as possible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716511</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28717581</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe off topic but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247762340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When complaining about Firefox performance issues, always disable all addons to verify that the problem is, in fact, with Firefox itself.</p><p>I can say that Firefox is quite fast on my i7 with 12GB RAM and an Intel X25 Extrem SSD<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When complaining about Firefox performance issues , always disable all addons to verify that the problem is , in fact , with Firefox itself.I can say that Firefox is quite fast on my i7 with 12GB RAM and an Intel X25 Extrem SSD ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When complaining about Firefox performance issues, always disable all addons to verify that the problem is, in fact, with Firefox itself.I can say that Firefox is quite fast on my i7 with 12GB RAM and an Intel X25 Extrem SSD ;-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716525</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28719217</id>
	<title>Live in glass house, don't throw stones</title>
	<author>hessian</author>
	<datestamp>1247768160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>PEOPLE IN GLASS HOUSES SHOULDN'T THROW STONES - "Those who are vulnerable should not attack others. The proverb has been traced back to Geoffrey Chaucer's 'Troilus and Criseyde' (1385). George Herbert wrote in 1651: 'Whose house is of glass, must not throw stones at another.' This saying is first cited in the United States in 'William &amp; Mary College Quarterly' (1710). Twenty-six later Benjamin Franklin wrote, 'Don't throw stones at your neighbors', if your own windows are glass.' 'To live in a glass house' is used as a figure of speech referring to vulnerability." From "Random House Dictionary of Popular Proverbs and Sayings" (1996) by Gregory Y. Titelman (Random House, New York, 1996).</p></div><p>A reminder to all open source developers tempted to continue talking endless flak about Microsoft and Sun products.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>PEOPLE IN GLASS HOUSES SHOULD N'T THROW STONES - " Those who are vulnerable should not attack others .
The proverb has been traced back to Geoffrey Chaucer 's 'Troilus and Criseyde ' ( 1385 ) .
George Herbert wrote in 1651 : 'Whose house is of glass , must not throw stones at another .
' This saying is first cited in the United States in 'William &amp; Mary College Quarterly ' ( 1710 ) .
Twenty-six later Benjamin Franklin wrote , 'Do n't throw stones at your neighbors ' , if your own windows are glass .
' 'To live in a glass house ' is used as a figure of speech referring to vulnerability .
" From " Random House Dictionary of Popular Proverbs and Sayings " ( 1996 ) by Gregory Y. Titelman ( Random House , New York , 1996 ) .A reminder to all open source developers tempted to continue talking endless flak about Microsoft and Sun products .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>PEOPLE IN GLASS HOUSES SHOULDN'T THROW STONES - "Those who are vulnerable should not attack others.
The proverb has been traced back to Geoffrey Chaucer's 'Troilus and Criseyde' (1385).
George Herbert wrote in 1651: 'Whose house is of glass, must not throw stones at another.
' This saying is first cited in the United States in 'William &amp; Mary College Quarterly' (1710).
Twenty-six later Benjamin Franklin wrote, 'Don't throw stones at your neighbors', if your own windows are glass.
' 'To live in a glass house' is used as a figure of speech referring to vulnerability.
" From "Random House Dictionary of Popular Proverbs and Sayings" (1996) by Gregory Y. Titelman (Random House, New York, 1996).A reminder to all open source developers tempted to continue talking endless flak about Microsoft and Sun products.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716497</id>
	<title>Right! Quick!</title>
	<author>Canazza</author>
	<datestamp>1247758260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everyone download NoScript Pronto!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone download NoScript Pronto !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone download NoScript Pronto!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28717301</id>
	<title>Re:Some Questions &amp; Comments About Firefox 3.5</title>
	<author>Dishevel</author>
	<datestamp>1247761200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why does it take <b>me</b> several minutes to slosh through the GUI just to make a new folder and alphabetize some bookmarks in it?</p></div><p>I don't know. Why dose it take you that long? I takes me seconds. Maybe the issue is you?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does it take me several minutes to slosh through the GUI just to make a new folder and alphabetize some bookmarks in it ? I do n't know .
Why dose it take you that long ?
I takes me seconds .
Maybe the issue is you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does it take me several minutes to slosh through the GUI just to make a new folder and alphabetize some bookmarks in it?I don't know.
Why dose it take you that long?
I takes me seconds.
Maybe the issue is you?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716505</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28718083</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe off topic but...</title>
	<author>misexistentialist</author>
	<datestamp>1247764200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Noscript 1.9.5 causes a slowdown when opening multiple tabs. You can test this by trying the development build <a href="http://noscript.net/getit#devel" title="noscript.net" rel="nofollow">http://noscript.net/getit#devel</a> [noscript.net]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Noscript 1.9.5 causes a slowdown when opening multiple tabs .
You can test this by trying the development build http : //noscript.net/getit # devel [ noscript.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Noscript 1.9.5 causes a slowdown when opening multiple tabs.
You can test this by trying the development build http://noscript.net/getit#devel [noscript.net]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716525</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716627</id>
	<title>Re:Foundation, Not a Company</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247758740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>When you wish to download Firefox or Thunderbird, you are redirected from Mozilla.org to Mozilla.com, so in this case calling it a company is most certainly correct - the Mozilla corporation is distributing the software to you, not the Mozilla foundation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When you wish to download Firefox or Thunderbird , you are redirected from Mozilla.org to Mozilla.com , so in this case calling it a company is most certainly correct - the Mozilla corporation is distributing the software to you , not the Mozilla foundation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you wish to download Firefox or Thunderbird, you are redirected from Mozilla.org to Mozilla.com, so in this case calling it a company is most certainly correct - the Mozilla corporation is distributing the software to you, not the Mozilla foundation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716445</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716585</id>
	<title>Unacceptable</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247758620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What do you mean there is a security exploit in a brand new version of a web browser? This is crazy, new versions of software should always be more secure then the previous versions.</p><p>Personally I'll be sticking with IE6, I never bought into this whole "Firefox" thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What do you mean there is a security exploit in a brand new version of a web browser ?
This is crazy , new versions of software should always be more secure then the previous versions.Personally I 'll be sticking with IE6 , I never bought into this whole " Firefox " thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What do you mean there is a security exploit in a brand new version of a web browser?
This is crazy, new versions of software should always be more secure then the previous versions.Personally I'll be sticking with IE6, I never bought into this whole "Firefox" thing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716607</id>
	<title>Yeah, right</title>
	<author>DoofusOfDeath</author>
	<datestamp>1247758680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>'[It] can be exploited by an attacker who tricks a victim into viewing a malicious Web page containing the exploit code,' <a href="http://blog.mozilla.com/security/2009/07/14/critical-javascript-vulnerability-in-firefox-35/" title="mozilla.com">Mozilla's security blog reported</a> [mozilla.com] Tuesday."</p></div><p>Oh sure, I'm <b>definitely</b> going to follow that link <i>now</i>.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>' [ It ] can be exploited by an attacker who tricks a victim into viewing a malicious Web page containing the exploit code, ' Mozilla 's security blog reported [ mozilla.com ] Tuesday .
" Oh sure , I 'm definitely going to follow that link now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'[It] can be exploited by an attacker who tricks a victim into viewing a malicious Web page containing the exploit code,' Mozilla's security blog reported [mozilla.com] Tuesday.
"Oh sure, I'm definitely going to follow that link now.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716997</id>
	<title>Patch quickly made available</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247760000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://opera.com/" title="opera.com" rel="nofollow">security fix here</a> [opera.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>security fix here [ opera.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>security fix here [opera.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716565</id>
	<title>Republicans are Retarded</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247758500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How else could you vote for George W Bush, Sarah Palin, and the rest of the goof troup with a straight face.</p><p>Poor republicans are even so dumb as to vote for policies that directly harm them.</p><p>Religion helps keep these people stupified, but you have to wonder if you still have to be born retarded to vote Republican.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How else could you vote for George W Bush , Sarah Palin , and the rest of the goof troup with a straight face.Poor republicans are even so dumb as to vote for policies that directly harm them.Religion helps keep these people stupified , but you have to wonder if you still have to be born retarded to vote Republican .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How else could you vote for George W Bush, Sarah Palin, and the rest of the goof troup with a straight face.Poor republicans are even so dumb as to vote for policies that directly harm them.Religion helps keep these people stupified, but you have to wonder if you still have to be born retarded to vote Republican.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28720321</id>
	<title>Re:Foundation, Not a Company</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247772120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well...this is The Internet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well...this is The Internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well...this is The Internet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28717661</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28719449</id>
	<title>/. is not the bugzilla you are looking for.</title>
	<author>Medievalist</author>
	<datestamp>1247769000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, you could check for known problems first.</p><p><a href="http://mozillalinks.org/wp/2009/07/workaround-for-firefox-3-5-slow-startups-on-windows/" title="mozillalinks.org" rel="nofollow">http://mozillalinks.org/wp/2009/07/workaround-for-firefox-3-5-slow-startups-on-windows/</a> [mozillalinks.org]</p><p>If that doesn't fix it for you, post a bug report with the firefox devs (instead of on slashdot).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , you could check for known problems first.http : //mozillalinks.org/wp/2009/07/workaround-for-firefox-3-5-slow-startups-on-windows/ [ mozillalinks.org ] If that does n't fix it for you , post a bug report with the firefox devs ( instead of on slashdot ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, you could check for known problems first.http://mozillalinks.org/wp/2009/07/workaround-for-firefox-3-5-slow-startups-on-windows/ [mozillalinks.org]If that doesn't fix it for you, post a bug report with the firefox devs (instead of on slashdot).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716525</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716445</id>
	<title>Foundation, Not a Company</title>
	<author>eldavojohn</author>
	<datestamp>1247758020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Mozilla has confirmed the first security vulnerability in Firefox 3.5, saying that the bug could be used to hijack a machine running the <b>company's</b> newest browser.</p></div><p>Just a note, I think Mozilla tries to shirk any idea of "company" or "corporation" from the open source development side of things.  Instead, they are a <a href="http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/" title="mozilla.org" rel="nofollow">non-profit foundation</a> [mozilla.org] and recently created a separate <a href="http://www-archive.mozilla.org/reorganization/#q2" title="mozilla.org" rel="nofollow">taxable corporation</a> [mozilla.org] with the intent of distribution and productizing Firefox &amp; Thunderbird.  <br> <br>

I think the word 'company' implies commercial interests and the developing part of Mozilla--the Foundation--does not have any commercial interests.  While this may seem unimportant to you, I believe it to be a pretty important concept to clarify when you're talking about open source from a non-profit and open source from a company.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mozilla has confirmed the first security vulnerability in Firefox 3.5 , saying that the bug could be used to hijack a machine running the company 's newest browser.Just a note , I think Mozilla tries to shirk any idea of " company " or " corporation " from the open source development side of things .
Instead , they are a non-profit foundation [ mozilla.org ] and recently created a separate taxable corporation [ mozilla.org ] with the intent of distribution and productizing Firefox &amp; Thunderbird .
I think the word 'company ' implies commercial interests and the developing part of Mozilla--the Foundation--does not have any commercial interests .
While this may seem unimportant to you , I believe it to be a pretty important concept to clarify when you 're talking about open source from a non-profit and open source from a company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mozilla has confirmed the first security vulnerability in Firefox 3.5, saying that the bug could be used to hijack a machine running the company's newest browser.Just a note, I think Mozilla tries to shirk any idea of "company" or "corporation" from the open source development side of things.
Instead, they are a non-profit foundation [mozilla.org] and recently created a separate taxable corporation [mozilla.org] with the intent of distribution and productizing Firefox &amp; Thunderbird.
I think the word 'company' implies commercial interests and the developing part of Mozilla--the Foundation--does not have any commercial interests.
While this may seem unimportant to you, I believe it to be a pretty important concept to clarify when you're talking about open source from a non-profit and open source from a company.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28727975</id>
	<title>This is delicious copypasta.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247836140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.trollaxor.com/2009/07/some-questions-comments-about-firefox.html" title="trollaxor.com" rel="nofollow">You must eat it.</a> [trollaxor.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You must eat it .
[ trollaxor.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You must eat it.
[trollaxor.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716505</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28718479</id>
	<title>the whole point of open source</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247765400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought the whole point of open source was not hiding bugs, so that they got fixed faster.</p><p>To me it's an essential difference with closed source.</p><p>That being said, until there's a fix, it's no porn, no online gambling, no pirate bay, no nothing!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought the whole point of open source was not hiding bugs , so that they got fixed faster.To me it 's an essential difference with closed source.That being said , until there 's a fix , it 's no porn , no online gambling , no pirate bay , no nothing !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought the whole point of open source was not hiding bugs, so that they got fixed faster.To me it's an essential difference with closed source.That being said, until there's a fix, it's no porn, no online gambling, no pirate bay, no nothing!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28718223</id>
	<title>Re:This is why NoScript should be a core feature</title>
	<author>Ilgaz</author>
	<datestamp>1247764620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A browser's job is to execute scripts securely, safely and in fast manner. If a browser comes with "opt in" scripting which is really impossible in real web these days, it wouldn't really have a good image and experience.</p><p>What they should do is, think about the biggest lamer they have ever met and multiply it with 10 and act accordingly dealing with security issues. Spying bugzilla in progress and release an exploit(!) based on it is lowest one can get.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A browser 's job is to execute scripts securely , safely and in fast manner .
If a browser comes with " opt in " scripting which is really impossible in real web these days , it would n't really have a good image and experience.What they should do is , think about the biggest lamer they have ever met and multiply it with 10 and act accordingly dealing with security issues .
Spying bugzilla in progress and release an exploit ( !
) based on it is lowest one can get .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A browser's job is to execute scripts securely, safely and in fast manner.
If a browser comes with "opt in" scripting which is really impossible in real web these days, it wouldn't really have a good image and experience.What they should do is, think about the biggest lamer they have ever met and multiply it with 10 and act accordingly dealing with security issues.
Spying bugzilla in progress and release an exploit(!
) based on it is lowest one can get.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28717219</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28717029</id>
	<title>Re:Nice test for the open source community</title>
	<author>bunratty</author>
	<datestamp>1247760120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's already patched, and there are <a href="ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/3.5.1-candidates/" title="mozilla.org">test builds of Firefox 3.5.1</a> [mozilla.org] available.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's already patched , and there are test builds of Firefox 3.5.1 [ mozilla.org ] available .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's already patched, and there are test builds of Firefox 3.5.1 [mozilla.org] available.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716511</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716935</id>
	<title>Re:WTF</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1247759760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So when they know about and are actively working on fixing a bug that is an exploit vulnerability, you think they should do it in public?</p><p>I get the argument that telling your users about it means that they can protect themselves (say, by running noscript), but for a consumer facing organization like Mozilla, the majority of users aren't going to notice or do anything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So when they know about and are actively working on fixing a bug that is an exploit vulnerability , you think they should do it in public ? I get the argument that telling your users about it means that they can protect themselves ( say , by running noscript ) , but for a consumer facing organization like Mozilla , the majority of users are n't going to notice or do anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So when they know about and are actively working on fixing a bug that is an exploit vulnerability, you think they should do it in public?I get the argument that telling your users about it means that they can protect themselves (say, by running noscript), but for a consumer facing organization like Mozilla, the majority of users aren't going to notice or do anything.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716709</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28718737</id>
	<title>Review of your complaints</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247766300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"<b>If anyone else has complaints about Firefox, post them here.</b> </i>[My emphasis]<i> For a browser that's taken nearly a third of the market, it's doing so with an incredibly broken development model and backend...

<br> <br>"Until then, Firefox is just another out-of-control Open Source project that needs a good stiff slap in the face."</i>

<br> <br>Agreed. Firefox has had broken, weak management because a socially inept lawyer, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitchell\_Baker" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Winifred Mitchell Baker</a> [wikipedia.org] who has no technical knowledge or interest, was the head of the Mozilla foundation. Now she is Chairman of the Board.

<br> <br> <i>"On my system, Firefox was swallowing an incredible 400 MB with only a simple HTML 4 table open. 400 MB?!"</i>

<br> <br>I just started a computer that has Firefox 3.5 installed. I started Firefox and opened a web page. It used 200 MB.

<br> <br> <i>"The bookmark tool itself could use a polishing. It's a mess and has been since version 1.0. If a browser is meant to render and organize content, Firefox surely falls down in this area."</i>

<br> <br>Agreed. But apparently Firefox developers work on only what interests them, and they don't use browsers very heavily.

<br> <br> <i>"No wonder my system tends to slow down when I've left Firefox open for days on end with dynamically updating pages and RSS feeds. Clearly, Firefox leaks memory like a cracked sieve in a waterfall."</i>

<br> <br>Yes, but the CPU hogging bug is what makes Firefox slow after several days, not the memory hogging.

<br> <br> <i>"I manually invoked <i>Check for Updates</i> and repeated my first attempt only to find, upon restarting, the same thing."</i>

<br> <br>Yes, that's happened to me, also. The update procedure is buggy.

<br> <br> <i>"Not to mention the damned Bookmarks toolbar, which takes up too much damn space and can't be turned off."</i>

<br> <br>Not correct. The Bookmarks toolbar can be turned off.

<br> <br> <i>"One time, a user with some programming experience suggested a bugfix to the wishlist. One programmer, whom I will not publicly name, suggested the user submit patches "once his balls dropped," if he were even male. If this were a real company and not a bunch of arrogant hacker hippies, user antagonism and sexism would never be acceptable."</i>

<br> <br>Agreed, but it's worse than you say.

<br> <br> <i>"For starters, they're still running all tabs in the same process. This is something IE7 and Safari 3 have had right for years. So if a plugin crashes or a page takes forever to finish rendering, everything's stuck. You can't even switch tabs to another page! And Firefox 3.5 is a "milestone" release? Firefox 3.6 and 4 are milestones too, and process-per-tab isn't scheduled for either."</i>

<br> <br>Translation: Layoffs at Mozilla Foundation. As soon as <a href="http://www.google.com/chrome" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">Google's Chrome browser</a> [google.com] has sufficient Plug-ins, why would anyone use the quirky Firefox? But it may be years until Chrome has the necessary plug-ins. On the other hand, <a href="http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/08/28/mozilla-extends-lucrative-deal-with-google-for-3-years/" title="techcrunch.com" rel="nofollow">Google pays the Mozilla Foundation more than $55,000,000 per year</a> [techcrunch.com] to make Google the default search engine, so maybe someone at Google will hurry the development of Chrome to save huge amounts of money in future years.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" If anyone else has complaints about Firefox , post them here .
[ My emphasis ] For a browser that 's taken nearly a third of the market , it 's doing so with an incredibly broken development model and backend.. . " Until then , Firefox is just another out-of-control Open Source project that needs a good stiff slap in the face .
" Agreed .
Firefox has had broken , weak management because a socially inept lawyer , Winifred Mitchell Baker [ wikipedia.org ] who has no technical knowledge or interest , was the head of the Mozilla foundation .
Now she is Chairman of the Board .
" On my system , Firefox was swallowing an incredible 400 MB with only a simple HTML 4 table open .
400 MB ? !
" I just started a computer that has Firefox 3.5 installed .
I started Firefox and opened a web page .
It used 200 MB .
" The bookmark tool itself could use a polishing .
It 's a mess and has been since version 1.0 .
If a browser is meant to render and organize content , Firefox surely falls down in this area .
" Agreed .
But apparently Firefox developers work on only what interests them , and they do n't use browsers very heavily .
" No wonder my system tends to slow down when I 've left Firefox open for days on end with dynamically updating pages and RSS feeds .
Clearly , Firefox leaks memory like a cracked sieve in a waterfall .
" Yes , but the CPU hogging bug is what makes Firefox slow after several days , not the memory hogging .
" I manually invoked Check for Updates and repeated my first attempt only to find , upon restarting , the same thing .
" Yes , that 's happened to me , also .
The update procedure is buggy .
" Not to mention the damned Bookmarks toolbar , which takes up too much damn space and ca n't be turned off .
" Not correct .
The Bookmarks toolbar can be turned off .
" One time , a user with some programming experience suggested a bugfix to the wishlist .
One programmer , whom I will not publicly name , suggested the user submit patches " once his balls dropped , " if he were even male .
If this were a real company and not a bunch of arrogant hacker hippies , user antagonism and sexism would never be acceptable .
" Agreed , but it 's worse than you say .
" For starters , they 're still running all tabs in the same process .
This is something IE7 and Safari 3 have had right for years .
So if a plugin crashes or a page takes forever to finish rendering , everything 's stuck .
You ca n't even switch tabs to another page !
And Firefox 3.5 is a " milestone " release ?
Firefox 3.6 and 4 are milestones too , and process-per-tab is n't scheduled for either .
" Translation : Layoffs at Mozilla Foundation .
As soon as Google 's Chrome browser [ google.com ] has sufficient Plug-ins , why would anyone use the quirky Firefox ?
But it may be years until Chrome has the necessary plug-ins .
On the other hand , Google pays the Mozilla Foundation more than $ 55,000,000 per year [ techcrunch.com ] to make Google the default search engine , so maybe someone at Google will hurry the development of Chrome to save huge amounts of money in future years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"If anyone else has complaints about Firefox, post them here.
[My emphasis] For a browser that's taken nearly a third of the market, it's doing so with an incredibly broken development model and backend...

 "Until then, Firefox is just another out-of-control Open Source project that needs a good stiff slap in the face.
"

 Agreed.
Firefox has had broken, weak management because a socially inept lawyer, Winifred Mitchell Baker [wikipedia.org] who has no technical knowledge or interest, was the head of the Mozilla foundation.
Now she is Chairman of the Board.
"On my system, Firefox was swallowing an incredible 400 MB with only a simple HTML 4 table open.
400 MB?!
"

 I just started a computer that has Firefox 3.5 installed.
I started Firefox and opened a web page.
It used 200 MB.
"The bookmark tool itself could use a polishing.
It's a mess and has been since version 1.0.
If a browser is meant to render and organize content, Firefox surely falls down in this area.
"

 Agreed.
But apparently Firefox developers work on only what interests them, and they don't use browsers very heavily.
"No wonder my system tends to slow down when I've left Firefox open for days on end with dynamically updating pages and RSS feeds.
Clearly, Firefox leaks memory like a cracked sieve in a waterfall.
"

 Yes, but the CPU hogging bug is what makes Firefox slow after several days, not the memory hogging.
"I manually invoked Check for Updates and repeated my first attempt only to find, upon restarting, the same thing.
"

 Yes, that's happened to me, also.
The update procedure is buggy.
"Not to mention the damned Bookmarks toolbar, which takes up too much damn space and can't be turned off.
"

 Not correct.
The Bookmarks toolbar can be turned off.
"One time, a user with some programming experience suggested a bugfix to the wishlist.
One programmer, whom I will not publicly name, suggested the user submit patches "once his balls dropped," if he were even male.
If this were a real company and not a bunch of arrogant hacker hippies, user antagonism and sexism would never be acceptable.
"

 Agreed, but it's worse than you say.
"For starters, they're still running all tabs in the same process.
This is something IE7 and Safari 3 have had right for years.
So if a plugin crashes or a page takes forever to finish rendering, everything's stuck.
You can't even switch tabs to another page!
And Firefox 3.5 is a "milestone" release?
Firefox 3.6 and 4 are milestones too, and process-per-tab isn't scheduled for either.
"

 Translation: Layoffs at Mozilla Foundation.
As soon as Google's Chrome browser [google.com] has sufficient Plug-ins, why would anyone use the quirky Firefox?
But it may be years until Chrome has the necessary plug-ins.
On the other hand, Google pays the Mozilla Foundation more than $55,000,000 per year [techcrunch.com] to make Google the default search engine, so maybe someone at Google will hurry the development of Chrome to save huge amounts of money in future years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716505</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1346243_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28718291
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28717415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716505
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1346243_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28734493
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716505
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1346243_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716881
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716511
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1346243_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28719041
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716511
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1346243_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716935
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716709
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1346243_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28718499
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716497
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1346243_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28718083
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716525
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1346243_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28718853
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716525
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1346243_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28718131
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716511
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1346243_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28717779
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716607
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1346243_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28717237
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716511
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1346243_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28721765
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28717581
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716525
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1346243_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28717199
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716783
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1346243_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28727975
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716505
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1346243_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28720251
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716525
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1346243_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28720893
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716525
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1346243_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28719687
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28717661
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716445
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1346243_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28717107
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716497
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1346243_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28726885
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716525
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1346243_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28718737
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716505
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1346243_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28719449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716525
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1346243_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28719595
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716525
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1346243_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28717695
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28717147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716525
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1346243_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28723821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716505
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1346243_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28719259
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716689
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1346243_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28717301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716505
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1346243_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28720811
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28718223
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28717219
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1346243_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28717029
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716511
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1346243_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28720321
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28717661
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716445
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1346243_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28731185
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716627
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716445
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1346243_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716661
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716523
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1346243.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716705
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1346243.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28723751
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1346243.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716445
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716627
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28731185
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28717661
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28720321
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28719687
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1346243.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716783
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28717199
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1346243.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716977
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1346243.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28717047
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1346243.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716711
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1346243.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716505
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28734493
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28723821
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28717415
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28718291
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28717301
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28718737
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28727975
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1346243.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28717073
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1346243.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28718025
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1346243.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716689
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28719259
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1346243.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28717219
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28718223
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28720811
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1346243.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28717175
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1346243.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716607
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28717779
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1346243.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716511
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716881
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28719041
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28718131
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28717029
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28717237
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1346243.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716523
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716661
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1346243.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716507
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1346243.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716585
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1346243.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716525
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28720893
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28719449
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28720251
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28717581
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28721765
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28717147
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28717695
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28718083
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28726885
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28719595
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28718853
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1346243.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716565
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1346243.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716497
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28718499
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28717107
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1346243.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716709
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1346243.28716935
</commentlist>
</conversation>
